Bill Overview
Title: Federal Gift Shop Tax Act
Description: This bill authorizes a state (i.e., each state of the United States, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories and possessions) to levy a sales tax on any purchase made in a gift shop located on federal property or made online through a gift shop.
Sponsors: Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]
Target Audience
Population: People who make purchases in gift shops on federal property or online through these shops
Estimated Size: 7000000
- The bill impacts purchases made in gift shops located on federal property.
- Purchases made online through these gift shops are also affected.
- There are federal properties and gift shops worldwide, as in national parks and monuments, military bases, and museums.
- The bill will mostly affect tourists, visitors, and employees who make purchases in these specific gift shops.
- Employees or persons who frequent federal properties for their jobs might be regular purchasers, although this group is likely smaller.
Reasoning
- The primary impact of the Federal Gift Shop Tax Act is on consumers who frequently purchase items from gift shops located on federal properties. These gift shops are commonly found in national parks, museums, and other tourist attractions, which suggests the policy would mostly affect tourists and visitors, including both international visitors and US residents engaged in domestic travel.
- Employees working on federal properties with gift shops could be impacted, although likely their purchases are less frequent compared to tourists and may comprise a smaller proportion of their total expenditures.
- Some people may be affected more than others due to their higher frequency of travel to such attractions, and their wellbeing scores can help assess the long-term impact of increased sales tax, considering both financial and emotional factors.
- Given the policy focus is on a very specific purchase context, the impact on overall Cantril wellbeing for individuals might be low to medium for most individuals, except for frequent visitors or collectors who often buy from these gift stores.
Simulated Interviews
National Parks Guide (Colorado)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy might discourage some visitors from making purchases, which could lead to less funding for park services if gift shop sales decline.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Military Officer (Virginia)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think the tax will affect me much since I only occasionally make gift shop purchases.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Travel Blogger (California)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The added tax might be bothersome for the audience I cater to, though it’s a small part of the travel experience.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 10 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 10 |
Museum Enthusiast (New York)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could significantly affect my spending habit, considering my frequent purchases. It lessens my disposable income for such collectibles.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 9 |
School Teacher (Texas)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- For school trips, the tax might mean we budget differently for educational souvenirs. It’s a necessary cost adjustment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Retiree (Florida)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.5 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As long as the tax is not exorbitant, I don’t mind. It’s for a good cause if it helps maintain the parks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
College Student (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.5 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The tax might deter me from my weekly splurges, which may be a good thing financially.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Stay-at-home Parent (Illinois)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.5 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Costs have risen everywhere; this tax is just another small increase to adjust for.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Tour Guide (Arizona)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might slightly affect sales, which could impact us as employees, but the overall effect seems moderate.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Environmental Lawyer (Oregon)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this tax contributes to park preservation, I'm in favor. The impact on individual purchases seems negligible for the greater good.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 2: $5200000 (Low: $4200000, High: $6200000)
Year 3: $5400000 (Low: $4400000, High: $6400000)
Year 5: $5800000 (Low: $4800000, High: $6800000)
Year 10: $6600000 (Low: $5600000, High: $7600000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Key Considerations
- Coordination between federal and state agencies for tax implementation on federal properties could incur additional administrative costs.
- Tourism fluctuations could influence the volume of sales and resultant tax revenue significantly.
- It may complicate accounting for gift shops on federal property, especially if various states have differing tax codes.