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

541–550 of 691 posts

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

#541

Post by Viliam1234 »

Freedom2 wrote: post #306
dotancohen wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is a law needed to address this? Isn't the market supposed to adjust for companies like this?

Precisely. The overarching HN view, although it's not a monolith (so the viewpoint isn't shared by all), is that the free market solves for all things and regulation by the government is largely a waste of taxpayer money that could be going to other things worthwhile (roads, military, police).

I think the idea is that one day you too should found a startup that will provide services that are difficult to cancel.

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

#542

Post by plagiarist »

stainablesteel wrote: post #520
alberth wrote: post #432

The hidden fees is what turned me off from AirBnb... Because it would display the nightly rate as $X. But then at checkout, it would add in "house cleaning fees" etc (which I don't dispute is a fair fee to include) but it at times can grossly misrepresent what your true nightly cost is when searching. Maybe this will be a step in the direction like Telco's have had to do with creating simplified & standardized "nutri…

ironically a lot of people take issue with the cleaning fees as the hosts tend you require you to clean up before you leave

That's correct. Why am I paying them for the privilege of cleaning up after myself?

We all know it is a scam fee. People wouldn't be as mad over a hold on some amount (usually returned) insuring the host against an egregious sloppy mess.

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

#543

Post by tzs »

Alupis wrote: post #473
tzs wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Progressive income tax is also silly. Just because you earn more money than someone else doesn't mean you derive more benefits from the government Ok... > Federal taxes should be a flat percentage, no deductions, no credits, no so-called "loop holes"... nothing. Every citizen pays the same percentage (whatever it needs to be). Flat percentage ? A flat percentage means that if you earn N times what someone else earn…

A flat percentage means exactly that - everyone pays the same percentage. Everyone derives the same value from the government, ie. the same percentage of their income.

Let's say the flat percentage is 10%.

Alice makes $10 million/year, so her tax is $1 million/year.

Bob makes $20 000/year, so his tax is $2 000/year.

Alice and Bob get the same benefits from the government so what is the justification for her tax being 500 times as much as Bob's?

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

#544

Post by lern_too_spel »

lxgr wrote: post #528
lern_too_spel wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even simpler, file a dispute with your card issuer. Dish will pay the chargeback fee and block you as a customer, but I'm sure you don't want to be their customer again, so that's not a problem.

What dispute reason would you give? Usually card issuers will ask you if you've made any attempt to settle the situation with the merchant. If you misrepresent that you have and they are just ignoring you, you might practically get away with it, but do know that that kind of misrepresentation might get you into trouble some day. If however the merchant is actually unreachable for a bona fide cancellation request, tha…

The reason you would give is exactly the reason the OP gave, that Dish was deliberately not reachable for cancellation.

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

#545

Post by plagiarist »

carlosjobim wrote: post #205
EdwardDiego wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean? Minimising monopolies is how you keep the free market competitive.

Free competition should mean that you don't get punished for winning. There is no sport that punishes a competitor who is constantly winning, as long as they are competing fairly. Imagine Schwarzenegger being banned from Mr Olympia or Gretzky being banned for life from minor league ice hockey. So that the other competitors are given a fair chance of winning. But every sport punishes competitors who are cheating or be…

Give us some examples of gigantic "winning" companies that haven't been engaging in cheating or unsportsmanlike behavior.

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

#546

Post by Viliam1234 »

nabla9 wrote: post #78
BurningFrog wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a free market fan, Khan seems to have been pretty terrible. But this looks genuinely good! It's basically banning fraud. ---[EDIT], since everyone is asking for reasons here are two libertarian/conservative critiques: • https://reason.com/2024/11/07/good-riddance-lina-khan/ • https://archive.ph/IjNmZ

As a pro-market fan, Khan is great. Pro-market: pro-market advocates for policies that enhance competition and market efficiency. Understands that god markets are made. Pro-market advocates believe in creating conditions where businesses can compete fairly without undue advantages from government favoritism. Government regulation can be essential to correct market failures and promote a level playing field. Free mark…

There was a time, long ago, when libertarians opposed initiation of violence and fraud.

That was probably before the internet was invented. These days, a typical online libertarian opposes all government action as violence, but when you mention fraud, it's like: "but who decides what is or isn't fraud? if the customer signed a contract, it was their revealed preference to get scammed..."

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

#547

Post by mrguyorama »

danaris wrote: post #430
SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me that is totally fine. If there are electives, then elective them. Fix the mandatory ones first. Like the “resort fee” hotels charge. Or “cleaning fees”. It becomes trickier when the fee is elective, but a significant part of the advertisement. Southwest Airlines complaining about having to advertise their fares, which come with two bags included, alongside other airlines who don’t include any bags comes to mind…

Did you...actually read what they wrote there? The (hypothetical) airfare was listed as "free", but it was impossible to end up paying less than $1200 for it. The point being that even if you have a choice between several fees (making none of them "mandatory" by a narrow reading), you're still paying something beyond the advertised base price. The logical good-faith rule in a case like this would be that you must adv…

The ACTUAL solution to these problems that HN always seems to be allergic to (because technicians prefer technical solutions, but humans aren't technical) is to make your court system extremely hostile to "clever" bullshit like this.

This insistence at having EXACT WORDS for things that aren't exact is just naivety, thinking the world is can be divided perfectly into categories if we just make the categories specific enough!

You cannot.

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

#548

Post by mulmen »

Alupis wrote: post #529
mulmen wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our philosophies differ. > Progressive income tax is also silly. Just because you earn more money than someone else doesn't mean you derive more benefits from the government. I think "pay what you can afford" is fair because the only way to make half a million dollars (or more) a year is to disproportionately reap the benefits of society. Marginal income tax is fair in the sense that everyone does pay the same. Your…

> disproportionately reap the benefits of society This is where we fundamentally disagree. You buy products because you want/like them. The people who make them are not disproportionately reaping benefits of society - they are reaping benefits of creating productive and desirable products. This view flirts with the idea that people "extract" wealth from the public, and that people are taken advantage of and/or manipu…

I think a person who gains $10,000,000.00 a year should be paying a higher tax than someone gaining $20,000.00 a year because a person can’t personally create $10,000,000.00 of value in a year. Or even $8,000,000.00 of value. The only way to do that is to own a disproportionate slice of the American economy. When money moves value is created. The incentive should be to spread that wealth out, not to concentrate it.

A flat tax of 20% would be ruinous to the poor and lower middle class. That can’t be sustained without an enormous increase in income or some guarantees around living expenses.

If I understand your definition of flat tax then capital gains would be untaxed as well so the wealthiest would pay even less.

I understand the ideology. Taxes should be simple and equal. I just don’t think that ideology is worth defending. The price is too high when the benefits are so unclear.

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

#549

Post by mrguyorama »

nodamage wrote: post #223
sudoshred wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can dispute debt in collections by requesting proof of the debt. The consumer protections in that area (debt collections) are quite a bit more developed than any consumer protections about intentional procedural inefficiency when cancelling service.

If you never actually took the steps to cancel your contract won't they be able to prove your debt via the existence of a non-cancelled contract?

The purpose is to take advantage of the sloppiness of the debt collection industry. They are designed around tricking financially illiterate people, harassing poor people, and lying.

When they buy a debt, they rarely get comprehensive documentation.

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

#550

Post by lxgr »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #544
lxgr wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What dispute reason would you give? Usually card issuers will ask you if you've made any attempt to settle the situation with the merchant. If you misrepresent that you have and they are just ignoring you, you might practically get away with it, but do know that that kind of misrepresentation might get you into trouble some day. If however the merchant is actually unreachable for a bona fide cancellation request, tha…

The reason you would give is exactly the reason the OP gave, that Dish was deliberately not reachable for cancellation.

Yeah, the solution to that is to mandate accepting cancellations via a single click (or preferably even email, since it shouldn't be my problem if I don't remember my account details when I want to cancel).

Disputes should have been the backstop to incentivizing the market to making cancellations easier, but things apparently didn't pan out that way. So arguably, the free market has had its chance, and it's time for regulations.

Post reply on HN