17 September 2011 - part l'iva to 21%

[Fulvio Romano]

In the previous example, the secretary is the only fixed cost (but you were talking about direct/direct, are we talking about different things?), but the tipping of its cost on the selling price must be proportional to something. this something depends on the different accounting methods, but proportionality should be guaranteed. Or do I say baggianate? Maybe I'll tell you? Why?

 

[enri]

qui there is an article explaining the increase of the reels beyond 1%

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

In the previous example, the secretary is the only fixed cost (but you were talking about direct/direct, are we talking about different things?), but the tipping of its cost on the selling price must be proportional to something. this something depends on the different accounting methods, but proportionality should be guaranteed. Or do I say baggianate? Maybe I'll tell you? Why?

you say well fulvio, it should be guaranteed but in reality it is not.

little matter if you discriminate direct or indirect costs, as you had written rightly yourself in some previous post, it is the final product that makes the cost to which the added value applies.

 

[Fulvio Romano]

qui there is an article explaining the increase of the reels beyond 1%

Yes, but you don't understand anything. We are talking about fuel and energy costs, which are notoriously not subject to VAT; we are talking about an increase of 60% for poor families (i.e. more than once and a half?!) without explaining why. I didn't understand a thing.
I think that is not the percentage of price increase (which is linear) but the reduction of purchasing capacity (which instead has an asymptote at the minimum poverty threshold).

you say well fulvio, it should be guaranteed but in reality it is not.

little matter if you discriminate direct or indirect costs, as you had written rightly yourself in some previous post, it is the final product that makes the cost to which the added value applies.

Okay, I agree with that. That is, if it is said that the price will increase more than 1%, I can bet parts of the body supplied multiple, but to say that this comes from some mathematical/financial subterfuge, this I believe not. Unless I'm still missing something.. .

 

[enri]

bè generically explains that it is not only to be calculated on the good, but to the whole chain, and here is the increase of 1%. Anyway, they pay the usual.

 

[africagia]

the reasoning that makes lightning does not make a wrinkle. But we know what the Italian people are like. :redface:
Another thing I didn't understand is this. if a seller (supermarket, shop, etc...) bought a certain good before 17/09, then paying 20% VAT, why today should sell the same good by making you pay 21% VAT?!
I think we are Italians! !