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

641–650 of 691 posts

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

#641

Post by llamaimperative »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #639
llamaimperative wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

> 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.

Okay so on June 27, 2024, the "100% correct from a legal perspective" was that courts defer to agencies when they have reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes.

On June 28, 2024, the "100% correct from a legal perspective" was that courts should not defer to agencies when they have reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes.

Each of these decisions define which structure "the Constitution set up." This fact is itself defined in the Constitution.

Your argument that this is a good decision because it's "Constitutionally correct" is literally just begging the question. It is an entirely circular argument that could just as easily have been applied to defend Chevron. If your argument can be used to defend either side of it, it's a bad argument.

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

#642

Post by t0mas88 »

zo1 wrote: post #617
listenallyall wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, if it works, why not send the letter first and not waste an hour on the phone?

Or even more importantly, why aren't lawyers and consumer protection organizations promoting and spreading this knowledge? The lawyer field is captured and they know they'd get taken to court by other lawyers if they "recommended" such a thing, because their industry has made them liable for things they "recommend".

Probably indeed a US liability thing. The FTC-like agency in my country publishes standard letters for this and a tool on their website to find the right letter or generate it based on some input.

We still get the same consumer-hostile practices from companies, but usually they give up if you send them one of those letters.

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

#643

Post by Ajedi32 »

llamaimperative wrote: post #641
Ajedi32 wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

> 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. Okay so on June 27, 2024, the "100% correct from a legal perspective" was that courts defer to agencies when they have reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes. On June 28, 2024, the "100% correct from a legal perspective" was that court…

Okay thank you. That's actually a clear argument.

When I say things like "the courts are the mechanism our constitution defines for resolving disputes about the interpretation of law", I am making a principled argument based on my understanding of the Constitution and the Separation of Powers, not based on anything the Supreme Court has or has not said.

The United States Constitution defines three separate branches of government:

1. The Legislative Branch, which makes law

2. The Judicial Branch, which interprets law

3. The Executive Branch, which enforces law

These branches are intentionally separated from each other to prevent the concentration of power, and so that each branch can serve as a check and balance on the powers of the other branches.

Government agencies are part of the Executive Branch, which enforces law. They are not part of the Judicial Branch, which interprets law. Therefore, they should not have a role in interpreting the law, and granting them that power breaks this simple fundamental principle of the Constitution.

This is civics 101 level stuff. It doesn't seem like it should be controversial to me, which is why I've been asserting it as true without feeling the need to try to justify my points beyond those assertions.

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

#644

Post by FateOfNations »

runako wrote: post #572
FateOfNations wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least here in California, the state collects the sales tax on behalf of all the local jurisdictions, so they publish and update them all simultaneously (twice a year) and in the same format.

Interesting...there must be a state law that requires jurisdictions to synchronize any changes to sales tax rates to a single calendar.

Technically, jurisdictions could try to collect the taxes directly, but they generally lack the infrastructure for it, and it isn't feasible to set it up. Instead, they must play by the state's rules if they want the state to collect for them. Jurisdictions also can't customize exemptions; they can only add an incremental percentage amount to the existing general state sales tax. In general, it's in everyone's best interest to play along.

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

#645

Post by mulmen »

Alupis wrote: post #631
mulmen wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ar…

> 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.

But those decisions are worthless without people to carry them out.

> They are usually also directly responsible for millions of dollars in salaries every month.

So what? The salaries may add up to millions but what’s the denominator? This doesn’t justify a 100x multiplier on earnings.

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

Are you including sales, property, and state income tax?

Median income in the US is $80,610.00. The effective federal income tax rate at that income level is 16.23% but that assumes no deductions. In reality the median earner is going to take the standard deduction for $13,850.00 so they’re only going to pay federal income tax on $66,760.00 so their effective rate is 15.04%. This doesn’t consider student loan payments, mortgage interest deductions, or retirement account contributions, which will further lower the effective rate.

This is for the median income. For lower incomes the effect is even more dramatic.

So the only way most of the lower and middle class pay more than 20% is if you count all taxes paid. But that means for your flat 20%-no-deductions tax to be a better deal it has to come with an abolition of all other taxes.

If so how do municipalities get funding? Does it all come from the federal government?

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

#646

Post by shitlord »

zeagle wrote: post #595
mrguyorama wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Class action is an utter joke that has done nothing more than FURTHER commodify harming consumers for a price. If a company sends you a $2 check ten years after they recognize a profit from defrauding you or lying to you or harming you, that's not a punishment, and is certainly not an incentive to not do those things.

In practice they serve to enrich lawyers and that’s about it.

That's not true. They also enrich the lawyers' preferred nonprofit organizations.

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

#647

Post by tzs »

Alupis wrote: post #632
tzs wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Having a progressive rate with no deductions or credits would also accomplish getting rid of the quibbling.

The big argument for a progressive rate over a fixed rate is that 10% from someone making $15 000 has a much bigger impact on their lifestyle than 10% from someone making $15 000 000.

With no deductions and credits 10% on $15 000, especially for someone with kids, can mean the tax is coming from money that otherwise would have went toward basic things like food and heat and healthcare.

That's why nearly every serious flat rate tax proposal I've seen includes some kind of exemption so that tax is actually only on the income over that threshold. But once you do that it is now a progressive tax with two brackets.

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

#648

Post by olyjohn »

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.

Yeah take days off work to get $300. Totally worth it! I can't understand why everybody doesn't do it.

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

#649

Post by jjeaff »

plagiarist wrote: post #542
stainablesteel wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm their defense, most places I have stayed have never asked me to actually clean. They usually just ask that you take the trash out and do a few other things that could leave the place smelly if no one comes in the next day or two to clean.

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

#650

Post by jjeaff »

idopmstuff wrote: post #618
lobsterthief wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lawsuits are one of the few enforcement mechanisms the FTC has.

Of course, not disputing that, just saying that I think she uses that enforcement mechanism in a way that is more harmful than helpful to American consumers and the to the economy.

She also blocked the huge grocery conglomerate merger. I don't think most of their cases were of tiny acquisitions.
Post reply on HN