S.19.2-3: Tax Inclusive Pricing (TIP) Act (Statute)

[Mr. Reactionary]

Not to rain on anyones parade, but be mindful of this case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressions_Hair_Design_v._Schneiderman


TL;DR - Government regulations mandating how prices are communicated violates free speech and must be tailored accordingly to be legal. This bill as written is constitutionally questionable. There may be an alternative, i havent followed up on the remanded case.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Furthermore I don't see that the bill is prohibiting the communication of the price of goods. If anything it's adding further clarity to the price of goods. "Businesses may display their pretax price as long as the TIP is clearly marked and the more prominent of the prices."

This ruling held: "In regulating the communication of prices rather than prices themselves, §518 regulates speech." This bill inherently regulates the communication of prices; it literally dictates the content of signs and visual advertisements. That means it implicates freedom of speech. Now some laws implicating freedom of speech can still be constitutional, but it still requires a constitutional analysis. To dismiss these concerns as frivolous ignores a genuine legal threat. But this law is both compelled speech and a prohibition on speech. It requires the speaker to communicate something they may not otherwise want to communicate, and it and prohibits any communications that do not contain the above message. Are you actually trying to argue that this bill is not intended to make certain people communicate a specific message?

Im also not sure why anyone should care if a merchant advertises prices in foreign currency, or silver, or barter goods.

Now fellow delegates, I hope that Yankee carpet bagging tomfoolery won't prevail over commonsense

You probably think you sounded cute, but I am deeply offended by this unwarranted, slanderous insult.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Justice Stephen Breyer issued a concurrence in the judgement, arguing that while the statute does limit speech, all human interactions limit speech as well.^[10] However, Breyer argued that because the statute was effectually under state law, that it should be remanded to the Second Circuit

* Emphasis mine

This bill as written is constitutionally questionable. There may be an alternative, i haven't followed up on the remanded case.

Surely a non disclosure agreement violates the first amendment, yet it is entered into voluntarily.
Mr. Reactionary, do you think an Opt-in scheme would be more constitutionally robust?

Tax Inclusive Pricing Scheme (TIPS) Act
This is an opt in scheme for the South
* Prices for goods and services shall have the total cost to the consumer (taxes/fees/levies/duties) included on the price prominently displayed/advertised.
* Businesses may display their pretax price as long as the TIP is clearly marked and the more prominent of the prices.
* Businesses are eligible for a bonus tax free threshold {threshold to be determined}
* Penalties for non-compliance will be fall under the existing consumer law for fraud, false advertising and relevant consumer protection laws. Suspension of the bonus tax free threshold maybe applied
* Third party checkout fees and surcharges are not considered implicitly or explicitly a part of the Tax Inclusive Price
* Third party checkout fees and surcharges are to be made know by at least the time of purchase
   
This shall come into effect at the start of the new fiscal year.

Hopefully these potential amendments may make this more constitutionally robust and immune to the Yankee carpetbagging tomfoolery that was brought to our attention by Mr. Reactionary. Thank you good sir.

Opt-in should eliminate the free speech concerns and prevent any lawsuits to kill this stillborn. That's all I wanted.

I will say though, Breyer doesn't believe in the Bill of Rights so he's not the best Supreme court justice to quote on our freedoms. His whole philosophy is that rights referenced in the Bill of Rights should only be protected when society as a whole benefits from the exercise of that right. On speech cases his argument is usually, well yes that violates the bill of rights but who cares because I personally dont think that speech has value. He takes the same moronic view towards the right to keep and bear arms where he claims, so what I personally dont like that right.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Uh, Muaddib, why have you literally only cited concurrences on that case to make your argument? There was a majority opinion there...and the case was ultimately decided by SCOTUS, not a regional circuit court. What you're saying here makes literally no sense. Sotomayor and Breyer were both concurring.

Also, Mr. R, could you clarify something? You said that mandating including tax in prices is compelled speech, but...offering tax breaks for doing the same thing is okay?

The issue was that as originally written the law would have acted to both compel speech and restrict sppech, either of which would trigger a first amendment analysis and together would likely render the proposal unconstitutional. By making this opt in with an incentive, there is no longer a compelled speech issue as tax inclusive pricing is no longer mandatory unless you accept the offered incentive and there is no longer a restraint issue as sign content is no longer being prohibited. As such, I believe the free speech issues have been sufficiently and adequately addressed.