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

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Tax Inclusive Pricing (TIP) Act

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.
• Penalties for non-compliance will be fall under the existing consumer law for fraud, false advertising and relevant consumer protection laws.

   
This shall come into effect at the start of the new fiscal year.

Sponsor: Muaddib

[PragmaticPopulist]

I support this legislation. This legislation would prevent citizens of the south from being ripped off by ill-intentioned actors.

[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.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

price controls, when used to prohibit the communication of prices of goods with regards to a surcharge, was a regulation of speech and required an analysis of the First Amendment's protections for freedom of speech.

*Emphasis mine

Surcharge

A surcharge, also known as checkout fee, is an extra fee charged by a merchant when receiving a payment by cheque, credit card, charge card or debit card (but not cash) which at least covers the cost to the merchant of accepting that means of payment, such as the merchant service fee imposed by a credit card company

In contracting with credit card companies, retailers are typically assessed a fee whenever a credit card is used.[2] In order to compensate for these losses in revenue, merchants are given two options: either charge the customer a surcharge based on their use of credit cards, or provide a discount to customers paying with cash. In regards to the former option—charging the customer a surcharge—the New York Legislature enacted a law, §518, which banned this practice, in that, "[n]o seller in any sales transaction may impose a surcharge on a holder who elects to use a credit card in lieu of payment by cash, check, or similar means."

If this is the definition then this case is irrelevant as this is regarding taxes not third party business fees.

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."

In a five-Justice majority...wrote that, "In regulating the communication of prices rather than prices themselves, §518 regulates speech

Based on this statement one could therefore decide to advertise their prices in only Pesos, Yuan, Pounds etc.


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

[Southern Delegate matthew27]

Has my support....

[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.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

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.

You are obviously not aware that isn't directed at you. But at NY government and the whole court case.

[Leinad]

An interesting discussion, and from spending a good half-hour chunk of my life reading about this Mr. R's interpretation seems more accurate...but remember, that's US law. This court case is from 2017--post reset--and therefore doesn't apply to us.

Now, I wouldn't advocate passing a bill just so the Supreme Court can do something, but I was leaning in favor of this idea already, and well, it doesn't hurt!

Any other thoughts?

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

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.

[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.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

Tax Inclusive Pricing Scheme (TIPS)

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 business tax rate reduction of 2%
* Penalties for non-compliance will be fall under the existing consumer law for fraud, false advertising and relevant consumer protection laws. Suspension/reduction of the bonus business tax rate reduction
* 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 known prior to payment of a purchase
   
This shall come into effect at the start of the new fiscal year

Fellow delegates, I believe the above version is both good for business of any size and good for the consumer. I hope and encourage all businesses in the South to opt in. It means that Southerners will now know how much they are actually going to pay.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

If there are no further comments after 24 house I believe that this version should be put to a vote.

Tax Inclusive Pricing Scheme (TIPS)

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 business tax rate reduction of 2%
* Penalties for non-compliance will be fall under the existing consumer law for fraud, false advertising and relevant consumer protection laws. Suspension/reduction of the bonus business tax rate reduction
* 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 known prior to payment of a purchase
   
This shall come into effect at the start of the new fiscal year

[Leinad]

You are obviously not aware that isn't directed at you. But at NY government and the whole court case.

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.

You say this like the NY government made the decision against it, when aren't they actually the ones who first did your proposal? Not taking a dig at the bill here, I just find that odd.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

You are obviously not aware that isn't directed at you. But at NY government and the whole court case.

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.

You say this like the NY government made the decision against it, when aren't they actually the ones who first did your proposal? Not taking a dig at the bill here, I just find that odd.

Tax Inclusive =/= Third Party checkout fees. If you look at my first response where I'd highlighted (in red) surcharge. This case was brought about due a to a law that prevented surcharge/checkout fees. I thought you said that you'd read into this?

In contracting with credit card companies, retailers are typically assessed a fee whenever a credit card is used.[2] In order to compensate for these losses in revenue, merchants are given two options: either charge the customer a surcharge based on their use of credit cards, or provide a discount to customers paying with cash. In regards to the former option—charging the customer a surcharge—the New York Legislature enacted a law, §518, which banned this practice, in that, "[n]o seller in any sales transaction may impose a surcharge on a holder who elects to use a credit card in lieu of payment by cash, check, or similar means."

Business had to absorb the cost of these fees due to this well intentioned but ill thought out law. This Yankee tomfoolery ultimately led to Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman as the lower courts didn't do their job.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Alito, issued a concurrence only in the judgement. She argued that it should be left to the Second Circuit to interpret and to certify the meaning of §518, which could be done on remand. The "complexity" of the case, she argues, could have been avoided had the lower courts decided to interpret the law

where is the 2nd circuit? Where are these lower courts?


Perhaps I should have said "gutless yankee carpetbagging tomfoolery."
That would have been more encompassing of both lower courts unwillingness to make a decision, the NY Legislatures over-zealousness preventing businesses passing on the cost of credit card checkout fees and the resulting cluster F*&% over the first amendment.

[Leinad]

Eh, it's a stretch, but if you really wanted to say "Yankee carpetbagging" this much I can't deny you the right to do so!

[Sestak]

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?

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

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?

I know this is directed as Mr. R, however my understanding is that it is because this is now opt in scheme. The tax break is an incentive to opt in. I'd prefer the first bill but if this is how it needs to be to work then that's how it's gonna be. But then again perhaps i'm making "literally no sense"


Yes it was decided by the SCOTUS. How does this "could have been avoided had the lower courts decided to interpret the law", thereby not having to go all the bloody way to the SCOTUS make "literally no sense"? Sure sounds like they are saying that lower courts were being gutless to me.

Also perhaps the fact that i'm not American and do not have deep and intimate knowledge of the US court system may lead to some misunderstanding to some degree or another.

What do you take my argument to be? Pretty sure that my main argument was in response to the decision that held that price controls, when used to prohibit the communication of prices of goods with regards to a surcharge. That TIP Act wasn't to do with a third party surcharge. That this was about price clarity with having a tax inclusive price. However I took Mr. R's concerns with his citing this case and modified the bill to the current TIPS.


Now on another aside just an FYI of the 5 justices who wrote that In regulating the communication of prices rather than prices themselves, §518 regulates speech. Three of them are from New York
Ginsburg was born in Brooklyn, New York.
Kagan was born and raised in New York City
Roberts was born in Buffalo, New York

Even the Bloody concurrences I sighted were from
Sotomayor who was born in The Bronx, New York City
Alito was born in Trenton, New Jersey (that's northern and the next door to New York)

However I think I've banged on enough about all this.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

If there are no further comments after 24 house I believe that this version should be put to a vote.

Tax Inclusive Pricing Scheme (TIPS)

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 business tax rate reduction of 2%
* Penalties for non-compliance will be fall under the existing consumer law for fraud, false advertising and relevant consumer protection laws. Suspension/reduction of the bonus business tax rate reduction
* 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 known prior to payment of a purchase
   
This shall come into effect at the start of the new fiscal year

As the only additonal comments have been unrelated to amending the bill further, I motion for a final vote.

[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.

[Leinad]

As the only additonal comments have been unrelated to amending the bill further, I motion for a final vote.

I second the motion.

[Southern Delegate matthew27]

I third the motion

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

As the Motion for a final vote has been not only seconded but also supported by third voting begins now and will last for 48 hours. I will ring the bells (DM all delegates) to notify all delegates that a final is now in progress.

The Bill being voted on is the Following:

Tax Inclusive Pricing Scheme (TIPS)

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 business tax rate reduction of 2%
* Penalties for non-compliance will be fall under the existing consumer law for fraud, false advertising and relevant consumer protection laws. Suspension/reduction of the bonus business tax rate reduction
* 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 known prior to payment of a purchase
   
This shall come into effect at the start of the new fiscal year

Voting Options are
[ ] Aye
[ ] Nay
[ ] Abstain

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

[ x ] Aye
[ ] Nay
[ ] Abstain

[AustralianSwingVoter]

voting begins now and will last for 72 hours.

Ahem:
Standing Rules of the Southern Chamber of Delegates

Section VI: Voting
1.) Votes on legislation shall last for a maximum of 2 days (i.e. 48 hours).

[fhtagn]

It can be argued that this was intended to be a motion:

If there are no further comments after 24 house I believe that this version should be put to a vote.

Since there were no objections (and this has been set by precedent, ftr) it is completely fine for him to go ahead and start the vote.