Live data from Hacker News

Bill to ban hidden fees in California signed into law

oag.ca.gov

361–370 of 480 posts

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

#361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Amer…

> This isn't free.

It's not free but it is negligible relative to routine relabelling. How many times do you think the tax rate changes per year? Maybe twice, at most, if the government budget is facing some major upheaval. More likely is every few years. Compared to the number of times the store will put things on sale or change the prices, that is negligible.

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

#362
post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they’re implying that the banks shouldn’t reorder the charges and should pick up the phone when we call them to opt out of overdraft altogether.

Showing up in person is always more effective than calling on the phone.

it also requires transportation and a flexible work schedule that allows you to make trips during business hours.

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

#363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banks in the US must provide a way to opt out of the overdraft "service", after which they will simply decline transactions instead of overdrafting the account and charging for the privilege.

I agree fully. It's just not a junk fee similar to the hotel ones.

you don't see how going to the bank during work hours to get an overdraft charge would be difficult for a lower income person? I'm going to guess you live in the suburbs for one and that you have a vehicle and a flexible, white collar work schedule.

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

#364
post #238

I don't quite see how an overdraft fee (one of the examples given) is a junk fee - it costs the bank real money to cover the loan they are effectively giving you when you are in overdraft.

I dunno, it's pretty slimy to me if I go $3 into overdraft and then the bank denies that transaction and instead hits me with a $30 fee. Now I'm $30 in the hole and I didn't even get my cellphone bill paid, just a fee for the privilege of having tried to do it.

or even slimier, prior to the federal credit protection act, you could have $0 in the bank, then deposit $10, then later in the day, make 10 transactions of $1 each. and they would rearrange the transactions, putting the deposit in at the end of the day and the charges right when they happened, and charge you TEN separate overdraft charges for those 10 transactions at $35 each. then, your balance at the end of the day would be -$340. after which they would charge you an additional overdraft fee that day and every day following for a negative balance penalty. and then maybe an additional charge every once and a while for "extended negative balance" as well as charge you a monthly fee since you don't qualify for free checking that month since you have a negative balance. AND the checking account fees would also create an overdraft charge.

it was such an awful racket that was only allowed to go on as long as it did because it mostly just affected poor people.

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

#365
post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t forget the “living wage surcharge” that many cities mandate for restaurant workers! It’s typically not disclosed until after you eat, and varies from city to city.

No US city mandates a "living wage surcharge."

I stand corrected. However, the cities around here allow restaurants to falsely claim that the charge was mandated by the local government:

https://web.archive.org/web/20230814142251/https://www.sfchr...

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

#366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the tax on the individual items in question, also, because it's all variable based on what you're buying, what city you're in etc. Pretty much everywhere else I've travelled in the world, the price on the shelf is the price you pay, even when tax changes based on what something is classified as (to whit that fun legal case of "is a jaffa cake a cake or a biscuit"). For some absolutely bizarre self-hating reaso…

You're trading ease of mentally calculating the total for the obfuscation of why items increased in price and really overselling the difficulty of calculating the tax. I can see why if you're traveling to the US that could be difficult (but if you estimate 10% your estimate will be over in most places and close enough everywhere else), because you'll probably be in many places you haven't been before (or often enough…

I've lived in the states for 15 years now. I know roughly what to add, though I have to play guessing games depending on even the town that I'm shopping in, (quite literally I can even walk to two stores in neighbouring cities within range of my house, and pay different prices for the same goods). It makes it no less absurd that I have to know and guess what the actual out of pocket expense is, no matter which way you slice it. Especially because it doesn't have to be this way. Given individual items aren't shown with their particular taxes on them, it obscures what I'm actually paying for what, until I've spent enough time shopping in whichever place I'm in to finally figure it out.

It's just one of many little ways that the US operates that's profoundly at odds with a positive experience for citizens. You _could_ have the prices right there in the stores. You _could_ structure your tax system such that the prices can actually be done that way and you don't get the rounding fun that you see mentioned elsewhere in this thread. However, because you do this "hide the actual price" there's zero incentive to actually implement tax approaches that are nicer as a citizen/consumer.

If you'll forgive a slight diversion, it's a similar deal with tax incentives. In a lot of countries around the world, they structure it such that the tax incentives happen at time of purchase, so e.g. a $2,500 rebate would result in you, as the buyer, buying at price $2,500 less than it would have been otherwise. You never see that $2,500 at all, you just see a much cheaper sticker price. It's end user focused, like you'd think a government for the citizens, by the citizens, would be.

The US approaches it such that you have to actually have the money spare up front, to eventually get it back (or mess about with your monthly withholding to try to claw it back that way, quicker). This penalises poorer citizens, who otherwise might have been able to afford to buy whatever thing it is that they could potentially afford. You essentially miss out on the tax incentives the government comes up with, unless you happen to be rich enough to afford a well versed tax accountant, or have enough luxury of time to sit there and work through all the possible rebates you might be eligible for. Neither of which poor or disadvantaged people tend to have.

With this being the way that tax incentives have long been done, there's no real incentive to try to do it any other way, even though it would be better for literally every citizen, rich and poor alike, with the possible exception of tax accountants. You'd all get specific rebates you were entitled for.

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

#367
post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree fully. It's just not a junk fee similar to the hotel ones.

you don't see how going to the bank during work hours to get an overdraft charge would be difficult for a lower income person? I'm going to guess you live in the suburbs for one and that you have a vehicle and a flexible, white collar work schedule.

Did you reply to the correct person? But yes I have three cars and a flexible work schedule, as well as premium bank support.

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

#368
post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, it's pretty slimy to me if I go $3 into overdraft and then the bank denies that transaction and instead hits me with a $30 fee. Now I'm $30 in the hole and I didn't even get my cellphone bill paid, just a fee for the privilege of having tried to do it.

or even slimier, prior to the federal credit protection act, you could have $0 in the bank, then deposit $10, then later in the day, make 10 transactions of $1 each. and they would rearrange the transactions, putting the deposit in at the end of the day and the charges right when they happened, and charge you TEN separate overdraft charges for those 10 transactions at $35 each. then, your balance at the end of the da…

Imagine being the engineer who implemented that reordering logic. How would your even sleep at night having built a thing that so obviously existed solely to prey on the vulnerable.

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

#369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general, their stance has been "vote against anything the governor is willing to sign."

Unfortunately noone knows what Newsom is willing to sign, because he doesn't comment on any legislation until it gets to his desk and then randomly vetoes half of it.

You're not wrong, so I'll revise to "what they believe he will sign."

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

#370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time I had issues with my bank, they had special help set aside for us premium customers. The regular teller wasn't even authorized to fix that, so I don't want to know how long I would've spent there without the special status.

I just asked the teller to see the manager. I'm sorry, I just don't see why this is a difficult thing to do.

Reasons this may be difficult:

  1. historically poor person, they don't want to deal with them and just want to charge them the $35 per individual overdraft, or whatever insanely high charge it is.
  2. Poor person works hours that make it impossible to visit or even call a bank.  No really, working 1 job with insane hours or several jobs with even more insane hours are not uncommon for poor people.
  3. They shouldn't be re-ordering charges in the first place to have the worst possible result and it continues to perpetuate the harm we place on those who have less.
Number 2 is the absolutely loudest of these by several miles. A person being able to visit, or even call, a bank during operating hours is an enormous privilege that the people that are harmed by these overdraft fees, in the majority of cases, do not enjoy.
Post reply on HN