On Friday 14 January 2005 11:35, frank theriault wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:17:19 -0500, Luigi de Guzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> > On Wednesday 12 January 2005 11:12, Graywolf wrote:
> > > VAT?
> >
> > Again, unless the Iron Chancellor has made Canon DSLRs VAT-exempt, this
> > wouldn't make a difference.  Something else is going on.
> >
> > -Luigi
>
> It's like Peter said:  Taxes and greed.
>
> Here in the Great White North, there's an incoming duty on all
> photographic equipment, even used.  Import duties are only supposed to
> be in place to protect local industries.  AFAIK, the only Canadian
> manufacturer of photographic instruments is Leica in Midland, and
> while I know they still make surveyors' equipment there, I'm not sure
> if they still make camera lenses. 

As far as I'm aware, E. Leitz Canada is now generally called ELCAN, and they 
make some pretty decent military-grade rifle scopes, as well.

> Even if they do, I don't imagine 
> that Leica is losing any sales because I buy a 20 year old Pentax lens
> from a list member.  But if it comes up from the US (or in from
> anywhere else, for that matter), it's subject to duty.

Man.  NAFTA was supposed to do away with that, wasn't it?

>
> Imagine how much money our gov't has made of this specious tax!
>
> That may have nothing to do with why Pentaxen are so expensive in the
> UK, but I got that pet peeve off my chest, anyway...

I'm coming back to my original point:  EVERYBODY pays the tax.  So why is 
Canon still cheaper in the UK by such a wide margin?

-Luigi

Reply via email to