The Economist reports that Procter & Gamble has been fighting in British courts to establish that Pringles contain too little actual potato to be deemed potato chips...and therefore deserve to be taxed at a lower rate.
The company's not going far enough. Why not move to have the product taxed at the super low rate of non-edible goods? Proctor & Gamble, I hereby offer to contribute my expert testimony, pro bono to the court.
Sounds like the tax authority is going about this the wrong way, I'd tax Pringles not as food (in California food is not taxed)but as hard goods, at the highest tax rate.
ReplyDelete