I’ve been vindicated, church caught with hands in cookie jar

[webbles]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Why would this be an issue?  Tithing goes to the Church, it decides what to do with it.  A lot more money goes to very worthy humanitarian projects and those of us who contribute tithing to the regular funds are helping with those projects even if we don’t live in Australia because our tithing is helping to support those who are.  I see it as a win all around.

Other denominations can't do what the church is doing.  For the other denominations, all of their funding is from local members and it can't be deducted.  Kind of an "unfair advantage".

It's almost the opposite of some complaints in the US.  In the US, our tithing and humanitarian aid are mixed together.  Money that was put in the humanitarian aid section of the donation form could be used for church expenses instead of humanitarian aid.  That's caused some people to not want to donate to the church because they want their humanitarian aid money to only go to humanitarian aid.  In Australia, it is the opposite.  Their tithing always goes to humanitarian aid.

 

There is also some sort of complaint with the LDS Charities Australia organization.  This is an organization that the LDS Charitable Trust Fund donates to.  This organization is also DGR.  The complaint is that it really shouldn't be DGR (something about not being Australia focused or not being locally controlled).  Last year, the amount of money that LDS Charitable Trust Fund donated to LDS Charities Australia went down (90k to 30k).  Since the expose about the "scheme" occurred last year, Craig Speechly thinks that this proves that the church knew it was doing something wrong.  But I'm not sure.  Since the expose was early last year (around March), I would have expected the government or the church to remove the DGR status by now if the scheme really was illegal or skirting the law.

[Rain]

19 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I reject, completely and totally, the notion that people should be willing to pay any and all taxes, as long as it "doesn't create a hardship".   

As an American citizen living in the 2020's, I have unwanted government services/aid forced on me, whether I want it or not.  The notion that I should be tickled pink to fork money over for stuff I don't want or need, frankly repulses me.  And not just a little.

Imma need another forehead.  Any volunteers for my 2nd rant?

 

(Full transparency: With the recent "Cal's gal pals" bruh-ha-ha, I just wanted to say that I like @Calm.  I appreciate being able to debate with folks with whom I disagree.  I trust all the energy and zeal folks see in my recent posts are seen for what it is - directed at ideas, not individuals.  Regardless of forehead size.)

 

 

23 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

By the way, Imma get this tattoed on my forehead:

"Minimizing the amount of taxes one is required to pay, is the duty of every law abiding person with a family to feed.  You can expect me to do everything within my power, to pay the absolute smallest amount of tax I can legally get away with.  I will jump through hoops.  I will open special accounts.  I will structure my paycheck, my spending habits, my saving habits, and any business ventures I have, in whatever legal way possible, if it saves me ten bucks on taxes.  If there's a legal way to pay tithing in a way that avoids taxes, I will take it.  I don't care if it's a popular or unpopular way - I'll do it.  If it's a risky way, I'll measure the risk, and do it if the risk is acceptable to me.  I will shake my fist with rage when I pay taxes, and I will cheer with glee when I get away with reducing the amount of tax I pay."

 

(I have a big forehead.  Because I'm so smart.  As opposed to all the small-forehead people out there who think paying more taxes is somehow a worthy, noble, just, or correct thing to do.)

I think there is a lot of space between "willing to pay any and all taxes" and "pay the absolute smallest amount of tax I can legally get away with".

Edit: quoted a different thing than I meant so I  changed it. @bluebell letting you know since you upvoted what I had previously.

Edited July 15, 2023 by Rain

[Rain]

11 hours ago, webbles said:

Is this a quote from one of the various articles?  It sounds like it.

I think I'm starting to understand what is being talked about and why people thing there is something "there".

The donation slip for Australian members states that all tithing, fast offerings, and humanitarian aid go to LDS Charitable Trust Fund.  That is a DGR approved fund (since 2000) and so donations are deductible.  But that fund isn't "the church".  The church in Australia is actually "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Australia" and it is NOT DGR approved.  So if you wanted to actually donate funds to "the church" in Australia, you wouldn't be able to deduct it.  "The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints Australia" appears to get all of its money from the US based organization.  It doesn't appear to receive much money from Australian members (I think missionary funds go here).  This organization is what pays for everything that the stakes and wards need.

That means that the church in Australia is not funded by the local members.  All of the tithing that the local members donate is actually going to the DGR approved organization which doesn't go back to the stakes and wards.  Without the external US organization, Australia members would have to donate to the local church and not deduct it.

It appears that the issue is that members in Australia aren't technically paying tithing.  Technically, tithing is what we donate to fund the church and its operations.  None of the tithing from Australian members fund the operation of the church.  It all goes into an actual humanitarian charity.

There are 2 ways to look at that.  Technically from the scriptures, tithing is what goes to God.

Technically, from how the church generally treats it then it requires most members to pay it to the church for its operations, however, in Australia it has people pay tithing to God through a specific DGR approved organization.

Edited July 15, 2023 by Rain

[carbon dioxide]

On 7/14/2023 at 8:12 AM, Tacenda said:

And enough with churches being tax exempt if they also run businesses off the side making billions. Sorry, you know me and I do cross lines in saying stuff about it. But shouldn't they not want to avoid taxes if the taxes help people too?

Taxes don't really help people as much as they help politicians grow their political power. Politicians really don't care how they spend the money as its other people money. 

[CA Steve]

On 7/14/2023 at 11:12 AM, Tacenda said:

And enough with churches being tax exempt if they also run businesses off the side making billions. Sorry, you know me and I do cross lines in saying stuff about it. But shouldn't they not want to avoid taxes if the taxes help people too?

Turns out you can serve God and mammon too as long as the tax code allows it.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

Taxes don't really help people as much as they help politicians grow their political power. Politicians really don't care how they spend the money as its other people money. 

I disagree wholeheartedly. 

edited:

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go

Edited July 15, 2023 by Tacenda

[JLHPROF]

23 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I disagree wholeheartedly. 

https://www.credit.com/blog/things-taxes-pay-for/

1. Government Debt
2. Social Security
3. Medicare
4. Other Health Care
5. National Defense
6. Veterans Benefits
7. Safety Net Programs
8. Education
9. Infrastructure
10. Salaries and Wages

https://www.pbs.org/video/what-if-there-were-no-taxes-oib9rb/

Of which the biggest percent goes to "administration costs" and very little to the people.  Bureaucracy causes higher taxes, not aid to the needy.

[Rain]

27 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I disagree wholeheartedly. 

edited:

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go

Taxes don't help people.  It is what you do with them that makes a difference and I think there are many things done that are necessary and good. My dad worked for the government for quite a few years doing auditing.  It was ironic because he was auditing private companies contracted with the government, yet there were some rules he had to follow in doing his job that made things wasteful.  Such a mixed thing.

[Stargazer]

On 7/14/2023 at 6:06 PM, Tacenda said:

deleted...

struggling....

@smac97 did I say the church didn't pay taxes on their business entities?

I just wondered why they would avoid taxes to the Australia government if it might help it's citizens. But apparently it's very wrong to have to pay taxes at all. 

ETA: But I understand the motive the church had in trying to make it easier on Australians to pay tithing.

LOL! It is, indeed, very wrong to pay taxes you don't actually owe. 

But I do believe that there is a way for people to donate money to the US government if you want: https://www.pay.gov/public/form/start/708094624

[Stargazer]

On 7/14/2023 at 6:20 PM, webbles said:

So, this expose is over whether the Australian members should pay taxes on their tithing?

Apparently.

UK members absolute cannot deduct tithes and donations from their income tax. The government takes their cut from employers directly. And the cut is pretty heavy. What members here can do, when they donate money to the church (or other charities), is to use the government's "Gift Aid" system, in which the donor gives the charity their tax ID, and then the charity can collect from the government however much tax the donor paid on his/her income which was taxed and donated. It doesn't benefit the donor at all, but does benefit the charity somewhat. 

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Apparently.

UK members absolute cannot deduct tithes and donations from their income tax. The government takes their cut from employers directly. And the cut is pretty heavy. What members here can do, when they donate money to the church (or other charities), is to use the government's "Gift Aid" system, in which the donor gives the charity their tax ID, and then the charity can collect from the government however much tax the donor paid on his/her income which was taxed and donated. It doesn't benefit the donor at all, but does benefit the charity somewhat. 

Sounds like a lot of paperwork

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

LOL! It is, indeed, very wrong to pay taxes you don't actually owe. 

But I do believe that there is a way for people to donate money to the US government if you want: https://www.pay.gov/public/form/start/708094624

Did I say pay taxes you don't owe? But like I said in my post I was struggling a bit.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

Taxes don't help people.  It is what you do with them that makes a difference and I think there are many things done that are necessary and good. My dad worked for the government for quite a few years doing auditing.  It was ironic because he was auditing private companies contracted with the government, yet there were some rules he had to follow in doing his job that made things wasteful.  Such a mixed thing.

I agree wholeheartedly, my dad also worked for the government in quality control with rockets/missiles ? And he said the government would bury some things, now can't remember what they were as I was young. 

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Of which the biggest percent goes to "administration costs" and very little to the people.  Bureaucracy causes higher taxes, not aid to the needy.

That's not the link I wanted to share and deleted it. It didn't cover all the things I think are important to all of us. 

[3DOP]

19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

LOL! It is, indeed, very wrong to pay taxes you don't actually owe. 

But I do believe that there is a way for people to donate money to the US government if you want: https://www.pay.gov/public/form/start/708094624

Stargazer. Heh. I have always wondered why people who vote for higher taxes, that get voted down, don't just give anyway out of their beneficent hearts? The state will always take free money on those rare occasions when it is offered.

If I am not mistaken, you once lived in the state of Washington, in the U.S.? I lived most of my life there. It was in or around Vancouver, WA. All Washingtonians are happy with their state income tax, which is $0.00. The sales tax makes up the difference. 

You might know that Vancouver, WA is divided from Portland, OR by a river with bridges allowing easy access to Portland. Oregonians, unlike Washingtonians, love their state sales tax, which is $0.00. The state income tax makes the difference. 

Years ago, when I was pastoring in Washington, one of our regular attendees made known to me a form that we can fill out to pay sales tax on out of state purchases. Most people in Vancouver go to Oregon for expensive items, cars being an exception since they are taxed when licensed. But appliances, furniture, and automatic transmissions are significantly less expensive in Oregon, because there is no sales tax.

I lived well over fifty years in that state and if that man from my church had not told me about it when I was already in my thirties, I would have been blissfully unaware that there was any attempt by the state to make me pay taxes on out of state purchases. I know it was an unenforced code. Living next door to Oregon, I never heard of a single instance of someone getting in to the slightest trouble for "failure" to keep the law. But this man that I knew claimed to keep a record of purchases, and fill out this form every year. I never attempted to discourage his, in my opinion, mistaken ideas on rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's, in this particular situation. I am sure Caesar accepted his money. But I don't think it was a real tax.  

Knowing that this man was certainly the great exception to how other Washingtonians conducted their business, I did not feel compelled to keep records and fill out a form to pay money that the state was not enforcing or even depending upon. I no longer live there, but if I did, I would not fear to be found for failure to pay sales tax. I suspect that officials of state and local governments, as well as all law enforcement personnel, would be as liable as me, for failing to pay a "tax" that is almost unknown and ignored. Virtually everybody living on the Oregon, Idaho, or Canada borders, would be criminals!

 

Edited July 16, 2023 by 3DOP

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Stargazer. Heh. I have always wondered why people who vote for higher taxes, that get voted down, don't just give anyway out of their beneficent hearts? The state will always take free money on those rare occasions when it is offered.

If I am not mistaken, you once lived in the state of Washington, in the U.S.? I lived most of my life there. It was in or around Vancouver, WA. All Washingtonians are happy with our state income tax, which is $0.00. The sales tax makes up the difference. 

You might know that Vancouver, WA is divided from Portland, OR by a river with bridges allowing easy access to Portland. Oregonians, unlike Washingtonians, love their state sales tax, which is $0.00. The state income tax makes the difference. 

Years ago, when I was pastoring in Washington, one of our regular attendees made known to me a form that we can fill out to pay sales tax on out of state purchases. Most people in Vancouver go to Oregon for expensive items, cars being an exception since they are taxed when licensed. But appliances, furniture, and automatic transmissions are significantly less expensive in Oregon, because there is no sales tax.

 

I often see people from other countries being all angsty about how dumb it is that the price tag on items in the US isn't what you will actually pay at the register because they don't add in the taxes until that time.  Inevitably someone will be all "how hard is it to just put the actual amount it's going to cost you on the price tag?!" It's especially annoying when someone from the US does it, because they should know better.

Your post illustrates why the tag price doesn't include taxes:  because the taxes are different state to state and even county to county within the state! And what is taxed changes from state to state as well!

Wyoming has a 3 percent sales tax and no income tax.  Montana has income tax but no sales tax.  The county that I grew up in in Wyoming frequently adds a penny to their sales tax (changing it to 4%) to pay for things like a new community pool or library.  The penny will go on for a couple of years and then fall back off again.  Places that have a large tourist industry will have "resort taxes" added to their state taxes.  Some states tax everything and others exempt groceries and certain other items.  It goes on and on.

It would be unreasonable and stupid for stores (especially nationwide stores) to include taxes in their prices.

Edited July 16, 2023 by bluebell

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I often see people from other countries being all angsty about how dumb it is that the price tag on items in the US isn't what you will actually pay at the register because they don't add in the taxes until that time.  Inevitably someone will be all "how hard is it to just put the actual amount it's going to cost you on the price tag?!" It's especially annoying when someone from the US does it, because they should know better.

Your post illustrates why the tag price doesn't include taxes:  because the taxes are different state to state and even county to county within the state! And what is taxed changes from state to state as well!

Wyoming has a 3 percent sales tax and no income tax.  Montana has income tax but no sales tax.  The county that I grew up in in Wyoming frequently adds a penny to their sales tax (changing it to 4%) to pay for things like a new community pool or library.  The penny will go on for a couple of years and then fall back off again.  Places that have a large tourist industry will have "resort taxes" added to their state taxes.  Some states tax everything and others exempt groceries and certain other items.  It goes on and on.

It would be unreasonable and stupid for stores (especially nationwide stores) to include taxes in their prices.

That is a great point. I had never thought of the crazy logistics it would involve. I was a truck driver for many years. At one time, the states would try to make you keep track of how much income tax you owe their state because you "worked" (driving across) in their state. I think this was fixed in the 60's or 70's. Before my time driving. This greatly affected railway workers as well, and the "Amtrak law" came into effect whereby the federal government exempts all railroad workers and truckers who go interstate from all state income tax, except the states in which they reside. Oregon can collect state income tax from other people who work there and live in Washington. They tried to do that to me, and even though I worked mostly in Oregon, because I occasionally crossed a state line in my employment as a trucker, they could not collect. 

We had guys who lived in Washington, but did not ordinarily cross the river. To be on the safe side, they wanted to be able to say that at some time during the tax year, their work carried them across a state line. It seems to me that these are perfectly legal and ethical behaviours. I applaud your church in Australia for exploring legal ways to eliminate the tax burden on members. Caesar will get his one way or another. It might have been in the 90's that we had a referendum in Washington to eliminate the taxes we paid every year on our cars. I always drove old cars. But people who had new cars could be paying well over a thousand dollars a year just for their new tags. When this referendum was passed overwhelmingly, the legislature immediately tacked an extra 10% on our fuel taxes. They are going to get theirs, and they will get it from us. I have no qualms about anybody using any legal means to avoid paying taxes.     

[Rain]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Stargazer. Heh. I have always wondered why people who vote for higher taxes, that get voted down, don't just give anyway out of their beneficent hearts? The state will always take free money on those rare occasions when it is offered.

If I am not mistaken, you once lived in the state of Washington, in the U.S.? I lived most of my life there. It was in or around Vancouver, WA. All Washingtonians are happy with their state income tax, which is $0.00. The sales tax makes up the difference. 

You might know that Vancouver, WA is divided from Portland, OR by a river with bridges allowing easy access to Portland. Oregonians, unlike Washingtonians, love their state sales tax, which is $0.00. The state income tax makes the difference. 

Years ago, when I was pastoring in Washington, one of our regular attendees made known to me a form that we can fill out to pay sales tax on out of state purchases. Most people in Vancouver go to Oregon for expensive items, cars being an exception since they are taxed when licensed. But appliances, furniture, and automatic transmissions are significantly less expensive in Oregon, because there is no sales tax.

I lived well over fifty years in that state and if that man from my church had not told me about it when I was already in my thirties, I would have been blissfully unaware that there was any attempt by the state to make me pay taxes on out of state purchases. I know it was an unenforced code. Living next door to Oregon, I never heard of a single instance of someone getting in to the slightest trouble for "failure" to keep the law. But this man that I knew claimed to keep a record of purchases, and fill out this form every year. I never attempted to discourage his, in my opinion, mistaken ideas on rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's, in this particular situation.

I do keep track. It's easy now with software as I can either tag it or put .com to show I didn't pay taxes. 

I do ìt because legally you are supposed to and I believe in being honest and wouldn't personally feel honest not doing it. Everyone else can make that decision for themselves and if they choose differently I have no judgment on them.

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I am sure Caesar accepted his money. But I don't think it was a real tax.  

Knowing that this man was certainly the great exception to how other Washingtonians conducted their business, I did not feel compelled to keep records and fill out a form to pay money that the state was not enforcing or even depending upon. I no longer live there, but if I did, I would not fear to be found for failure to pay sales tax. I suspect that officials of state and local governments, as well as all law enforcement personnel, would be as liable as me, for failing to pay a "tax" that is almost unknown and ignored. Virtually everybody living on the Oregon, Idaho, or Canada borders, would be criminals!

 

And just to be clear. I'm not just saying I gladly pay taxes and try to pay more.  I take advantage of tax breaks when I can.  I just am ok with paying some taxes knowing that we benefit from them.

Edited July 16, 2023 by Rain

[Rain]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I often see people from other countries being all angsty about how dumb it is that the price tag on items in the US isn't what you will actually pay at the register because they don't add in the taxes until that time.  Inevitably someone will be all "how hard is it to just put the actual amount it's going to cost you on the price tag?!" It's especially annoying when someone from the US does it, because they should know better.

Your post illustrates why the tag price doesn't include taxes:  because the taxes are different state to state and even county to county within the state! And what is taxed changes from state to state as well!

Wyoming has a 3 percent sales tax and no income tax.  Montana has income tax but no sales tax.  The county that I grew up in in Wyoming frequently adds a penny to their sales tax (changing it to 4%) to pay for things like a new community pool or library.  The penny will go on for a couple of years and then fall back off again.  Places that have a large tourist industry will have "resort taxes" added to their state taxes.  Some states tax everything and others exempt groceries and certain other items.  It goes on and on.

It would be unreasonable and stupid for stores (especially nationwide stores) to include taxes in their prices.

I actually don't understand why they are not included especially since most stores have computer systems.  Once I went to Walmart in Taylorsville and then went a Walmart in Murray.  The price of the item I wanted was different before taxes. If they can have different prices in different stores I'm not sure why they can't include different taxes in the total price. The stores have to figure it out anyway when they do the sell, if they program the tax into the price as they price things it shouldn't make any difference.

This is especially true in stores where you don't have different taxed items like food and alcohol.  

[Kenngo1969]

On 7/15/2023 at 3:35 PM, Stargazer said:

LOL! It is, indeed, very wrong to pay taxes you don't actually owe. 

But I do believe that there is a way for people to donate money to the US government if you want: https://www.pay.gov/public/form/start/708094624

Brilliant!  I'm going to have to remember this for people who are anxious whether they have "paid their fair share."

P.S.: Of course, the problem isn't that others are concerned whether they have paid their "fair share." Weirdly, they always seem more concerned about whether you and I have paid our "fair share."

Edited July 19, 2023 by Kenngo1969

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I actually don't understand why they are not included especially since most stores have computer systems.  Once I went to Walmart in Taylorsville and then went a Walmart in Murray.  The price of the item I wanted was different before taxes. If they can have different prices in different stores I'm not sure why they can't include different taxes in the total price. The stores have to figure it out anyway when they do the sell, if they program the tax into the price as they price things it shouldn't make any difference.

This is especially true in stores where you don't have different taxed items like food and alcohol.  

https://www.fonoa.com/blog/the-american-exception-why-the-us-has-no-vat-system
 

Roadblocks and Challenges to Implementing a VAT System in the US

Despite the widespread use of VAT systems across the world, the United States remains a notable exception. Implementing such an indirect tax in the US would face numerous roadblocks and challenges.

• One of the primary reasons why the US has not adopted a VAT system is the federal system of government. Due to that, the US has a more decentralized tax system than many other countries, with the US Constitution granting significant powers to individual states. US states have their own tax laws, and they collect sales and use taxes (sometimes not just states, but local governments, too), which are an essential source of revenue for states and localities. In light of these differences in the tax foundations on a state level, many of them would likely resist attempts to harmonize their state tax systems with a national VAT, not to mention the substantial political challenges it may bring.
• Introducing a VAT system in the US would be a significant undertaking. The country's complex sales tax system currently has different scopes, tax rates, definitions, and exemptions in each state. Harmonizing these systems would require extensive coordination between the federal government, states, counties, and cities. However, there are initiatives to reach some degree of uniformization, like the Streamlined Sales Tax Project.
• Moreover, the US has a large and intricate economy. Implementing a VAT system would require significant changes to the tax infrastructure, which would involve high costs and could take long years to implement. The US would also need to establish a system for administering and collecting VAT, requiring a significant investment in technology and personnel.
• Another challenge would be the impact on businesses. While the VAT system is designed to be neutral to businesses, transitioning to a new tax system would bring some challenges. Since VAT is applied at every stage of the supply chain, VAT would place a more significant burden on some businesses than sales tax, as it requires them to collect and remit VAT correctly, keep detailed records, and comply with all the potential VAT obligations (VAT registrations, VAT reporting, new types of tax returns, etc.). Small businesses, in particular, may need help to adjust to the new system, which could lead to increased administrative costs and reduced profitability.
• Introducing VAT would likely mean higher tax rates for the final consumers than the current sales tax system, as VAT is generally applied at a higher rate than sales tax. Furthermore, VAT is levied at each production stage, which may increase costs for businesses and, in turn, lead to higher consumer prices.
• Lastly, enforcement is another challenge to implementing a VAT system in the US. While VAT is designed to be self-policing, with businesses responsible for collecting and remitting VAT payments, enforcement can be difficult. Tax audits and investigations are necessary to ensure compliance and deter fraud and tax evasion, but this requires additional resources and personnel.

[The Nehor]

On 7/15/2023 at 2:21 PM, JLHPROF said:

Of which the biggest percent goes to "administration costs" and very little to the people.  Bureaucracy causes higher taxes, not aid to the needy.

Nope.

[Stargazer]

23 hours ago, Calm said:

Sounds like a lot of paperwork

Not really. It's quite easy. The church's Donation page here has it set up as a simple check box. The church probably has some paperwork to do, but not the member.

[Stargazer]

23 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Did I say pay taxes you don't owe? But like I said in my post I was struggling a bit.

No, you didn't, and I was joking around a bit, sorry! And being a bit overboard. If one feels one should pay more than required, it's a free country, so one should go for it. The whole reason why the US government has a donation page is because some people actually wanted to donate, and pushed for it. 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

https://www.fonoa.com/blog/the-american-exception-why-the-us-has-no-vat-system
 

Roadblocks and Challenges to Implementing a VAT System in the US

Despite the widespread use of VAT systems across the world, the United States remains a notable exception. Implementing such an indirect tax in the US would face numerous roadblocks and challenges.

• One of the primary reasons why the US has not adopted a VAT system is the federal system of government. Due to that, the US has a more decentralized tax system than many other countries, with the US Constitution granting significant powers to individual states. US states have their own tax laws, and they collect sales and use taxes (sometimes not just states, but local governments, too), which are an essential source of revenue for states and localities. In light of these differences in the tax foundations on a state level, many of them would likely resist attempts to harmonize their state tax systems with a national VAT, not to mention the substantial political challenges it may bring.
• Introducing a VAT system in the US would be a significant undertaking. The country's complex sales tax system currently has different scopes, tax rates, definitions, and exemptions in each state. Harmonizing these systems would require extensive coordination between the federal government, states, counties, and cities. However, there are initiatives to reach some degree of uniformization, like the Streamlined Sales Tax Project.
• Moreover, the US has a large and intricate economy. Implementing a VAT system would require significant changes to the tax infrastructure, which would involve high costs and could take long years to implement. The US would also need to establish a system for administering and collecting VAT, requiring a significant investment in technology and personnel.
• Another challenge would be the impact on businesses. While the VAT system is designed to be neutral to businesses, transitioning to a new tax system would bring some challenges. Since VAT is applied at every stage of the supply chain, VAT would place a more significant burden on some businesses than sales tax, as it requires them to collect and remit VAT correctly, keep detailed records, and comply with all the potential VAT obligations (VAT registrations, VAT reporting, new types of tax returns, etc.). Small businesses, in particular, may need help to adjust to the new system, which could lead to increased administrative costs and reduced profitability.
• Introducing VAT would likely mean higher tax rates for the final consumers than the current sales tax system, as VAT is generally applied at a higher rate than sales tax. Furthermore, VAT is levied at each production stage, which may increase costs for businesses and, in turn, lead to higher consumer prices.
• Lastly, enforcement is another challenge to implementing a VAT system in the US. While VAT is designed to be self-policing, with businesses responsible for collecting and remitting VAT payments, enforcement can be difficult. Tax audits and investigations are necessary to ensure compliance and deter fraud and tax evasion, but this requires additional resources and personnel.

But this is about VAT, not about including sales tax in the price labeled on the shelf.