Comment by crazygringo
2 years ago
That reminds me of how Converse Chuck Taylors have a small layer of fuzz on the bottom of the sole that wears away after a wearing it for a bit.
Seemed totally bizarre, until you learn that it was so they can be classified as "slippers" which had a much smaller import tax than sneakers.
It still astonishes me that a legal hack like that works.
https://www.gearpatrol.com/style/shoes-boots/a715423/convers...
It's because they're trying to essentially legislate taxonomy, which is nearly impossible.
It's the impetus behind the question "Is a hotdog a sandwich?" What does it mean to be a sandwich? What are the properties of sandwichness? When does something stop being a sandwich?
What's the line between pasta and bread? Bread and cake? Shoe and slipper? The fact that all fruits are vegetables, but not all vegetables are fruits, but it turns out most of them are, in fact, fruits, and half our fruits are actually nuts or some shit.
So to put an exemption on a "slipper", you have to rigidly define what a slipper is. Because "yeah, that's a slipper" doesn't pass muster. Because you and I can disagree on what a slipper is. On where the line between slipper and shoe is. But if we legally define a slipper as any article of clothing designed to be worn on the foot with a felted or cloth sole. Boom, we have something we can agree on. As long as the item meets all of the legal qualifications, it's legally a slipper. And we can fuck subjectivity right out the window.
But of course, where there are rules, there are games. And the goal of the game is to get as much as possible while giving up as little as possible.
RE>> Because "yeah, that's a slipper" doesn't pass muster.
[Justice Potter Stewart has entered the chat]: "I know it when I see it". "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
> It's the impetus behind the question "Is a hotdog a sandwich?"
It seems like that's the "every hot-dog is a sandwich but not every sandwich is a hot dog" thing
> What's the line between pasta and bread?
Leaveners
> Bread and cake?
Sugar content
But I think question here is why products for such similar use have such different taxation ? Why video is taxed more than pictures ? What purpose does it serve?
There's unleavened bread. There's both breads with higher sugar content and cakes with lower sugar content.
The point is that it really is just our vague impressions of things. Taxonomy has the impossible task of defining things that really don't have clear definitions. When does a table become a chair? Etc.
Why do you think a hot dog is a sandwich? Does that make a taco a sandwich? If not, why aren't hot dogs tacos? Is a Pop Tart a ravioli?
2 replies →
To be fair, I wear mine like slippers. Haven't tied 'em in months, let's say I'm lazy.