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

191–200 of 480 posts

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

#191

Post by Simulacra »

jrflowers wrote: post #99
krab wrote: post #14

> Hidden fees are fees in which a seller uses an artificially low headline price to attract a customer and usually either discloses additional required fees in smaller print, or reveals additional unavoidable charges later in the buying process. Like tips?

> Like tips? This is a good point. When I go to a coffee shop and order a latte I am buying a latte and the appreciation of the person that makes it. If they think I’m a dick it renders my coffee undrinkable and the comfort in knowing that I’m liked should be free.

See, that's the problem, people are worried that if they don't tip that employee is going to do something to their food. That's absolutely disgusting. Maybe I should piss on the dollar before I give it to them?

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

#193

Post by Simulacra »

musicale wrote: post #38
cmeacham98 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you been to a sit-down restaurant recently? Where I live (major southeast US city) there's a 50/50 chance there will be some random bullshit fee (sometimes even more than one!) tacked onto the bill (and I'm not talking about tax or a tip).

Happens all over. I have seen "employee" fees (I guess it's good to have employees), covid recovery charges (I guess I'm glad I didn't get covid there), and other surcharges. The bogus fees are always taxed, and then the full amount is used to compute a recommended tip (even at food kiosks.)

I subtract those from the tip.

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

#195

Post by heimidal »

shiroiuma wrote: post #164
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone always says this, and it's basically never going to happen, at least in the US. Tons of places have tried to ban tipping and just include the service in the cost of the item. They nearly always revert because the best workers leave to make more money at a tipping joint.

If tipping is banned in a place (by the local government I mean), where exactly are the "best workers" going to go? Are they going to pack up and move somewhere else? Also, how are the tipped staff the "best workers"? They're just servers. All they have to do is take an order. It's incredible how much money they expect for this, when it's something that would be more efficiently done with an iPad. In US restaurants,…

> If tipping is banned in a place (by the local government I mean), where exactly are the "best workers" going to go? Are they going to pack up and move somewhere else?

Tipping was banned in seven US states about a hundred years ago. For the most part, People simply ignored the laws. They were all repealed or found unconstitutional after a couple decades. I am not aware of anywhere in the world where tipping a server is illegal.

> Also, how are the tipped staff the "best workers"? They're just servers. All they have to do is take an order.

"Best workers" would include highly competent servers who are a direct cause of repeat business. A good server adds to the experience beyond the food and ambiance and help turn new customers into regulars. Regulars are the lifeblood of most restaurants.

> It's incredible how much money they expect for this, when it's something that would be more efficiently done with an iPad.

Servers can make suggestions based on your preferences, make sure your dietary restrictions are handled, answer questions about the menu... these are experiences I have all the time and I'm certain an iPad would be worse.

> In US restaurants, they're even too lazy to bring the food for you; I guess they're too busy trying to act like the customer's new best friend.

Servers bring out the food I order. I don't even know how to respond beyond that.

Maybe you're just going to really bad restaurants?

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

#197

Post by heimidal »

snovv_crash wrote: post #188
heimidal wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They really shouldn't be advertising false claims in the first place. Just to be clear, you're suggesting that all pricing be removed from all advertising nationwide. This would clearly be to the detriment of the consumer. > That one has an easy solution: Just ask for the destination. Again, this is to the customer's detriment. They have to provide their personal information just to see the price of any item on any…

False advertising is beneficial to the consumer how exactly?

Given the only practical alternative I can imagine would mean to never show a price... yes, the current state of things is more beneficial to the consumer. Again, seeing an pre-tax MSRP price in an ad is better than not having any MSRP in an ad at all.

If you have a practical alternative that could somehow allow for advertising with prices that include tax, I'd love to hear it. (Just to make sure we're on the same page ahead of time: amending the Constitution to strike the Tenth Amendment so that the Federal Government can prevent states from levying their own taxes is not "practical".)

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

#198

Post by guappa »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #159
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I would absolutely refuse to give every vendor my address just to see a price. How does it work now? If you don't give your address, but the price depends on your address, how does the store know how much to charge you? If you don't have to give your ID then surely you just say you're from the lowest tax location?

> If you don't give your address, but the price depends on your address, how does the store know how much to charge you? I don’t want to give my address to see the price. After I’ve decided to buy the thing, I’m okay disclosing who I am. But simply to see the price? Also, if I’m a retailer and people are giving me their address before I price them, on what planet am I not going to use that to help me price discrimina…

You don't need the address, you just need to know in which city they live, AT MOST.

Taxes don't change every street.

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

#199

Post by PeterStuer »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #184
fransje26 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lots of local government means taxes change over smaller distances in America than most of the world. > cultural distrust of taxation and government > a decreasing tendency to use cash > higher income per capita Really don't see how any of the points above are an obstacle to putting the ~actual~ price of a product on paper. > Also, most retailers here use paper labels Great! Makes it even easier to printout the act…

> Really don't see how any of the points above are an obstacle to putting the ~actual~ price of a product on paper The pieces of paper are in multiple places. The bill is calculated in one place. Doing things in multiple places is more costly and error prone than doing it in one. (Also, the paper being physical means a physical person must update it. The POS can be remotely managed.) Here is New York State's guide on…

The store knows what to charge, they chose not to put it on the shelf label. When prices change, people change the shelf label, whether it is paper or ePaper tags is irrelevant to having the tax added in or not. What seems 'bonkers' to you has been standard practice in most of the world for decades.

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

#200

Post by JumpCrisscross »

PeterStuer wrote: post #199
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Really don't see how any of the points above are an obstacle to putting the ~actual~ price of a product on paper The pieces of paper are in multiple places. The bill is calculated in one place. Doing things in multiple places is more costly and error prone than doing it in one. (Also, the paper being physical means a physical person must update it. The POS can be remotely managed.) Here is New York State's guide on…

The store knows what to charge, they chose not to put it on the shelf label. When prices change, people change the shelf label, whether it is paper or ePaper tags is irrelevant to having the tax added in or not. What seems 'bonkers' to you has been standard practice in most of the world for decades.

> When prices change, people change the shelf label

This isn't free. That's someone's time and energy spent on something I, as the consumer, don't care about. Why? I'd much rather have that person available to help, ready at the counter or frankly at home or in a park enjoying their life.

What has meaning for you doesn't for me. I don't value having a precise price at selection versus purchase. At all. Like most Americans. That doesn't mean I don't see the value in your argument, just that I reject it as something that matters to me.

> What seems 'bonkers' to you has been standard practice in most of the world for decades

Not remotely comparable in terms of rulebook complexity. Also, income: if you want to find tax-inclusive round pricing in America, go to impoverished neighborhoods. There, every nickel counts and folks pay cash--it makes sense to spend the effort to precisely message pricing ex ante.

Also, in most of the world posted prices either aren't a thing or are completely negotiable. Haggling at the point of sale isn't a thing in day-to-day America.

Post reply on HN