Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California AG and state senators introduce bill to ban hidden fees

oag.ca.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 396 posts

Re: California AG and state senators introduce bill to ban hidden fees

#191

Post by logifail »

diebeforei485 wrote: post #189
logifail wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this ease of price comparison has resulted in unbundling of services in a number of industries - e.g. airlines where the base price is akin to "we let you hang on to the wing" I'm literally just booking a trip with Ryanair, Vienna to London, in just less than a month's time. It's costing me a shade less than $20 for a 770 mile flight, no hidden fees during my purchase... No, it doesn't include a large carry-on bag,…

These are all optional - you don't have to pay them if you don't use those services. They wouldn't be affected by this bill. "Resort fees" or "amenity fees" are not optional. Even if you don't use the services in those fees, you still have to pay them. Those are what are being clamped down on.

> These are all optional - you don't have to pay them if you don't use those services. They wouldn't be affected by this bill

I was responding to the comment about what the airlines' base price includes - at least here on this side of the pond, the base price is for safe travel (with a small carry-on bag) from A to B, and if that's all you want, it's all you need to pay.

Re: California AG and state senators introduce bill to ban hidden fees

#192

Post by ghaff »

yamtaddle wrote: post #149
gruez wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Buy a $3.00 coffee , $1 tip is expected. Is this a fancy coffee shop thing? I admittedly don't go to cafes often, but my impression was that it's a "tipping optional" type of place (as opposed to something like full service restaurants which are tipping defacto mandatory).

It's a side-effect (uh, or, deliberate feature) of modern POS systems. Defaulting to having a tip line on receipts for e.g. a carry-out meal from a restaurant, which people never used to tip for, or showing a tip option on an iPad in a situation that never, ever called for tipping before and the worker is standing right there watching you fill tap or fill out the receipt so you feel like maybe you're being a dick (wh…

And if the POS systems made you feel like a bit of a cheapskate before, they sure made you feel like one in 2020/2021 comfortably working at home while young service workers were pouring coffee or flipping burgers.

Re: California AG and state senators introduce bill to ban hidden fees

#193

Post by yamtaddle »

stillsleepy wrote: post #178
stillsleepy wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

It's because nobody actually has trouble understanding what "free" means in these contexts except the same small percentage of morons one can get to say any dumb thing one wishes to find someone saying, and people pretending not to understand it on Internet forums to passive-aggressively make a very stupid point.

Everyone else gets it. You're not preaching some great message to the sheeple, you're just making noise.

Re: California AG and state senators introduce bill to ban hidden fees

#194

Post by bradleyjg »

mattficke wrote: post #169
bradleyjg wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One interesting wrinkle is sitting next to another person on your ticket. By all rights it should be optional but person after person books the no assigned seat option and then is outraged that they are not seated next to their companions.

There was an interesting article on United’s new family seating policy, allows families traveling with children under 12 to sit together automatically with no added fees by default. Sounded like a decent way of identifying when sitting together actually would be optional for most people. https://viewfromthewing.com/uniteds-new-family-seating-polic...

I’m fine with this solution, families can use a break in modern America. But if airlines had said from the beginning that bookings with a child under 12 are not eligible for basic economy, it’d hard to see what’s unfair about that.

Re: California AG and state senators introduce bill to ban hidden fees

#195

Post by shagie »

vineyardmike wrote: post #190
shagie wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to taxes not in the sale price This gets complicated and there's good reason. The taxes depend on where you take possession of the goods. If you purchase an item and walk up to the checkout counter, you pay the taxes there. On the other hand, if you are buying lumber in Kansas City, KS to be delivered in Kanas City, MO - you pay the MO taxes (4.225%) rather than the KS taxes (6.5%). So, putting the taxes on the lum…

If you buy something in one state and drive it to another then you’re supposed to be taxes based on the destination when you “import” it. If you sell to Missouri, you pay Missouri tax. It’s not actually complicated. I’m not sure what you’re trying to solve?

That the easiest solution is to have "tax not included" on the price of the item. If you buy it in MO and import it to another state, that is tax added on to the overall price of the item that is "hidden". Trying to put that on the sticker price gets complicated.

I am not saying there's an easy solution but rather a "the easy solution misses every complicated case for which there are many."

Re: California AG and state senators introduce bill to ban hidden fees

#196

Post by anon84873628 »

IncRnd wrote: post #176
jghn wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I interpreted that as suggesting people would wind up buying nothing if all the options are perceived to be too expensive. But sone people will continue down the rabbit hole if you get them in the funnel to start with

How did you interpret the text to mean that? Higher conversion doesn't mean nothing was purchased. the opposite nearly always results in higher conversion, where there is a lower up-front price and fees are only tacked on during checkout.

Your parent meant _some_ people end up purchasing nothing, when the initial price shown is higher.

Basically the top of the funnel is more price sensitive than after they have already progressed a bit towards the purchase.

Re: California AG and state senators introduce bill to ban hidden fees

#197

Post by skaushik92 »

shagie wrote: post #152
skaushik92 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. This incentivizes states and districts to compete on taxation and would likely drive sales tax down nationally.

As there are states that are 0%, this would mean "no sales tax at all" which would really hit states where they don't have any income tax and instead just have sales tax. Under that approach, live in Texas and buy everything online from Oregon and you'll never pay any taxes. States need to raise revenue somehow and playing that form of tax arbitrage shifts the burden of taxes to the people who don't have the resource…

No; in fact sales tax is what’s shifting the burden in that direction. Income tax on the other hand is a progressive tax that keeps impact more proportional.

Re: California AG and state senators introduce bill to ban hidden fees

#198

Post by xbar »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #61

The Republican response: Smart politics, but bad economics. Ban baggage fees = higher ticket prices Ban resort fees = higher room prices Ban credit card late fees = higher interest rates These proposals just make some consumers pay more to cover the costs of other consumers. https://twitter.com/George_A_Callas/status/16233291827793182... There is a point hidden in there, in that banning optional fees makes the price…

Consumers always pay the same. It's just not clear until it's too late.

Re: California AG and state senators introduce bill to ban hidden fees

#200

Post by zamadatix »

ensignavenger wrote: post #181
zamadatix wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd hope not every month! But even if taxes changed yearly is that really a large burden? How many things even stay in the same shelf at the same price for 1 year straight as it is, how many dozens of times was that shelf already restocked and inventoried compared to how often the price tag would need to be replaced due to taxes changing?

In my state, taxes change at least twice a year, and usually 3 times at a minimum. Changing what shelf products are on is a continuous, incremental thing- changing every tag in the store for tax changes would have to happen overnight for all products, on specific nights each year. Many stores like to pre-tag each product package, either at the store or manufacturer- you couldn't do that if the tax had to be included…

3 times a year minimum does sound pretty insane - I'd be all for fixing that before fixing price labeling. Do you mind me asking which state that is? In Indiana we've changed the sales tax 4 times since introducing it in 1963 (and don't actually collect it for the grocery example like most states), I shudder to think what the point of changing it 4 times in a year would be.
Post reply on HN