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

FTC bans hidden junk fees in hotel, event ticket prices

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 691 posts

Re: FTC bans hidden junk fees in hotel, event ticket prices

#451

Post by asciimov »

ensignavenger wrote: post #439
mazugrin2 wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aside from silly "sales-tax-holidays" I've never heard of the sales tax rates changing so frequently. I'm curious to know where this is happening "multiple times per year". Here in MA it's been the same rate for 15 years. And for the sales-tax-holiday situation can't a shop just say something like "everything will have x% taken off at the register" just like they would during a typical "10% off all items" type of sal…

If MA has a single rate across the entire state that hasn't changed in 15 users, they are very different from how most other states operate.

Here in Texas you will nearly always be paying the maximum 8.25%, its been that way for 30+ years.

Re: FTC bans hidden junk fees in hotel, event ticket prices

#452

Post by michael1999 »

BurningFrog wrote: post #307
TheGamerUncle wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I well mm used to like reason a while ago but this is laughable. The article does not show how or explain why or in which manner she affects consumers. It says that she has been bad for them but there is no proof of this. Instead it makes quite a comical attempt at trying to vaguely point at the sky and say she is evil or overreaching, but she is not and anyone whoa actually wants a free market can tell you that. I h…

The article is pretty clear to me. The main complaint is that the Khan FTC by default is against all mergers and acquisitions. This is different from the previous standard that only mergers that harm consumers are bad. So now even mergers that benefit consumers are blocked.

That is an a-historical claim. That standard was THE standard from 1890-1980. The consumer-harm standard was the innovation of Bork under Regan in 1980.

Re: FTC bans hidden junk fees in hotel, event ticket prices

#453

Post by Ajedi32 »

maximusdrex wrote: post #371
jimmaswell wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a move afoot to eliminate all regulations unless they've been specifically passed by Congress. Which is basically incapable of passing anything. (At least some of) the agencies brought this on themselves with their abuse of the goodwill/benefit of the doubt previously afforded to them. Most flagrant has been the ATF, for one example constantly redefining machine guns or pistol braces, turning millions of c…

Your understanding is not correct. Chevron deference never meant agencies can just make up and pass law; it was a legal doctrine which merely stated that in places where the law is ambiguous (say a law declares water must be clean of pollutants, or bans pistol braces) that courts should look at any guidance from relevant agencies for guidance, since supposedly they should know more about the subject than the courts.…

> Chevron deference never meant agencies can just make up and pass law

Not on it's own, no. The bigger culprit there is the erosion of the nondelegation doctrine. But Chevron aggravated the problem by allowing agencies to stretch their authority beyond what even congress intended with little possibility of legal challenge.

Interpreting the law is and should be the role of the courts, not the role of the agencies that that law is supposed to be governing. It'd be like if we passed a law intended to regulate insurance companies, and the courts decided to give deference to the insurance company's interpretation of that law because "they're the experts on insurance".

Re: FTC bans hidden junk fees in hotel, event ticket prices

#454

Post by cmurf »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #74
cmurf wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're defending hidden fees? Free markets depend on information. Facts. Not lies.

Let's be honest here. The people that claim to support "free markets" really just mean they support corporations being free to do whatever the hell they want.

Many people are confused.

A free market needs regulation to maintain competition. Companies dislike competition because it lowers profits, and will do what they can to avoid competing on a level playing field. Like adding hidden fees.

Re: FTC bans hidden junk fees in hotel, event ticket prices

#455

Post by spiderice »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #58
belfalas wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, the service is amazing, and they won't accept tips. If you leave money on the table, they will chase after you, to give it back. I visited Japan some years back and loved this aspect of the culture as well. An Australian ski guide (this was a winter visit) explained it like so: "the Japanese attitude is to want to do a good job by default. Tipping implies that a good job is only done because of pay. The Japan…

I believe that servers are also paid quite well.

Quick Google search says the average is $7.55 USD/hour (1,159 Yen). Seems like they're paid quite poorly.

Re: FTC bans hidden junk fees in hotel, event ticket prices

#457

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

spiderice wrote: post #455
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that servers are also paid quite well.

Quick Google search says the average is $7.55 USD/hour (1,159 Yen). Seems like they're paid quite poorly.

Might be more to that story. Remember that Japan is a very socialized country, so CoL expenses are not what they are in the US.

I have a friend that basically shops as part of her job. She has been power-shopping, mostly in Europe (dream job, I suppose), for decades.

She tells me that she runs into the same sales associates, year after year, and has watched them “grow up” over years.

So it seems to be possible, at least in Europe, for people to make lifelong careers in the service industry.

Re: FTC bans hidden junk fees in hotel, event ticket prices

#459

Post by michaelmrose »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #453
maximusdrex wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your understanding is not correct. Chevron deference never meant agencies can just make up and pass law; it was a legal doctrine which merely stated that in places where the law is ambiguous (say a law declares water must be clean of pollutants, or bans pistol braces) that courts should look at any guidance from relevant agencies for guidance, since supposedly they should know more about the subject than the courts.…

> Chevron deference never meant agencies can just make up and pass law Not on it's own, no. The bigger culprit there is the erosion of the nondelegation doctrine. But Chevron aggravated the problem by allowing agencies to stretch their authority beyond what even congress intended with little possibility of legal challenge. Interpreting the law is and should be the role of the courts, not the role of the agencies that…

Is there a well functioning large country that doesn't effectively govern this way?

The US isn't well functioning its just rich

Re: FTC bans hidden junk fees in hotel, event ticket prices

#460

Post by michaelmrose »

rietta wrote: post #442
danaris wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because it's not actually intended to make the regulations better. It's intended to make it impossible for regulatory agencies to do their jobs effectively, without outright legislating them out of existence, because the people backing it believe that without effective regulation they and their allies will be more easily able to enrich themselves at the public's expense.

It's because that is the constraints that the U.S. Constitution places on our form of Federal government. The Congress passes laws (and controls the money), the Executive implements the law, and the Courts interpret the law. My lay understanding is that Chevron shifted too much power from the Congress and the Courts to the administrative agencies in the Executive branch. It seemed like a "good idea" at the time but o…

What abuses
Post reply on HN