In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
sci.stat.edu, Bill Jefferys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Of course, one pays more, net, on a $599 item with a $200 rebate than on a
>$399 item, because sales tax is calculated on the $599 in the first case and
>on $399 in the second; the rebate does not take this into account. Whatever
>misperceptions the consumer may have about the rebate (and I agree with Bob,
>they may be powerful) it is obvious that the consumer is worse off when the
>two alternatives are compared.
Indeed yes, and not just the extra sales tax.
There is also the cost (envelope, photocopy, postage) of complying
with the rebate terms. There is also the time both of sending the
submission and of following when^H^H^H^Hif it doesn't arrive within
the stated time.
And as statisticians we should also be aware that the actual value
_ever_ of the rebate is not $A but $A*p, where p is the probability
it will be received. A cursory visit to misc.consumers will tell you
that p is significantly below 100%. That expected loss of (1-p)*A is
yet another cost to the consumer.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
It's not necessary to send me a copy of anything you post
publicly, but if you do please identify it explicitly to avoid
confusion.
.
.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the
problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at:
. http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ .
=================================================================
