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

441–450 of 480 posts

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

#441

Post by gingerrr »

sacnoradhq wrote: post #235
gingerrr wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where? I remember buying Arizona with 99c on it well over a decade ago. edit: it's been 99c for 3 decades, since they started business https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-04-12/az-iced-te...

They put 49c labels over the 99c wherever I bought them in California. I think the 99c price was originally for convenience stores because there were sales of 5 for $2 at Walgreens in 2018.

I'm also in CA and lived on Arizona for most of my teens and early 20s. Never saw this pricing. I would have remembered it, especially during the skint college years. It's always been a dollar. At best you'd see 2 for 1 deals.

It sounds like you live in a heavily subsidized market - probably best not to try to draw generalizations about inflation from your specific circumstances, they are atypical.

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

#442

Post by pbhjpbhj »

heimidal wrote: post #183
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shops change their prices sometimes multiple times a day (UK), sales taxes change on the order of decades here. Stores can cope. It sounds like your legislature spend all their time setting taxes?

I'm curious, do books have prices printed on them in the UK? Here in the US, the suggested retail price (pre-tax, obviously) is generally printed by the manufacturer on the back or inside the dust cover of every book.

Yes, books have RRP (recommended retail price). That price includes all taxes.

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

#443

Post by Sabinus »

AlchemistCamp wrote: post #425
ramblenode wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If consumers valued it, tax-inclusive pricing might be worth the effort. But in America, we don't. That's not true. I would guess the vast majority of consumers would at least slightly prefer that the tax be included in the display price. The problem is those consumers aren't an organized interest group, whereas retailers are. It's not a "cultural preference"--it's just the inability of the political system to addr…

I sincerely doubt that. I prefer to know how much of the price is from taxes because of transparency, as I mentioned in another comment on this thread. Furthermore, literally everywhere I’ve lived in America, I had 3+ local sales tax rates within my typical shopping range and it’s nice to know which areas have lower rates so I can preferentially make larger shopping trips there.

>I prefer to know how much of the price is from taxes because of transparency, as I mentioned in another comment on this thread.

In the current system, to get that information you have to compare the label cost to the cost you paid. How is that more simple and convenient than looking up sales taxes in your area, or mandating they be displayed on labels in addition to price?

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

#444

Post by janalsncm »

WalterBright wrote: post #311
t-writescode wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool story. How does that help the hundreds of thousands of very poor people who are trying very hard to pinch pennies in dire straights?

Is there something preventing them from visiting the bank manager? Or are you implying that being poor means the bank should cover the overdraft?

> Is there something preventing them from visiting the bank manager?

Yes. Time. Poor people don’t have time to argue with every company that nickel and dimes them. Most people are working during bank hours. They’re working multiple jobs so they can keep the lights on.

A $35 overdraft fee hurts but it’s not enough to sacrifice a shift where you are guaranteed to make $70 for the possibility of getting $35 back (which is by no means guaranteed since they signed a contract that says the bank can take $35 from them).

$35 is a very strategic number, isn’t it? It’s just enough to maximize profits but not quite enough to get most people to navigate customer service, which is likely going to go nowhere.

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

#445

Post by janalsncm »

hot_gril wrote: post #299
ajkjk wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is already how it works. The fee doesn't change their ability to get money back whatsoever. The fee just punishes the person who screwed up more than they're already punished by being broke.

It's a loan until the customer pays it back, and loans cost money to cover. Except the overdraft fee is usually some insane % interest, to the point where nobody would take that loan unless it were by accident... So in short, it's a scam.

A loan on horrible terms that you’re opted into by default.

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

#446

Post by zestyping »

refurb wrote: post #398
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…

It’s not that hard. Europeans act like it’s impossible to calculate taxes in your head. If the sales tax is 9.25%, round up to 10%, so $1 on every hundred. I walk into a store and buy something for $7.32. Ok, I know in my head the tax is about $0.70, so cool, it’s be “about” $8. That’s all I need to know. I don’t carry rolls of Pennie’s around so I’m not worried about the cents. He’ll, when was the last time you paid…

Your estimate is "about $8" but 7.32 + 0.70 is 8.02, which you can't pay for with $8.

Your example is actually a great illustration of why expecting people to calculate taxes in their head doesn't work. If you are trying to buy a product priced at $7.32, you can't easily tell whether $8 is enough. No one should have to multiply 9.25 by 7.32 in their head to know whether they can buy something.

Enough with this insanity. If the price is $8, then $8 should be enough!

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

#447

Post by refurb »

zestyping wrote: post #446
refurb wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not that hard. Europeans act like it’s impossible to calculate taxes in your head. If the sales tax is 9.25%, round up to 10%, so $1 on every hundred. I walk into a store and buy something for $7.32. Ok, I know in my head the tax is about $0.70, so cool, it’s be “about” $8. That’s all I need to know. I don’t carry rolls of Pennie’s around so I’m not worried about the cents. He’ll, when was the last time you paid…

Your estimate is "about $8" but 7.32 + 0.70 is 8.02, which you can't pay for with $8. Your example is actually a great illustration of why expecting people to calculate taxes in their head doesn't work. If you are trying to buy a product priced at $7.32, you can't easily tell whether $8 is enough. No one should have to multiply 9.25 by 7.32 in their head to know whether they can buy something. Enough with this insani…

The point is the $0.02 doesn't matter.

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

#448

Post by fsckboy »

ramblenode wrote: post #354
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> have to be tuned in to the latest local vibes so as not to unintentionaly run afoul of some obfuscated social rules You do realise you are travelling to a foreign country, right? This rings to me like Americans who travel to Spain and complain about the siesta, or Argentina and how late they dine. Lots of local government means taxes change over smaller distances in America than most of the world. Also, most retail…

I've never met an American who prefered the system of not showing the full price on the shelf. The system exists entirely to obfuscate prices and confuse less price-conscious consumers. It is hardly culture.

>The system exists entirely to obfuscate prices

sorry, no, it doesn't. Taxes, by law, must be calculated at the point of sale. A penny on each of 5 items could sum to enough to bump the tax on the overal total by a penny. You're not allowed to "round" that extra tax away by computing the tax individually on the items.

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

#449

Post by crote »

refurb wrote: post #447
zestyping wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your estimate is "about $8" but 7.32 + 0.70 is 8.02, which you can't pay for with $8. Your example is actually a great illustration of why expecting people to calculate taxes in their head doesn't work. If you are trying to buy a product priced at $7.32, you can't easily tell whether $8 is enough. No one should have to multiply 9.25 by 7.32 in their head to know whether they can buy something. Enough with this insani…

The point is the $0.02 doesn't matter.

It definitely does matter when you only have $8.

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

#450

Post by olliej »

dartharva wrote: post #440
olliej wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_India , India has a fixed set of GST rates and classes. It does not look like each city can have its own additional GST. The only "local" tax I can find is property taxes, and the US has those too. But we're talking about property tax, we're not talking about interstate taxes (which are illegal under the US constitution), we're talking about what you or I (I'm orig…

OK.. seems I was under a major misconception about how US taxation operates, I naively assumed it was similar to other countries' federal+state structures. Thanks for your detailed reply!

No worries, when it comes to governance in the US just assume the most absurd possible outcome of what seemed like a great idea 250 years ago in a country of 2.5 million people in 13 states, and less than 100 towns we would consider cities today, applied to a country of 220 million people in 50 states and 19000+ cities \o/
Post reply on HN