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

631–640 of 691 posts

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

#631

Post by Alupis »

mulmen wrote: post #548
Alupis wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.

This is a very problematic view of the world, and is not in line with reality.

The people who earn $10MM a year make decisions that impact the lives of thousands (10's of thousands, or 100's of thousands) of employees. They are usually also directly responsible for millions of dollars in salaries every month.

The myth that executives running a business don't earn their pay is silly.

> A flat tax of 20% would be ruinous to the poor and lower middle class.

Also not true even a little bit. Most of the lower and middle class already pay more than 20%.

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

#632

Post by Alupis »

tzs wrote: post #543
Alupis wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If you want to make it a flat dollar amount, you won't find an argument from me.

I happen to think a flat percentage without deductions or credits is the best compromise with the people who think everyone else isn't paying their "fair share". If everyone pays this 10% (or whatever) then there's no quibbling about this or that deduction or tax shenanigan (buying art, etc).

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

#633

Post by db48x »

vacuity wrote: post #626
db48x wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only a few would actually have to do it. But if everyone lets them get away with it, then I have no sympathy.

This isn't schoolchildren all being bystanders or victims to a peer bully. There is a much larger asymmetry in time, money, and credibilty here.

That’s the whole reason that small claims court exists.

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

#634

Post by llamaimperative »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #630
llamaimperative wrote: post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguing is easy when you simply assert your conclusion! :) "Correctness" is an actually meaningless concept here. Correct according to which rubric? Please answer specifically.

Correct according to the mechanism our constitution defines for resolving disputes about the interpretation of law: the judgement of the court system. A judgement which they were not allowed to make under Cheveron, because they were limited to evaluating the reasonableness of the agency's own personal interpretation.

You’re aware that the Chevron SCOTUS decision was itself part of this exact Constitutional system, right? As was the overturning of Chevron.

I.e. you’re going to need a better rubric.

"The agency's own personal interpretation" is another nonsense phrase where you're trying to simply presume your opinion alongside a weak argument. The agency is not a person.

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

#635

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

tradertef wrote: post #552
acuozzo wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Felt quite deceptive and totally incomprehensible. In the case of sales tax, it's deliberate propaganda. "Here's what we would have charged you if it weren't for greedy old Uncle Sam."

Propaganda? How is telling where your money is going is propaganda?

They can tell you where your money is going and also make the tax-included price the most prominent price on signs and tags.

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

#636

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

kaonwarb wrote: post #88
guidedlight wrote: post #10

They should ban hidden taxes too. The sticker price should be the final price.

The one upside I’m aware of for taxes being added separately is high awareness of what the sales tax rate is.

> sticker price is $112.59

> rings up as $121.41

> "Wow, I wasn't *highly aware* that the sales tax rate here where I live was 7.83%, thanks for helping me out by putting the wrong price on the sticker, shopkeep. Now I can calculate the actual price of things in your store, something I couldn't do before – I'll simply multiply every sticker price by 1.0783 in my head on the fly. What a great 'upside'!"

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

#637

Post by Mountain_Skies »

account42 wrote: post #613
ssl-3 wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe that works. I have concerns about IP geolocation databases being able to pin me down to a particular state, but maybe. But even assuming "good enough" IP geolocation exists: In order for this to be implemented both uniformly and nationally, we'd need a new constitutional amendment that would grant the federal government the ability to regulate how sales taxes work within states. Because right now, we have this:…

The federal government doesn't need to legislate sales tax, just require it to be included in the display price. For physical stores this is trivial. For online stores geolocation + manual override works well enough elsewhere. Number of sales tax jurisdictions is irrelevant - either companies deal with it like they deal in areas with many smaller countries or they lobby their local city / state to fix the mess.

Sales tax in the Atlanta airport varies because the terminal crosses jurisdiction lines. Geolocation needs an exact location to get the tax correct, which means giving your exact location to every shopping site. Most people don't want to do that and already know what the tax rate at their home is so they already know what to expect at checkout.

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

#638

Post by tradertef »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #635
tradertef wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Propaganda? How is telling where your money is going is propaganda?

They can tell you where your money is going and also make the tax-included price the most prominent price on signs and tags.

Maybe.. also, tax changes from state to state and city to city and item to item. really like seeing tax explicitly shown in my receipt even though it is inconvenient sometimes.

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

#639

Post by Ajedi32 »

llamaimperative wrote: post #634
Ajedi32 wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct according to the mechanism our constitution defines for resolving disputes about the interpretation of law: the judgement of the court system. A judgement which they were not allowed to make under Cheveron, because they were limited to evaluating the reasonableness of the agency's own personal interpretation.

You’re aware that the Chevron SCOTUS decision was itself part of this exact Constitutional system, right? As was the overturning of Chevron. I.e. you’re going to need a better rubric. "The agency's own personal interpretation" is another nonsense phrase where you're trying to simply presume your opinion alongside a weak argument. The agency is not a person.

I'm making perfectly reasonable arguments; you're the one who's talking nonsense. If there's something you think I have yet to prove why don't you say what it is instead of just calling my arguments weak without offering any counter?

>I.e. you’re going to need a better rubric.

I see nothing wrong with the rubric I gave. It's the one the constitution set up, and therefore 100% correct from a legal perspective. Past courts having different opinions from the current one is irrelevant to that.

> The agency's own personal interpretation" is another nonsense phrase

No, it means exactly what is says. The agency has its own interpretation which has and ought to have no more legal weight than a random person's. If it's just the word "personal" you're objecting to, that's obviously a figure of speech that doesn't alter the substance of my argument.

An agency is an agency, not a court. They have exactly zero constitutionally granted authority to interpret law. Why in your view should their opinion on the law have any more weight than yours or mine, or than any other person's personal interpretation? Or more importantly, more weight than the courts; the institution created for the very purpose of interpreting the law? Because it seems very obvious to me that it shouldn't. Especially in the context of a lawsuit to which the agency is one of the parties.

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

#640

Post by vacuity »

db48x wrote: post #633
vacuity wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't schoolchildren all being bystanders or victims to a peer bully. There is a much larger asymmetry in time, money, and credibilty here.

That’s the whole reason that small claims court exists.

Wish I got a manual on small claims courts when I became an adult. Or sooner. And, like, the resources to exercise it without taking up more of my time or anything. It's a strange imbalance for something that is entirely the company's fault. Of course there are bound to be legitimate issues on either side, but for something blatant like this, I would that the burden wouldn't be on me.
Post reply on HN