Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Well this certainly explains the average BMI of Mainers.

The scary thing is I had the (fat) girl in my nutrition class biatching about how BMI is useless, blah blah blah. "Well, yes, you're mostly right... (mental: but still fat)."

apoptotic: ImperialHazman: apoptotic: Quantum Apostrophe: Bah, try Quebec.

I don't know about Quebec specifically, but my first thought was "sounds like the GST" where if you buy a rotisserie chicken it's taxable (considered a restaurant item) if it's warm, non-taxable (grocery item) if it's cold.

Damn you and my refresh button.

Heh. I'm about as far from Tampa as one can get and still be in a major North American city, so it just goes to show how widespread this silliness is.

As far as I know, every state and nation with sales tax/GST/VAT has that division, with the exception of Ohio, where any take-out gets to be magically untaxed.

What I don't get about that situation is that you're cooking it yourself even if you're cooking it on premises; I've never seen a gas station attendant help you put it in the nuker. Isn't that supposed to be the whole deal, those in power allow you to eat tax-free as long as you have to do some of the work yourself? But I've also never seen consistent logic in a tax code....

Dear Jerk: Makes sales tax even across the board. Then if you want to give poor people a break, put a box on the tax form.

Welcome to Alabama, the state that screws poor people the most. Bad schools so they can't learn, tax on all things everywhere so they can't earn.

foxyshadis: apoptotic: ImperialHazman: apoptotic: Quantum Apostrophe: Bah, try Quebec.

I don't know about Quebec specifically, but my first thought was "sounds like the GST" where if you buy a rotisserie chicken it's taxable (considered a restaurant item) if it's warm, non-taxable (grocery item) if it's cold.

Damn you and my refresh button.

Heh. I'm about as far from Tampa as one can get and still be in a major North American city, so it just goes to show how widespread this silliness is.

As far as I know, every state and nation with sales tax/GST/VAT has that division, with the exception of Ohio, where any take-out gets to be magically untaxed.

What I don't get about that situation is that you're cooking it yourself even if you're cooking it on premises; I've never seen a gas station attendant help you put it in the nuker. Isn't that supposed to be the whole deal, those in power allow you to eat tax-free as long as you have to do some of the work yourself? But I've also never seen consistent logic in a tax code....

Good point. Also, tax free fondue for all!

apoptotic: if you buy a rotisserie chicken it's taxable (considered a restaurant item) if it's warm, non-taxable (grocery item) if it's cold.

I had a similar problem back when I was on food stamps. I couldn't buy them at all. And those chickens looked so very tasty and I since I had no access to refrigeration it was very disheartening.

I was also someplace (I think it was Maine) where I was charged like 6 cents sales tax on an orange but only 2 cents on a 20oz soda. Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

But Subby. a flat tax is bad, or at least that's what the Internet tells me.

Bildo: Approves

[upload.wikimedia.org image 239x391]

/Gratuitous

Came here for that. Leaving satisfied...

Oregon might be plumb retarded most of the time, thanks to Californication, but at least sales tax and other forms of regressive taxation are unconstitutional in that state still.

Baloo Uriza: Oregon might be plumb retarded most of the time, thanks to Californication, but at least sales tax and other forms of regressive taxation are unconstitutional in that state still.

I agree. I always breathe a sigh of relief when I am back in Oregon and can figure out what I'm spending before I get to the register.

/Multiplying everything by 1.0825 or whatever is a pain in the ass.

Snarfangel: Baloo Uriza: Oregon might be plumb retarded most of the time, thanks to Californication, but at least sales tax and other forms of regressive taxation are unconstitutional in that state still.

I agree. I always breathe a sigh of relief when I am back in Oregon and can figure out what I'm spending before I get to the register.

These days, it's the only thing good about being in Oregon.

I am proud to live in a non-sensible state of farktards.. even if taxes vary. Do you have any idea what I/we can and do get away with on a daily basis? Maine is stuck in the 50's intellectually. We still have gas stations where you pump BEFORE you pay, and various other honor systems that indicate people in Maine still believe in, well, people. That, and the state is too broke to afford things like FLIR cameras and adequate police forces. It makes it so much easier to earn untaxed income, falsify 'use tax' records (goods bought in NH) and other generally unscrupulous decisions that are policed into the ground in places like Mass.

/Whats a red light camera? never seen one....

actualhuman: You really have to be terminally stupid to have difficulties with this.


No end of applicants though.

Not specifically related to the article, but the thing I noticed, is how thorough the article is compared to the usual 2 paragraphs we get about stories like this. If this was a NYT article they'd talk about their straw sample, then maybe write a paragraph or two about the "implications" this had for Obama and Romney. I feel bad for the real journalists out there trying to make a living.

Maine's claim to fame: "Hey, at least we're not Massachusetts"

/native

The fact that this happens in Maine explains it all. Since moving here 6 years ago, anytime a law, regulation, etc, etc makes no sense the reason is always "it's Maine"

As stupid as this is, it's preferable to the CA system. You pay taxes, lots of them, on everything.

Even better, you park your car (as if there was parking, HAHAHA) and walk into a shop. Buy anything there, pay 8.2%. Walk across the street, buy something at another shop, pay 12.5%. Different cities have different "local" tax rates.

:|

aharown: tax codes tend to be idiotic, but that is just ridiculous, incredibly ridiculous.

candy is fine, alcohol is fine, prepared foods are fine, but otherwise food should not be taxed. no matter where it's bought. snack taxes are pure and utter bullshiat.

Since you've never been able to work up even one greenlight given six years, I'm guessing you're equally useless when it comes to ideas for running a society. Where the fark do you think the money for things like roads, firefighting, and emergency healthcare comes from? Everybody pays in, and the point of different kinds of taxes is to try to spread it out as fairly as possible. Is it ideal? No, and it never will be, because humans are in charge, and humans are extremely fallible. Is it better than a narrow range of higher taxes? Absolutely. Is it better than no taxes at all? Take a vacation in Somalia and let us know.

rnatalie: Five donuts and six ounces of chips are a single serving.
Six donuts or seven ounces of chips are to be shared.

Without reading the code, I'm guessing it's by weight, and they're probably following the system used in other states that sets taxable 'snack' weight at 10 oz. or lower. Here comes the math.

A Krispy Kreme donut weighs about 1.8 oz. 5 X 1.8 = 9; 6 X 1.8 = 10.8. If Maine sets the taxable snack weight at 10 oz or under, then five donuts is always taxable, while six is 'food' and therefore not taxable.

This margin is common enough that many snack vendors distribute their products in 'over' and 'under' sizes, specifically to meet these codes. It sounds stupid when you're counting donuts, but you have to look at it from the perspective of tax code writers trying to set bright lines that are reasonably easy to follow. I'm not defending it, I'm only saying that if there must be such laws, there are only so many different ways you can write them, and there will always be some seemingly irrational results.

What people should perhaps bear in mind is that there never has been and never can be a perfect tax code, or even one that everyone agrees on.

ImperialHazman: I once bought a frozen burrito at a Circle K in Tampa. The counter guy told me to pay for it before heating it in their microwave. Frozen = groceries and not taxable. Cooked = taxable fast food.

/CSB

We had that rule at Seven-Eleven when I worked there eons ago, but it was because late-night drunks sometimes couldn't pay, and we'd have to throw it out if they heated it already. But what you just said makes even better sense.

wademh: It's pretty damn typical. Buying in a bulkish quantity is about buying food. Buying a few donuts is a personal snack. The point is to give a break to actual groceries. And you don't get too specific about what types of edibles count as groceries so that you exclude donuts but you need to draw a line somewhere so the half-dozen is the mark. I bet it is the same for bagels.

In Connecticut, the line was based on weight in the case of weight-sold edibles, and volume in the case of volume-based edibles, with no other distinctions offered. (Otherwise, as soon as you try to define what's food and what's not, the code will get very complex very fast, and you'll also have lots of squabbles over it.) If you go back far enough, all edibles and clothing were exempt. Over the decades, as keeping a modern society warm and safe and clean and healthy, providing modern conveniences like water, sewerage, electricity, and telephone got more and more costly, some additional taxation was needed, and it was thought fair to go for more frivolous things like snacks and ready-to-eat foods. (The thinking being that if you're ready to buy a single hot dog or ice cream cone, fur coat, muscle car, or yacht, you're probably not hurting too much and can afford a few extra pennies on the dollar.)

Evil Canadian: Same deal in Ontario, though it may have changed. A single doughnut is a snack, and taxable. A dozen doughnuts are groceries, and not taxable. Makes perfect sense, right?

Perhaps you'd like to take a crack at writing sales tax codes and show everyone how much smarter you can do it? Remember that whatever you come up with must be politically acceptable and meet a large number of requirements, such as being broadly applicable without being able to know everything sold everywhere.

bmihura: aharown: tax codes tend to be idiotic, but that is just ridiculous, incredibly ridiculous.

candy is fine, alcohol is fine, prepared foods are fine, but otherwise food should not be taxed. no matter where it's bought. snack taxes are pure and utter bullshiat.

Hey, stop making sense. This is Fark. There are probably better websites for you.

Somehow, it doesn't surprise me to hear this from a Texan.

mikdeetx: I always cringe at the fact on some items, you pay a tax on the tax. Tires, cigarettes, alcohol and anything subject to a tax before sales tax is double taxation. Wasn't the one reasons we declared independence from England was for "taxation without representation?" I know the intent of that statement as we are now all represented by corruption and special interests.

We really can't expect much from Texas, can we?

actualhuman: You really have to be terminally stupid to have difficulties with this.

/And I can say this with some authority, having worked for the terminally stupid before.
//Getting a kick, etc.

Thank you for saying this. I really get sick of the crowd screaming that something doesn't make sense to them, therefore it's stupid, whaa whaa. I get the feeling that these people are confused by a lot of things.

DarkVader: Simple fix:

If can be eaten or drunk, DON'T FARKING TAX IT!

If you want to tax restaurants, tax them on their profits, not on sales.

Even better, don't tax sales at all. Tax income, and tax wealth.

I'm guessing you buy a lot of stuff, but don't make a lot of money. Would that be a fair guess? 'Cause if I was poor, and only encountered taxes when I needed food and toilet paper. I'd probably feel the same way as you. But if I was a wealthy homeowner, I'd probably feel very differently. You do know that in most places, property taxes are the backbone of municipal revenues, right?

Everyone wants what's important to them to not be taxed, and what's not important to them to be taxed. That's just human nature. But being a grown-up in a complex modern society means, among other things, recognsing that there will never be simple and obvious answers to these questions, that we all need to share the burden and responsibility in order to benefit, and that screwing others only delays and magnifies the inevitable consequences for ourselves.

Snarfangel: Baloo Uriza: Oregon might be plumb retarded most of the time, thanks to Californication, but at least sales tax and other forms of regressive taxation are unconstitutional in that state still.

I agree. I always breathe a sigh of relief when I am back in Oregon and can figure out what I'm spending before I get to the register.

/Multiplying everything by 1.0825 or whatever is a pain in the ass.



Just learn to estimate. It's not hard. Really.

Welcome to Canada, January 1, 1991. We've had to deal in identical bullshiat for years.

5 doughnuts? GST. 6? No GST
Bread? No GST. Bacon? No GST. Lettuce? No GST. Tomato? No GST. BLT? GST.
New house? GST. Same house 6 months later? No GST.
Strawberries? No GST. Strawberry plant? GST.

And perhaps one of the weirdest?
Ribeye steak? No GST. The trimmings from that steak (not for human consumption)? GST.

...go figure