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

Bill to ban hidden fees in California signed into law

oag.ca.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 480 posts

Re: Bill to ban hidden fees in California signed into law

#111

Post by guitarbill »

briffle wrote: post #88
guitarbill wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree. Bait and switch is one symptom of the issue that the price is not what you'll pay. Which to be clear is awful. And that matters if you have to be careful about spending. Also, "everyone knows about them", really? If it's so easy to "know" the local tax rate for various things, why isn't it easy to label them? See the rest of the world, where even young kids can go shopping. If you give them 5 , and the item…

You can do that in Oregon as well. No sales tax

Only the state sales tax is 0%, local sales tax doesn't have to be. So YMMV, which is kinda the whole point - that it shouldn't.

Re: Bill to ban hidden fees in California signed into law

#113

Post by sacnoradhq »

darknavi wrote: post #13
adasdasdas wrote: post #7

I don't know why we can't just force everyone to show post tax/fees price upfront. It's complete bullshit that every restaurant bill comes with 3 different taxes.

But then how would Arizona Ice Tea be able to print "$1" on their can??? /s

It was 49c in 2017, then it was 89c in 2020, and now it's 99c in 2023.

Re: Bill to ban hidden fees in California signed into law

#114

Post by boxed »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #110
guitarbill wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree. Bait and switch is one symptom of the issue that the price is not what you'll pay. Which to be clear is awful. And that matters if you have to be careful about spending. Also, "everyone knows about them", really? If it's so easy to "know" the local tax rate for various things, why isn't it easy to label them? See the rest of the world, where even young kids can go shopping. If you give them 5 , and the item…

Like I said, you can have a debate about how taxes are displayed on a price list. I respectfully disagree on solely including them in the price and making them "hidden". Calling them out is a good reminder of exactly how much you are paying for government services. For example, the one common tax in the US that is hidden in the price is tax on gasoline. I think it would be better to specifically call this out, especi…

Stockholm syndrome talking.

Displaying THE PRICE on products is so amazingly basic that it's always mind blowing seeing Americans think this is a complicated question. It's not. If I have to pay 5 dollars at checkout THEN THE PRICE IS FIVE DOLLARS.

Re: Bill to ban hidden fees in California signed into law

#115

Post by sacnoradhq »

Wistar wrote: post #37
bradgessler wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And sales tax, CA “paint disposal fees”, CA bottle fees, and all the other crap CA (and municipalities) tack onto their bills?

My cable/fiber bill is chock full of fees — many apparently imposed by the city, county, and state.

That's how predatory gotcha capitalism works.

Re: Bill to ban hidden fees in California signed into law

#116

Post by eszed »

nodesocket wrote: post #43

Laws like this aren't going to make services and products any cheaper. They'll just shift around and hide the fees into the core price. Sure, that's better I suppose, but end of the day still costs the same amount. Not convinced at all this is a area policy makers should be focusing on.

It's way better! I want to be able to comparison shop: now I can judge Hotel A (advertised @ $200) and Hotel B ($179) on the same basis, without trying to guess which of them will be adding on what additional (un-advertised, and - so far as I can tell - unknowable until check-in) fees.

Whenever-ago it was hotels started doing that the extra fees were fairly nominal, and it was easy to shrug at them. Last year my wife and I stayed at a hotel (thankfully paid for by her work) with a $50 per-person/night "resort fee". In the event, neither of us used those amenities (though yes, we still had to pay: I asked), so that's not what that fee was _really_ about. It's entirely an obfuscation.

This bill adds nothing to the state budget. Allowing price discovery (and therefore free markets) to work, is what regulation should do, even under a fairly libertarian theory of government. It's certainly worthy of legislative time.

Re: Bill to ban hidden fees in California signed into law

#117

Post by vincnetas »

xmprt wrote: post #31
adasdasdas wrote: post #7

I don't know why we can't just force everyone to show post tax/fees price upfront. It's complete bullshit that every restaurant bill comes with 3 different taxes.

Taxes are set at a multiple levels (federal, state, district, and city) so it's pretty much impossible to show the post tax price on the label. Hidden fees are a completely different issue.

What do you mean "impossible" If waiter or cashier calculates final price when you pay, it must be possible to calculate it upfront. Im not aware of situations where final price would depend on the purchaser. That would be discrimination.

Re: Bill to ban hidden fees in California signed into law

#118

Post by kelnos »

smt88 wrote: post #48
sfmike wrote: post #15

We could learn from for example Japan where there is no cents and all fees included so 5000 Yen is 5000 yen no tip no tax no fees no cents it's really cortisol reducing.

Including taxes in the sticker price is bad. It allows the government to quietly increase taxes without people noticing. Sales taxes are in general regressive and harm lower-income people the most, so they should be visible and attributable to government.

> Including taxes in the sticker price is bad. It allows the government to quietly increase taxes without people noticing.

Oh please. When taxes go up, people notice. In California, new taxes have to be approved directly by voters, even. If you choose not to be civically engaged enough to notice new taxes, that's your problem.

This is the same dumb argument people use for not allowing the IRS to send us a pre-filled tax return. Instead, we flush billions of dollars a year down the toilet on tax prep.

Re: Bill to ban hidden fees in California signed into law

#119

Post by JumpCrisscross »

guitarbill wrote: post #58
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #50

Comments that are bringing up taxes (which are totally exempted by this bill anyway) and tips (with one small caveat) are completely missing the point. You can have a debate about how to display those items on a price list, but everyone knows about them and they are expected. The whole point of this bill is to prevent bait-and-switch, where loads of unknown or variable fees are tacked on after the price is initially…

Disagree. Bait and switch is one symptom of the issue that the price is not what you'll pay. Which to be clear is awful. And that matters if you have to be careful about spending. Also, "everyone knows about them", really? If it's so easy to "know" the local tax rate for various things, why isn't it easy to label them? See the rest of the world, where even young kids can go shopping. If you give them 5 , and the item…

> if it's so easy to "know" the local tax rate for various things, why isn't it easy to label them?

We know them generally enough to get by. That doesn’t mean calculating them precisely is a peach.

There have been stores that tried to differentiate on the basis of all-in pricing. It fails. Unless you’re paying cash or precisely monitoring spending, it doesn’t matter. (There is also a transparency argument in knowing how much is going to the business versus state.)

In summary, it’s not an issue for most Americans. (When I travel in Europe, having all-in prices doesn’t even remotely occur as a perk.) And there are ideological reasons that resonate with many Americans that are against it. Nobody to fight for it, a vocal minority against; seems like a silly hill to die on.

Re: Bill to ban hidden fees in California signed into law

#120

Post by tacocataco »

menthe wrote: post #93

Ironic when the same day, California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoe'd bill intended to limit the price of insulin, and thus access to essential health care for many.

Is that the same bill that would have decriminalized psychedelic mushrooms?

Good thing California uses First Past the Post voting, making a two party system a inevitably. Must be cheaper to purchase the government for the 1%.

Post reply on HN