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

321–330 of 396 posts

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

#321

Post by zeroonetwothree »

californical wrote: post #230
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think fraud is a good analogy - the whole point with fraud is that you are getting something different after you agreed to it, when it's too late to back out. Going back to the airline example, most people say they hate getting nickel and dimed on things like paying to pick a seat up front or paying even for the first carry-on, but they will still pick one flight over another if the base rate is $5 cheaper. A…

I know I’m not an outlier, but this is why I’ve historically stuck with Delta as an airline. They’re not perfect either, but they give you the main things you’d need for a flight in the base price, and are generally pretty flexible and reasonable with things like bag size. Unless they’re way more expensive, I’ll still pick them for a slightly higher price over the others, because I know that I’ll get a good experienc…

Honestly that backpack measurement sound pretty good to me. I’m sick of subsidizing people with oversized bags while I travel super light.

I don’t support hidden fees but I think price discrimination based on usage is totally reasonable. Just make the costs up front.

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

#322

Post by [deleted] »

Jolter wrote: post #238
tptacek wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Income taxes deter saving and investment, but are easier to target. Sales taxes are hard to make progressive (they're usually regressive) and can be harder to enforce (if they're local). It depends on your goals. It sort of makes sense that we have both, at differing rates.

While I agree with you mostly, why wouldn’t you call sales tax progressive? The more you earn, the more you will spend, so the more you pay. The big issue I have with sales tax is that it is a much worse solution to the problem than a simple value-added tax (VAT). Most countries have figured out that VAT is more difficult to cheat.

[deleted]

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

#323

Post by zeroonetwothree »

KMag wrote: post #264
Jolter wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with you mostly, why wouldn’t you call sales tax progressive? The more you earn, the more you will spend, so the more you pay. The big issue I have with sales tax is that it is a much worse solution to the problem than a simple value-added tax (VAT). Most countries have figured out that VAT is more difficult to cheat.

Poor people tend to spend a higher percentage of their income, and invest a lower percentage. So, they end up paying a higher percentage of their incomes in sales tax, on average.

That’s true but on the other hand if you never spend money then it’s not providing you any advantage. Money is only useful if it’s spent. In that sense a flat sales tax is the “fairest” since it reflects the actual chosen consumption of that individual.

(I know this isn’t true in practice because of exclusions from sales taxes, but we could imagine one that applied to all consumption.)

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

#324

Post by WirelessGigabit »

iamdamian wrote: post #29

This is welcome news. An egregious example of what they are (hopefully) aiming to stop: https://passingtime.substack.com/p/perfidious-pricing Also, a 2021 story from the Times about how drip pricing is getting out of control: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/02/opinion/consumers-drip-pr...

I have always been disgusted by the AirBnB practice where they charge YOU a service fee and take out a % of the nightly fee the owner charges.

Like who are they working for? Me? Or the b&b owner?

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

#325

Post by zeroonetwothree »

epicureanideal wrote: post #17
sneak wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This obscures the tax burden from the end user, transparently blending it with the price of the goods and the merchant's profit. Consumers should be consciously aware of the split.

Personally I find it very interesting that a $20 restaurant meal might only be netting $1 to the owner. Makes me feel like going out isn’t actually that bad of a deal.

A lot more of it goes to the landowner in the form of rent. It could be around 25-35%.

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

#326

Post by willcipriano »

thewebcount wrote: post #308
willcipriano wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way barber shops/salons work is the barber typically rents a chair from the business, some proportion of the fee you pay goes to the house and it is expected that the barber will earn some proportion of their money via tips. They also provide their own tools and products. Tipping barbers goes back at least to the 80's if not longer.

It doesn't matter if that's how a barber typically works. Your average consumer doesn't and shouldn't have to understand how every business they frequent works behind the scenes. I shouldn't need a degree in economics just to get a freakin' hair cut.

It's really only wait staff, bellhops, valets, catering for private events, hotel maids and barbers that need a tip historically.

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

#327

Post by denton-scratch »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #251
denton-scratch wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sales taxes penalize poorer people, who spend a greater proportion of their income. They are regressive and unfair. In the UK we have two different kinds of income tax; one is called National Insurance, but it's not insurance at all. It's there so that the government can brag about reducing income tax. When the UK joined the EU, we had to introduce sales tax (VAT). Part of the VAT receipts were to fund the EU. Note t…

> Sales taxes penalize poorer people, who spend a greater proportion of their income. They are regressive and unfair. It's only unfair if the collected tax revenue isn't used to benefit the poor. The US has one of the most progressive tax systems on the planet. Sweden has one of the most regressive [1]. A tax being regressive or progressive doesn't make it inherently bad or good. And if a country can't effectively ut…

As a matter of cross-party practice over many years, UK sales tax (VAT) just goes into the government's general funds, same as income tax, national insurance, road tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax and so on. There is a strong aversion here to hypothecation. That is: sales taxes are not used to benefit the poor, particularly. They are used to finance defence expenditure, tax cuts for bankers, and fees for pharma and consulting companies, same as other tax revenues.

I think the only exception is local property tax ("Council tax"), which partially props up the funding of local government. But that's capped, and most local authorities charge the maximum. So it might as well be paid by central government, out of the general fund.

[Edit] I take your point about regressive/progressive. The Vox article didn't use the term "progressive"; they said "broad-based". It's right that a tax-hike should hit everybody; but it's also fair that it should hit high earners harder than the poor, roughly in proportion to what they earn.

Wealth tax, as a tax on savings and property, is iniquitous.

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

#328

Post by ncallaway »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #319
ncallaway wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I’ll agree that my definition doesn’t line up 100% with the legal definition. My definition of fraud is: “lying to someone to induce them to do something they wouldn’t have done without the lie”. I think the hidden pricing lines up neatly with my definition. What’s your definition? (We don’t need to come to an agreement, just curious how you think about it)

That is the normal definition of fraud. It seems the difference is you think hidden fees are lying, whereas most people don’t think so as long as they are presented before final purchase agreement.

Yes, I think saying something is $199/night when the minimum you can pay for it is $250/night is lying.

Can you think of another word for that? It’s an untrue statement about the price, that they know is untrue. I just can’t think of another word to describe that other than “a lie”.

If the hidden fees were optional, I could see it being a closer call. If I can uncheck the cleaning fee and actually get $199/night, then it’s not as much a lie. This is the budget airline model. A super super cheap flight, but if you want to put a bag in the overhead bin that’s an extra cost. I think there’s something somewhat deceptive about that practice, but I wouldn’t call it a lie.

But, really, if they say a cost is $199/night when the minimum cost is $250/night and they know that to be the case, how can that be anything other than a lie?

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

#329

Post by zeroonetwothree »

grahar64 wrote: post #273
dangwhy wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> tipping This has gotten ridiculous past 2-3 year. Buy a $3.00 coffee , $1 tip is expected. I hate those ipad type payment consoles.

The night after my first haircut in the US I was like “oh shit” and I googled “do you tip for a haircut” and realized I fucked up. The results were anywhere from 10%-50% tip. The next haircut I got I asked “what is a good tip” and the hair cutter would not tell me. I guessed 20% and went about my day. Then someone told me “that was too low”. I ended up cutting my own hair, or waiting until I was in another sane count…

I always tip $10 which is around 50%. But I’m only going every 2 months so it doesn’t matter much and I’d rather not risk the disfavour of someone with sharp tools near my face.

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

#330

Post by zeroonetwothree »

tehranian wrote: post #144

>>> The legislation — the first bill of its type across the state — would prohibit advertising a price for a good or service that does not include all required charges other than taxes and fees imposed by a government. >>> “Californians are sick and tired of dishonest fees being tacked on to seemingly everything,” said state Senator Bill Dodd. “It’s an underhanded trick... Why do government-imposed fees get a special…

Government taxes are at least fairly consistent so it doesn’t matter for comparison shopping.
Post reply on HN