The Illusion of Sales Tax. Do you believe that you pay Sales Tax? Well you do not, unless you choose to believe you do. Sales tax is actually an Illusion to fool business owners into thinking they would not be paying an additional tax on their business. Think about it, how many of you actually conscientiously consider sales tax in your every day purchases? I bet most of you don't, unless it is a significantly extravagant purchase.

Do you know why? It is because you are giving a total, to receive a total. Every transaction you make is a 1:1 ratio, no matter what you choose to believe. Now the trick works by confusing the business owner into thinking that the consumer is paying this tax, by marking separately on the Bill, receipt, ect. Truth be total no matter how they rationalize the charge, no matter how much they fictionalize the charge, They are paying the tax. The business could just as easily hand us a bill with just a total and save a ton of trees. We already assume everything is included in the total. Wise business men realize this, they could honestly keep the tax money for the business, or afford to lower prices giving them an advantage in the market (Internet Shopping).

Ever wonder how they can afford to give away free shipping on many of their products? It is because they are not paying sales tax. To simplify the concept, it is the "Glass half full/ half empty", concept. It is what you believe it to be. You only save money from the internet because the companies save money on tax, so they use that advantage over local retailers with a bonus benefit of giving the consumer the felling of "Getting a good Deal". This is why Amazon is very successful.
The Illusion serves another purpose, it makes the "tax paying citizens" believe they are paying their dues. When they are not, lol. It also reinforces the invisible bondage, the sub-conscience bondage.
Bottom Line: You always exchange 1 stack of paper, or 1 set of electronic digits; for 1 assortment of goods and services.

What do you believe?

Hope this short essay I wrote helps some comprehend one of the more subtle illusions in our experience in society.

I don't really understand what you mean... it's pretty obvious to me that it is the person who buys that pays the sales tax because it is part of the price of the product. And the consumer pays for the product. Of course sales taxes could mean reduced business for the seller, but that doesn't mean he pays a sales tax, it just means less people buy from him/her.

Maybe it's too early in the morning for me to think properly, or maybe you could clarify your post a little.

_________________
"Here, every citizen is king; for he has plenitude of power, he reigns and governs." - P.J. Proudhon

To clarify, basically its a matter of perception.

Here is my example: I go to market to purchase an organic apple. The suggested price of the apple is $1, but when I get to the Register, the clerk hands me bill with a hidden 7% up charge. At this point I can accept the new total offered or walk away. I accept the offer, because in my mind the apple is worth more than the $1 or the $1.07 (I would have paid up to $2 for the apple, cause I'm HUNGRY!!). So in My Mind, the shop could have just advertized the Real price $1.07 and I would have still paid. I do not care if they justify the $.07 over the $1 by saying "We have to give this portion of the sale, to those who allow us to do business, on your behalf".

Since I do not perceive paying a sales tax, When I go to the local market, I recognize the scam and always understand that whatever these people offer they want to charge me, they are going to tell me that I have to pay an additional % at the closing of the transaction. They call it "Sales Tax", I call it "Legal False Advertising".

This is why Internet shopping seems like a much better deal much of the time. Internet retailers skip out on a lot of taxation that local retailers have to pay. Sales Tax, Property Tax, Payroll Tax. They save a ton of $$ so they can use this to their advantage in multiple ways, I.e. Free shipping, mark downs, not to mention as long as it comes in from another state, you do not get the static hidden up charge.

You can apply this logic to the illusion of Income tax as well. Are you paying an income tax? Or are you just accepting a lower wage, a slave's wage? What do you believe? How do you accept the Higher wage? Tax Exemption.

Take notice, that it is never the legitimacy of the illusion(money, government) that is argued, but only the legitimacy of the created aspects of the illusion (taxation, policy). It is, what you the individual, believe it to be.

I'm European and here in the UK (and every other European country) the VAT (value adde tax) is included in the price you see on the shelf when you buy the product. But that doesn't mean that you are not paying that sales tax. Of course the businesses and producers will push the sales tax onto the consumer as they do with every other type of tax.

So I really don't think this is an issue at all. Taxation is theft and we all get robbed. Why should we debate who percieves paying the tax when in reality we know that we are all paying?

_________________
"Here, every citizen is king; for he has plenitude of power, he reigns and governs." - P.J. Proudhon

Indeed you are correct. I never intended this post to raise an issue though, only to raise awareness.

Yes, we all pay tax, My truth is that, there is only one tax, one robbery. even though it appears to come in many forms.

Also, if I adapt my perception, I essentially can pay no tax, even within the system. If I value my time less than what I am being paid as well as value all goods and services for more than they are sold, I essential am paying no tax. I would only be benefiting.

After all, the god called Government, is just another belief system.

Taxes are ''de-fanged' in terms of the victim feeling the bite, in many ways. Many nations hide the sales tax by including it in posted prices. Withholding tax prevents workers from having to pay a 'lump sum' to the IRS, and therefore think about what the just lost; in fact, they get a 'refund' in most cases, and feel like the government gave them money for free. Workers are even told that 'the boss' pays half of their Social Security taxes, and think that that money doesn't, in actuality, reduce their available pay.

I just got around to listening to the 3rd party presidential debate (another lesser of evils choice from my perspective, but all lesser and more interesting than Rs and Ds) and noted that Gary Johnson supports converting all current taxes, including ssi / social security, into a national VAT tax. Warren Buffet pointing out that his secretary pays a larger percentage of her income in taxes than he does says a lot about the current arrangement. With the first X-thousand dollars exempted, this effect would seem to be at least somewhat blunted. I strongly support the idea that one's personal and business finances should be private, and this would help on that front (why the Feds will never allow it).

I don't believe in taxes at gunpoint, but in the lesser of evils category, what is your take on it - better? worse? same-'ol?

_________________
--- See a fuller explanation of my research and proposals here ---

I would say, same-'ol, from my perspective.

They only tax I feel I pay, is the inflation tax. The tax where the paper assets that do come in, lose value over time.

Essentially the the singular tax is same as the sum of the others, with a new brand name.

As I state in an earlier reply,"My truth is that, there is only one tax, one robbery. even though it appears to come in many forms." To me this is just a rejoining of the division and conformation of my belief.

Thank you for bringing that up though, I was into the politics too until I watch RP get the shaft at the RNC. I started to review GJ, but ultimately realized neither of those too would be able to fix the illusion. After much deep thought I really took grasp that Poltics and Government are fiction, the second I take a position, is the second I legitimize the illusion, and the second that the mental trap is sprung.

Also, to further my example, what if I went to the clerk and demanded that I pay $2 for the apple, but with stipulation that the clerk could not charge me sales tax on the $2. Would the clerk reject my $2 because I refused to pay sales tax? Food for thought.

Being that I have been in retail for close to a decade, and because I currently operate an online retail business I think that I some experience to shed some light on this topic.

That being said, if your overall premise is that business are fooled into thinking that they are not responsible for the tax, or do not pay, you are wrong. It is very clear, at least here in California, that business are responsible for sales tax. However, business are allowed to "pass thru" the charge directly to the customer as long as the customer is aware that they are being charged the tax. Business are also allowed to give a single total and tell the customer that the sales tax is included.

The reason businesses choose to itemize the totals separately on the receipt is simply for accounting reasons. It is much easier to have one column for sales and one column for sales tax collected, with the corresponding proof in the journal entries. If you ever get audited everything is separated, clear and in order. On the other hand, if you only charge one single price it is much more difficult to tell what is what. For example if I give you a total of $11.00 and say tax is 10% then in my books it would be $10.00 sales and $1.00 sales tax. That example is easy, but what if the total is $12.99? A lot more math is involved and you have to get your books perfect because the state will be more than willing to claim you owe sales tax on the $12.99 even though it was included.

I'm not following your internet sales logic at all. The lack of paying sales tax constitutes a very small part of why internet pricing is low. The reason internet pricing is low is because of the significantly lower overhead than a "brick and mortar" store. Lower rent, lower payroll, lower advertising, lower utilities etc. In addition internet sales are not limited to a single market. The reason we offer "free" shipping (trust me I would rather pay the sales tax in most cases) is because it is a value added service. Similar to "buy this and get a free that." It's a loss that we allow to hopefully get higher conversions.

Personally I think that it is better that people see what they are paying in taxes. Honestly, if most people knew what businesses actually have to pay in all the corporate taxes, payroll taxes, permits, fees, and regulations I think more people would be "marching on Washington." All that being said, I am in no way shape or form advocating taxes, I'm just giving my two cents.

_________________
We'll meet again, Don't know where,don't know when. But I know we'll meet again, some sunny day.

Dr Strangelove, Thank you for the reply. I am going to respond in a manner that may seem offensive to you, please take note that I have no intention of offending, period.

I don't think you are trying to see things from my perspective. You are absolutely correct, from the mentality of being in the illusion, but not from seeing the illusion for what it is.

To state it as simply as I can, how can you evidence that I am paying a tax to a 3rd party in a sales transaction? You can't, because I don't. If I buy something from you, the business owner, you are responsible for paying that tax, not I. I would prefer you the business owner keep that portion of the sale yourself, than handing it over to the government. I do not pay the tax.

In my example above I exaggerate this idea even more, by valuing the product higher than its price. So you want to sell me an $11 item, You justify a portion of this price (10%) as a sales tax the state require you the business owner to pay (not me). You are claiming a $10 price with a $1 tax, I just see an $11 item. Are you telling me that I am wrong? So what are you going to do when I demand to pay $15 for your $11 item? Are you going to actually tell me I have to pay sales tax on the $15, or are you going to ring the item as per usual and pocket the extra money? If you were to tell me I had to pay an additional 10% on my offer of $15, I am sorry but I would laugh at you and give my money to someone more deserving.

The part no one seems to understand is that the true value of any item comes from the consumer, not the owner/ operators of the business. This is the other part of the illusion that everyone seems to suffer from, that the business sets the value of the item, then the consumer alwasys "feels" they are paying more for the item than it is worth (I suppose this is the problem with buying happiness as well) and on top of that a tax.

When I go shopping, I purchase items, that have far more value to me than the advertized price. If an item even has a balance "feel" where I think I am only getting what I pay for, I likely will not buy it, as it would not gain enough off it. This way, I am always getting a deal, and the business is technically getting less than they could from me. When I pay the bill, I could careless how it is portioned to rationalize the price to those who feel they are getting a less than worthy product. A business could just as easily say a portion of their income goes to charity, does that mean I am paying the charity? Not really, not in my mind. If I wanted to give to a charity, I would do so directly. So sales tax, on the inverse mentality is a gimmick.



Indeed you are correct, but so am I. I should have just put "tax" there instead of "sales tax". While you are correct about the brick and mortar part of the business, Property Taxes, Payroll taxes, Unemployment, ect.. All taxes. Tax is the only true erosion of profits for a business, I doubt many successful businesses hire employees or build stores knowing it is going to cost the business more than the employee or the store is worth, so if your saying that having less employees is more profitable or less physical locations, I would say that is a matter of debate. Not paying taxes where others do, is a clear advantage. This also why it is easy for many people to start internet businesses with low income. Less tax overall.

I guess my most basic question is, can you evidence that I the consumer directly pay this tax? If I do not directly pay it to the government, then all that is really happening is you (the business owner, not the person) is extending credit to me the consumer for helping pay a tax,(or charitable donation) on your behalf.



I mean no offense by this statement, only food for thought. This might be the reason you are having difficulty understanding my perspective.

It isn't false advertizing because $1 is the amount the grocery store sets as the value of the apple.

The State charges 7% on the dollar because that is the value of the privilege of purchasing the apple within its borders.

Frankly, I pay attention to sales tax and prices because I use mostly cash.

As for Internet dealers....sometimes the "bargain" isn't a "bargain". For one thing, the "free shipping" offer is only valid if your total is a certain amount or higher (ex. Amazon's free shipping). So If I purchase a $10 book from Amazon, that "free shipping" offer doesn't apply and that $10 book can end up being $15. The revenue Amazon gets from these less than $25 purchases, delivery charges, etc. go to pay for the "free shipping" offers.

No offense will be taken


You are absolutely correct, I made this point very clear in my original post. Most businesses understand that they, not the customer, are responsible for paying sales tax to the state.


This is where I believe our confusion lies. I don't think you understand how businesses are actually regulated when collecting sales tax. For clarification let me post the direct language from the California BOE: (I can provide a link if you would like)


So, in regards to the $11 item, that has the tax price included, I would be required by the state to post signage up telling the customer that the tax is in fact included. So, yes, you see an $11 item but because of the signage you are aware that a portion of that price is tax.

If you wanted to pay me $15 I would ring up the item like so: BASE PRICE +10% TAX = $15. (sorry, I don't feel like doing math right now) If the business was collecting sales tax where the tax is included in the price it would be illegal for me to charge an additional 10% to the $15. As far as pocketing the extra cash is concerned *cough* which I would never do *cough* it would completely depend on method of payment, my existing audit risk, actual business numbers (if I am seeking investment I would want as many sales on the books as possible) All of these things would have to be considered before pocketing the extra cash.


But consumers are always paying more for the items than what they are worth. If consumers only paid what items were worth then there would be no business. Furthermore, your explanation of what makes you buy a particular item is EXACTLY how businesses want you to feel. They want you to feel like you got a deal. They want you to feel like that you got the most utility for your dollar. Deals make people happy, and happy customers usually come back and spend more money. At the end of the day, how the price and tax are separated on your receipt is more for the business and less for the customer. Please refer to the accounting explanation in my first post.


When a customer buys something from me in California I have to pay sales tax on that sale. If they are out of state I am not responsible for paying sales tax on those sales. To imply that internet retailers are 100% exempt from paying sales tax is not completely true. Even if it was true, and internet retailers were not responsible for sales tax can you name any other taxes that we are exempt from?


The consumer does not directly pay this tax. I have made this very clear from the get-go. Your original premise was that businesses are "fooled" into thinking that they are not responsible for paying sales tax, just collecting it. That premise is false.

If you want to make the case that CONSUMERS are tricked into thinking that they are responsible for paying sales tax, then there might be something there, but in the end the consumer ultimately pays for it anyway (higher prices, lower quality service etc)


Perhaps, but your lack of retail/business experience might be a reason you are having difficulty understanding mine. If I have completely missed your point, or made any false assumptions please let me know.

_________________
We'll meet again, Don't know where,don't know when. But I know we'll meet again, some sunny day.

Well, the consumer does not DIRECTLY pay the tax. The seller directly pays it. It's the seller that the state will come after so they pay it.

Are you trying to say that consumers don't pay MORE because of the state tax? That would seem incorrect. Consider the more extreme case of buying a pack of cigarettes. There really is a big difference in what consumers pay for cigs from state to state, depending on the amount of the tax. Without the tax at all, cigs would be a lot cheaper for customers nation wide. So, I'd say that in some way it is correct to say consumers do indirectly pay for the tax, just not directly.

And, actually, the only reason I'm jumping in here is because I wanted to add that it pains me to be talking about all of this within our current paradigm of seller/buyer and talking about people as consumers and customers and such and really the whole idea of a sales tax. To me, no transaction should ever be seen as a sale or purchase but instead as bartering and trade. This would be more natural if we were using things like silver to do common bartering and is harder to see my point if you think in terms of abstract money or something deemed worthy by fiat, such as Dollars or Bitcoins. But to really drive my point home, imagine trading some of your silver for another person's gold within a paradigm of barter/trade. Sales tax would then be nonsensical. "Sale"? What's that? No sale, no sales tax. And trading you silver for something other than gold, like a car, house, computer, whatever, is still just a trade. The same mindset would apply to trading labor and services for assets, all still just bartering/trade, not owners "paying" employees but people just trading. Thus, no employee income taxes either. This way, a tax from government would have to be a very painfully direct collection process with tax collectors coming to your door or you sending them a bartered item, like your silver, and would be about as direct as one could get, and maybe we'd be less likely to look like we're arguing over semantics. We would probably be having a revolution, too, considering that we're now taxed more than when we revolted against England.

You have no idea how refreshing it is to hear somebody talk about bitcoin for what it actually is. I feel that far too many people are "jumping on the bandwagon" without really understanding what bitcoin actually is, and more importantly, what it isn't.

That being said I completely agree with you view. Every voluntary exchange is simply barter, whether it be one item for an other, or somebody's time for some predetermined number of items. Semantics set aside it is easy to see tax for what it actually is, theft.

The op brought up a very valid idea though. The idea of how taxes are manipulated in a way that makes people feel like they are not actually paying them. The example that they used to explain this idea I feel is false. There are far better examples of manipulation such as; Income tax withholding and returns, cigarette/alcohol taxes, gasoline tax, hidden taxes in utility bills etc.

_________________
We'll meet again, Don't know where,don't know when. But I know we'll meet again, some sunny day.

Dido! Talking about Bitcoin with others often makes we wonder if everyone is on crazy pills. And, yes, no one seems to understand anything about it. The technical aspects are probably only fully understood by a handful of people while the rest are most likely just trusting in the financial instrument because they trust its celebrity spokesmen. Yes, I'm including Adam in that statement. Dude actually tells people it's not important to understand Bitcoins.

What's even worse is exactly what you said when you stressed the bigger issue to think about is not what Bitcoin is, but what it isn't. Spot on, btw! Putting aside exactly how it works, as a purely abstract financial instrument it does not represent any real asset, resource, production, labor, etc. Its value is not connected to anything real. The worth of a Bitcoin is dissociated from reality. It's as if WOW (World of Warcraft) went live. Bitcoin "mining" with a networked array of computers doesn't count; that's like using real energy (reflected on your electric bill) for WOW credits.

Instead of learning the lesson of what happens when an economy becomes less and less based on real things, unhinges, and becomes entirely fiat, people are embracing the living in a casino litany and running with it, taking it to its fullest extreme.

Bitcoin makes me think, "Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil," while I definitely smell something, uhm, evil.

Also, I think there's a lot of people who just like Bitcoins because they see it as geeky and a part of future tech while seeing things like gold and silver as barbaric, following Greenspan's motto. They don't realize that gold and silver are some of the best raw materials for building the tech that makes things like Bitcoin even possible. They are completely clueless when it comes to real technology. On top of that, they are unaware of how physical gold and silver can be traded without carrying it around or shipping it, by simply using allocated accounts, for those who want to go that route. Personally, I have physical holdings locally at home and some nonlocally held overseas which I access and trade with via the cool means of the internet.


Another relief to hear. Yeah, if we were just talking food, people would be less likely to get caught up in philosophical debates about this. They'd more readily see that people starve while eating virtual WOW food, too. LOL, well, unless you trade that virtual food for real food, siphoning food from others, then the first in/first out people aren't exactly starving. Hurray Bitcoin! for continuing the tradition.


Yeah, much of it is brilliant, if we presume it was all thought out and preplanned, no?
Those who do feel the most taxed also happen to (brilliantly?) be a minority group of people who are in the mid to upper-middle class. These people do often feel the taxes. Have you ever tried to do some accounting for a small business, for example?

This cult like following (I'm not trying to offend, this is just how I see it) of bitcoin is absurd to me. How can people, mainly libertarians and anarchist, who will so gallantly crusade against Federal Reserve Notes so easily be sucked into bitcoins. Almost every single argument that you can make against Dollars can be made against bitcoins. I don't get it. Perhaps, like you touched on, it's all about being the wave of the future, some kind of cool, geeky, futuristic way to fight The Man. Personally I think it has more to do with peoples finances. Most of the people who follow Adam, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson etc. are young. Generally speaking young people do not have a lot of money, therefore their ability to buy PMs is very limited. Suddenly, here is this easy, "free" way to have something that isn't Dollars, makes you think that you are actually accumulating "wealth" and your fighting the establishment all at the same time. Perfect product fit if I've ever seen one.

I always loved the "Well, if you want to transfer Gold your gonna have to get a armored car, if you want to transfer bitcoin all you need is a computer or a thumb drive" argument. Sorry guys, you don't need an armored car, just a phone, ledger and the pile of gold. That's it. The New York branch of the Federal Reserve has been doing that for ages. (Just think of all that damn gold)

Sarcasm:

Just remember though, you can't eat gold either.

Brilliant? Basically. As much as I hate Government you have to give some credit where credit is due. Whoever thought of the withholding system was a freaking genies. I mean, for starters you know that the average person isn't a saver so you don't want them to run the risk of not having enough money at the end of the year to pay you. Secondly, when you withhold the money the government gets to use the surplus interest free. Thirdly, You make the poor schmuck of a taxpayer feel like they're getting free money at the end of the year, when in fact it was their money all along. Basically, you turn tax time into "how much money am I gonna get?" Which is a totally positive experience.

As for these things being thought out and preplanned? Sure, some of them are. However, I'm not one to buy into the whole "Illuminati" or "Jew Banking Cartel" style conspiracies. (not implying that this is what you implied) People are too easily motivated to put blame on something, or someone, it makes the world easier to understand. I feel that the results of Government can be simplified to individuals seeking their own self interest. There is no huge overlying conspiracy. Ironically enough the market can be described exactly the same way. I suppose it all comes down the "rules of the game" so to speak.

_________________
We'll meet again, Don't know where,don't know when. But I know we'll meet again, some sunny day.

So, I kind of sort of started a new thread on Bitcoin in the General section of this forum and quoted both of us. Hope you don't mind!

Hah, yes, I totally got that joke about eating gold. So funny how often people will repeat that line. I guess they want their houses made out of gingerbread, too. Americans are such big eaters, for sure.

Yeah, I wasn't referring to Illuminati. I doubt any single group or faction has the kind of foresight and power that people often grant to what they call Illuminati. However, who needs Illuminati when we have all of the non-mysterious and well known and documented cases of people doing things like creating the US Federal Reserve? When there are no names or faces, then I'm left wondering, okay, maybe. But throughout history and today, I've got lots of names and faces.

I don't mind at all, just know that you probably just released the Pandora's box of bitcoin fanboys.

_________________
We'll meet again, Don't know where,don't know when. But I know we'll meet again, some sunny day.

Wow. It got lively in here. I haven't had anytime to myself (except the hour or so I have this morning.) due to my new baby arriving early Tuesday morning. When I get a moment I will read the replies and give a well thought reply.

Thank you two for joining in on the discussion here. I look forward to interacting with you soon.

Congrats to you and your little one!!!!

I didn't even think about this thanks for raising my awareness!!




Indeed I failed to state that the sales tax still applies to sales made with in the same State. Thank you for correcting me.



How so? It may appear this way to the business operator, but the inverse is certainly true as I stated before, customers determine value. I am not wrong in that and neither are you as the business determines value as well. This is part of the illusion. Who determines value? The individual. A sales transaction is a meeting of the minds, when one side or the other determines they are not receiving appropriate benefits the transaction is likely failed.

If we are talking about material, then I am trading paper with an ink design, or an electronic digit with 0 physical value.

Essentially we are discussing the opposing sides of the same coin. The perspective that you and everyone else brings is the one we have been trained to believe and accept, where as the side I am attempting to convey is rarely even considered. Also to mention, this is based on the bigger illusion that is the monetary system. ... backed by the full faith... In god we trust.



Is it? If there was no sales tax, the business could up their prices by whatever the tax percentage would be and keep it for profit. This how I see the sales tax from my customer perspective. If I am buying a product, I already value it higher than it is being offered for. So from my perspective, the sales tax is a tax on the business's potential profit. I do not directly pay the government so, I do not pay the tax no matter what everyone else chooses to believe.


SAPIEN!!!! Your realm of thinking is the perspective I am coming from. I created this post within the current paradigm to try to get people thinking and see the illusion. I figured discussing the tax aspect would be a good way to get people thinking although I seem to be doing a poor job of relating this perspective. I was not sure the mentality of the individuals of this forum, so on another level this post is like me going fishing, seeing what kind of minds I can attract to my hook. I am quite happy with my results as I am coming to find the people that interact on these forums are deeper thinkers than I could have hoped for. A very rare experience for me on the interwebs.

I agree, Bitcoin is um... yea you guys said it The value it has in my perspective is the value of using an alternative illusion, an illusion controlled by a different organization. So basically choosing a new master. Kind of like converting religions. I will say though, when Adam featured the local currency, Mountain Hours, I thought that was best alternative money religion. It is local, so the individuals involved have far more control over their medium of trade.

MisfitToy, Thank you!

Good point, if you think about the utility value of an item, that is completely dependent on the individuals frame of reference. If you are talking dollars and cents clearly the item is only as "valuable" as the cost to manufacture it.



If there was no sales tax could a business raise it prices to fill in the gap? Sure. Would they? Not likely. While most customers do calculate the extra cost of sales tax into their transaction, they are almost always sold by the sticker price of the item. So for example if you have an item that is $99.99 and sales tax is 8% so the total come out to $107.99. You are implying that it would make sense for a business to raise their prices 8% because they money that would have been paid in sales tax now goes to the business and not to the state, so in this example the sticker price should be $107.99. The problem is that you are completely ignoring price psychology. $99.99 is a much better price then $107.99, $104.99 or even $109.99 because the customer doesn't associate the price with "100" they associate it with "90" instead. Bumping up the price that 1 cent suddenly makes the item seem 10 dollars more expensive. Long story short prices are already set where they need to be (regardless of sales tax) and to start raising prices, even select items, or by certain percentages, would not be worth the lost revenue.

EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION:
I wanted to make it clear that I know that you implying that businesses are losing potential revenue by paying for sales tax. My example above shows that prices are already set at what they should be so no revenue is actually lost. Wanted to clarify this point so we are on the same page



Let me fix this for ya.

Sales tax collection techniques are actually an Illusion to fool customers into thinking that they are responsible for the tax, and not the business owner.

I find this far more likely then your conclusion. The average person thinks that they are the ones paying the tax and have no idea that the business actually is.

_________________
We'll meet again, Don't know where,don't know when. But I know we'll meet again, some sunny day.