|
ketchup, also a vegetable
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 12:58 |
|
|
Pizza is a vegetable
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 22:14
|
|
|
Enchanted Hat posted:The Supreme Court once had to look at a similar case where there was a tariff in place on vegetables, but not fruit, and they decided that a tomato was legally a vegetable because it is commonly considered to be one, even though scientifically speaking it is a fruit: One of those (depressingly common) cases where the law has to make a determination because the legislative and/or executive did something essentially absurd and stupid. In this case, slapping import tariffs on vegetables but not fruits, and failing to be explicit in the law as to what exactly those terms covered. I wish there was a mechanism under judicial review to send legislation back to its originator with a "fix this, you idiots" requirement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 22:15
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Does tree law contemplate the taxonomic ambiguity of the word "tree"? E.g, there are plants that are colloquially called "trees" but which are taxonomically not considered trees, and vice-versa. Palms, for example? Somehow I doubt tree law considers taxonomy but I expect it often distinguishes between shrubs and trees.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 22:34
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:One of those (depressingly common) cases where the law has to make a determination because the legislative and/or executive did something essentially absurd and stupid. In this case, slapping import tariffs on vegetables but not fruits, and failing to be explicit in the law as to what exactly those terms covered. Man, that's nothing: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/4514338/MandS-wins-13-year-dispute-with-tax-man-over-tea-cakes.html quote:After an estimated £2 million in legal fees, £3.5 million in damages, eight trips to court, and a referral to the European court of Justice, the retailer won the final stage of its tortuous dispute against HM Revenue & Customs in the House of Lords on Wednesday.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 22:34
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:One of those (depressingly common) cases where the law has to make a determination because the legislative and/or executive did something essentially absurd and stupid. In this case, slapping import tariffs on vegetables but not fruits, and failing to be explicit in the law as to what exactly those terms covered. I mean, there kinda is, but my understanding is that it's reserved for "this law is in violation of a higher law; fix this, you idiots". But yeah, it would kinda be nice. Especially for poo poo like the tax law where the final document as passed was covered in barely legible scribbles because they were running out of time to abuse the loophole they needed to push it through.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 23:03
|
|
|
Enchanted Hat posted:Man, that's nothing:
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 23:04
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Does tree law contemplate the taxonomic ambiguity of the word "tree"? E.g, there are plants that are colloquially called "trees" but which are taxonomically not considered trees, and vice-versa. Because I'm bored out of my mind at work I just looked this up: California - just says timber, trees, or underwood Alabama - limited to any cypress, pecan, oak, pine, cedar, poplar, walnut, hickory, or wild cherry tree, or sapling of that kind Maine - any forest product, ornamental or fruit tree, agricultural product, stones, gravel, ore, goods or property of any kind from land not that person's own That's all I checked but it looks to be all over the place. We're going to need a tree law cheat sheet for each state.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 23:17
|
|
|
Hoodwinker posted:The pedant in me sheds a tear in pride. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/08/584391391/maine-dairy-drivers-settle-overtime-case-that-hinged-on-an-absent-comma How about a $5M comma?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 23:19
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/08/584391391/maine-dairy-drivers-settle-overtime-case-that-hinged-on-an-absent-comma The law now states: quote:The canning; processing; preserving; freezing; drying; marketing; storing; packing for shipment; or distributing of: I'm guessing the Maine legislature is salty.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 00:14
|
|
|
Enchanted Hat posted:Man, that's nothing: Jaffa cakes have spawned several of these. Apparently Ireland has a specific moisture content that distinguishes between a "cake" and a "biscuit".
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 00:44
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:I mean, there kinda is, but my understanding is that it's reserved for "this law is in violation of a higher law; fix this, you idiots". Courts can strike down whole laws, which is sort of telling a legislature to go back and fix it; or they can declare a specific clause or portion of a law to be unconstitutional, etc. What I don't think they can do, is compel the legislature (or other body in the case of statutory law) to fix what they broke; the legislature can just accept that all or part of the law has been invalidated if they want to. So for example, the court can rule that the tomato should count as a vegetable for the purposes of taxation; or they could say it doesn't count; or they could (with reason) strike down the taxation of vegetables. What they can't do is order the government (it's a tariff so it could be the president or the legislature I guess) to make a specific determination about whether they intended to tax tomatoes or not, with a deadline. I realize it could become really messy if every court in every jurisdiction started providing this kind of instruction back to the other branches all over the place; but it'd be nice if the people who write lovely unclear or bad laws were compelled to clean up their messes rather than having the option to just ignore them and let the courts sort it out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 00:56
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:The law now states: Is this a canned food pun?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 03:53
|
|
|
Hoodwinker posted:But what of maritime tree law? The Old Man of the Lake is nothing to laugh at. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 08:25 on Mar 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 08:23
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:One of those (depressingly common) cases where the law has to make a determination because the legislative and/or executive did something essentially absurd and stupid. In this case, slapping import tariffs on vegetables but not fruits, and failing to be explicit in the law as to what exactly those terms covered.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 08:25
|
|
|
Yeah, vegetables can mean all kinds of things, like roots (eg. carrots), stems (eg. celery), leaves (lettuce), and fruits as above.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 11:17
|
|
|
Don't even get me started on the definition of 'berry' e: a strawberry is an engorged receptacle. the "seeds" are the actual fruits.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 15:25
|
|
|
Fitzy Fitz posted:engorged receptacle drat dude NSFW that
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 15:29
|
|
|
Fitzy Fitz posted:Don't even get me started on the definition of 'berry' 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 15:30
|
|
|
quote:Carrot – defined to be a fruit in European Union law, for the purpose of jam classification; Annex III(A)(1), Council Directive 2001/113/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to fruit jams, jellies and marmalades and sweetened chestnut purée intended for human consumption wtf europe
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 15:34
|
|
|
If you've never had chestnut purée you're missing out. It's delicious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 16:01
|
|
|
What kinds of crazy incentives/tax policies require the definition of jam?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 16:33
|
|
|
crazypeltast52 posted:What kinds of crazy incentives/tax policies require the definition of jam? Generally those that get spread across a wide base of taxpayers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 16:35
|
|
|
crazypeltast52 posted:What kinds of crazy incentives/tax policies require the definition of jam? In some countries specific food products are specially designated as being from a particular place or developed by a particular method and thus have tax and other legal ramifications regarding naming them and/or producing them. If some special type of jam is designated in that way then you have to legally define what a jam is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 16:59
|
|
|
Or even just for the purpose of tariffs, the aforementioned "is cake an essential food or luxury item", etc. All sorts of things might require definition, right, like what's is a "pie"? Okay, "shepherd's pie" and "meat pie" is just normal food and should not be subject to VAT, but "cherry pie" or "apple pie" is a luxury and should be subject to VAT. Just a made up example but legal ambiguity is often not great (see the case of the missing comma above).
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 17:11
|
|
|
But all of these things are exposing that product-selective tariffs are loving stupid. If you wanna punish a country just slap a tariff on everythign from that country and be done with it. If you wanna protect your domestic industry then tariff every thing imported. If you need to protect one specific domestic product like your corn crop or whatever, then you can slap a tariff on corn, and be specific about what exactly counts as "corn." Also, enjoy your economic stagnation, idiot, because tariffs are an obsolete concept that never really work. But that's beside the point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 17:19
|
|
|
ChickenOfTomorrow fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Apr 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 17:23
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:But all of these things are exposing that product-selective tariffs are loving stupid. If you wanna punish a country just slap a tariff on everythign from that country and be done with it. If you wanna protect your domestic industry then tariff every thing imported. If you need to protect one specific domestic product like your corn crop or whatever, then you can slap a tariff on corn, and be specific about what exactly counts as "corn." Yeah this is generally the real problem, pet laws regarding various special interest industries and products, not the legislature's ability to scrupulously define the subject in question
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 17:25
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:
Tell it to Peter Navarro and the Chinese. It's just like Big Daddy told us, trade wars are good and easy to win. /s
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 18:33
|
|
|
TraderStav posted:Generally those that get spread across a wide base of taxpayers. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 19:41
|
|
|
crazypeltast52 posted:What kinds of crazy incentives/tax policies require the definition of jam? The ones that preserve capital
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 19:45
|
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:The ones that preserve capital You socialists are just jelly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 20:08
|
|
|
Would a "socialist" be holding Invesco Dynamic Food & Beverage ETF????
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 22:24
|
|
|
marx never imagined that the method the workers would use to seize the means of production would be a robinhood app
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 23:17
|
|
|
crazypeltast52 posted:What kinds of crazy incentives/tax policies require the definition of jam? You would be amazed at the incredible depth and granularity of categorization in taxation, be it tariffs, sales taxes, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 00:17
|
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:Would a "socialist" be holding Invesco Dynamic Food & Beverage ETF???? Maybe if he got smuckered into the deal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
This is why you pay attention to the spread on turnover
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
therobit posted:Maybe if he got smuckered into the deal. When he gets in to a jam, he doesn't turn to jelly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 02:00
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:You would be amazed at the incredible depth and granularity of categorization in taxation, be it tariffs, sales taxes, etc. Yea its wild, in some states condoms are exempted from sales taxes cause they count as drugs, while tampons are not exempted from sales taxes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 12:58 |
|
|
When dealing with complex jelly taxes, you have to preserve your investment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 02:31
|
|
