>The price should be indicated based on what the consumer would have to pay in full, directly or indirectly via another in-game virtual currency, the required amount of in-game virtual currency, without applying quantity discounts or other promotional offers
It is a term of art in compilers/language design though, isn't it?
If you break an invariant the compiler is relying on for optimization then you can't say for sure what the effect after all optimisation passes or in future versions of the compiler will be. It's just "undefined"
No, VAT is actually paid by companies (and also consumers of course), it's one of the subtle differences between VAT and sales tax.
The "thought experiment" you can make is the case of something not ending up being sold. In a VAT regime the manufacturer will have already paid the VAT on the inputs but since the customer hasn't paid the VAT on the finished product the manufacturer won't get their money back on the VAT they already paid (there might be other tax rebates or write offs, but that's a different matter)
In a sales tax regime the tax is only paid by the final consumer so if the manufacturer doesn't sell the product they are not out for any additional tax
Still doesn't change that neither of those are a tariff by any definition
VAT = Value Added Tax. Tax should be paid whenever there was value added to a product/service, and it was sold.
The manufacturer has paid VAT, and will get back the paid VAT from the tax authorities.
It then adds value (value added tax). It has to charge VAT of the full amount. So, the company in the chain pays VAT over the profit of that product/service. For example (assume 20% VAT):
Company 1 creates something with 0 cost, and sells for 100. Needs to add VAT (20) and pay that to the tax authority. 20 has been collected.
Company 2 buys it for the 120, packages and labels it, then sells it for 180 but needs to add 36 VAT. The company will file a tax return of 20-36, so will effectively have to pay 16 to the tax authority. Another 16 has been collected.
Consumer buys it for 216 and doesn't get any VAT back.
Effectively, 20 + 16 = 36 VAT has been collected over time. The tax return can only be done by companies with a VAT registration. In some cases the VAT burden can be inverted in b2b transactions and within the EU. This is there so companies don't have to do cross-border tax returns.
A VAT-registered company is either able to purchase VAT-free or is refunded the amount of VAT it pays (by offsetting against the VAT it has collected, up to getting actual refunds).
Effectively VAT is only paid by consumers.
NB: in you example if the company has paid more VAT than it has collected in the period then it gets an actual refund.
Yes, absolutely, in 99% of cases that is true. But conceptually there is a difference.
> NB: in you example if the company has paid more VAT than it has collected in the period then it gets and actual refund.
Yes, which is what I said as well. But the refund in itself is an additional step on top of the tax system and the money does get paid by the company in the first place. There is indeed a difference in how the cash flow of a company looks like.
That's the entire point of VAT, to make tax evasion harder by making everyone pay at every step and figuring out later the refunds
This is not a criticism of VAT or anything else by the way, as I said, in 99% of cases the company will get the VAT fully refunded and not pay anything on net over the fiscal year
Others pointed out that the tariff rate they are pointing to is actually just calculated based on trade imbalance. So the logic is that they have a number they want to get to and are throwing around terms that their constituents don't understand to make it sound reasonable
VAT is not a tariff, no one reasonable thinks it's a tariff but the US doesn't use the term VAT so enough people won't second guess it if trump says it's an tax on american goods
VAT is effectively a tariff though, because it disincentivizes import/trade with the US (and other foreign countries). Since the US has no VAT, it's leading to unfair competition.
VAT complicates the business environment for US companies operating in the EU, and it takes a major chunk of their margins. US doesn't have VAT and has a significantly easier business environment for EU businesses to operate in - leading to an unbalanced playing field.
VAT is just one component though. Remember that US largely subsidizes and sponsors the defense of EU, Ukraine, Taiwan, Japan, etc - but those countries have been giving less and less back, over the past years.
1) EU businesses have to deal with complicated sales tax arrangements that vary by state and municipality.
2) EU businesses have to operate in their own environment and also face the VAT. There is no protectionism here. The playing field with respect to VAT is balanced, regardless of which side of the pond is (...was) an easier business environment to operate in.
VAT complicates the business environment for EU companies operating in the EU too. You're demanding that American companies in the EU should be able to operate the same way they do in the US instead of complying with local laws, ie you're just demanding the right to bring your legal environment with you. Do you believe that foreign companies who open branches in the US should be exempt from US laws and be able to run themselves according to the law in their country of origin, at their US branches? I doubt it.
Completely false. Cost of VAT is passed on to consumers not met by companies and as EU companies pay VAT too it doesn't force US companies to lower prices and so harm their margins.
VAT applies equally to domestic and foreign companies. It's a tax.
Tariffs and barriers to trade are measures meant to incentivize production in the country imposing them. That's what free trade is meant to get rid of, that's why Trump is so keen on tariffs and likes them
If a company moved a production line to within the EU from outside because of VAT they'd still have to pay the same exact amount of VAT as they did before. It's just not an incentive in that sense
They can be deterministic but I think you might be confused about the kind of game
In RTS games like 0AD or AoE you don't just send a single huge unit to attack and wait for the result, you send many tens of individual units near enemy units, then the "battle" goes on in real time and you can micromanage units to influence the outcome. You can't just simulate it on the server because the server can't simulate the thought process of the players
AoE2 battles are all about the micromanagement. Last minute splitting the onslaught of trash units against your opponents treb micro shot can change everything.
As far as I understand it's because in practice there is no one using pure common or pure civil law
Pure common law would be the complete absence of a separate legislature. Everything would be just layers of judicial decisions
Pure civil law systems would have judges always ruling exclusively on the case in front of them based exclusively on the text of the laws. But in practice especially at the higher level of the courts and especially in matters of constitutionality or higher laws you have a certain deference to precedence
> and how is bipartisan consensus is being achieved in real-time
This is a horrible idea in practice because everything that is public and open turns into a purity test.
You need people to be able to negotiate with each other in order for consensus to be established, and negotiations only work if the negotiators give up on something that they want to get something else. The moment you make this public all that you get is people turning negotiations into a way to generate soundbites and scared of doing any actual work because they'll just give ammunition to their opponents.
This is doubly bad in the US with the primary systems which makes legislators even more vulnerable to attacks from their flanks.
Legislators are not elected to be proxies for the voters, that's not how it's supposed to work. They're elected to use their judgement, that's why there usually aren't recall elections or restrictions on how they can vote etc.
As a matter of fact I'm of the opinion politics everywhere would be a lot better if plenaries, committees and hearings were not recorded or televised in the first place. I'm ok with minutes being made available but I'm convinced without being able to clip soundbites or tiktoks out of every meeting legislatures would be a lot more productive. Definitely more so than if we attached a camera crew to everyone in politics for "transparency"
> As a matter of fact I'm of the opinion politics everywhere would be a lot better if plenaries, committees and hearings were not recorded or televised in the first place.
At that point we might as well get rid of the press, as otherwise someone might be able to hold someone actually accountable to their actions and decisions. Taking the argument ad absurdum, might even go back to monarchy so we don't have to deal with informed (or quasi-informed) voters to begin with.
I get where you come from, that the public perception of politics is mostly soundbite-driven is indeed a huge issue, in my opinion probably one of the biggest issues of our century, as it allows absolute incompetence a democratic pathway to power by playing to human basic instincts and emotions.
But as long as we want to cling to democracy, the voters _must_ have a way of knowing who is doing what, who is involved in which decision, and what favors are being traded. How else is a voter supposed to make an informed choice?
EDIT:
To address the soundbite-problem, I think systems that are more oriented towards consensus democracy (proportional elections, chance for referendums etc.) rather than competitive democracies (first past the post, majority takes all) are more stable against it. Election systems should favor choice of opinion rather than choice of persons, if that makes sense. I think especially the US (for context, I'm Swiss) would benefit a lot from such changes; right now it seems all outrage-driven.
> At that point we might as well get rid of the press, as otherwise someone might be able to hold someone actually accountable to their actions and decisions
Minutes are a thing, you know? And I'm not saying all sessions need to be held behind close doors, I'm perfectly fine with journalists or the public being present
> _must_ have a way of knowing who is doing what, who is involved in which decision
They do, that's what elections, roll calls and minutes are for
> and what favors are being traded
You're implying this is actually possible, it's not. Favours will always be traded in secret and deals made. All that the radical transparency proposals do is making sure that compromises can't be done effectively in official settings
Perhaps but it's also a common sentiment and also something that sways illogical voters. Both times mentioned by GP the referendums turned out against nuclear not because factual statistics about safety but because anti-nuclear activists were able to use those very public accidents to scare people.
