Yes, please. Price and I’ll relent, taxes, just because it’s nice to know how much the gov is taking in.
Apply this everywhere, including restaurants, delivery services, etc.
Make it so that anything beside price and taxes can be ignored at the discretion of the customer. If it not in the price and it’s not a sales tax, I’m free to ignore it.
This article doesn't mention it, but at least some of these fees are actually taxes or regulatory fees that the government is just requiring that the cable company or car dealer collect on the government's behalf. How about we be fully transparent to the consumer and break all prices down into payments to the seller and payments to the government? I suspect the government would not like this.
Do you feel like having fees spelled out in the billing could hurt customers' eyes or painfully confuse them, or do you think that a customer would be able to handle all of this extra information by ignoring it?
The problem is when "the price" is presented and then the fees are presented later. Tell me the total price, and break it down separately. Most companies separate the fees so they can show a lower price and then surprise the customer later.
I don't think consumers or the government would care too much if the fees were spelled out on the bill. The government fees have a purpose and it's actually a good thing to know that, for example, we pay a fee to subsidize rural phone and internet access. The important part here is that the advertised price for the service should match the total price that's actually billed.
I think that's okay: net price + local, state and fed sales taxes in their respective buckets. But none of this service charge for that and healthcare fee for that and exclusive fee for this other.
> The Regulatory, Compliance and Intellectual Property (RCIP) Fee covers regulatory, legal, intellectual property and compliance-related expenses, including those related to customer privacy protection, anti-fraud protection, number portability and innovation, all of which enable our services to enhance your communication experience. The RCIP fee is not a government mandated fee.
> Verizon Wireless customers may get up to $100 each as part of a $100 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit over Verizon's monthly "Administrative and Telco Recovery Charge."
> But as is typical in class-action settlements, Verizon isn't admitting any wrongdoing. It also plans to keep charging the monthly fee and says it may raise it in the future.
Either their fee is wrong and they should both have to stop charging it and pay a settlement or the fee is totally fine and Verizon should pay nothing.
A lot of the time, you're quite backwards. On the contrary, cell and cable companies have been fined or smacked for describing their fees as "taxes" and similar on bills. The FCC mandated that they were not allowed to call anything a tax unless it went 100% to a government agency.
I think you've just explained exactly why we are unlikely to see any resolution to this problem. A lot of people think we need to see the taxes that go to the government so we can get mad about it. See also Grover Norquist. The consequent pain and suffering is a feature.
This is less about "show full breakdown of price in final bill",which is what I see debating here and what level should that be taken to,and more "don't advertise $X and then show $x+$y+$z unexpectedly" on final bill which I assume is less controversial .
This is an odd one, too. There is a lot of defense these companies will get for how complicated it is to price in all of the costs of business that are local taxes. Never mind that they already do this with the likes of labor and infrastructure cost variation.
I'm somewhat sympathetic to billboard advertising, as that is something that can't really do this. But the vast majority of advertising can, in fact, show this level of detail quite easily.
No. It does depend on where you live. Buying vehicles across state lines is very common and can result in significant differences in price. Doesn’t mean you couldn’t advertise the price as “for residents” or something.
> Buying vehicles across state lines is very common and can result in significant differences in price
At least in MA, you have to pay the sales tax in order to register the vehicle. It doesn't matter what state you bought the car in.
The regulators aren't letting that loophole slip in. Everyone here goes to NH to skip out on sales taxes, including the regulators that pass the sales taxes.
That's not a problem anywhere else - if you have two (or two hundred) locations with different tax rates, just calculate whatever is the highest total, and advertise that - you're definitely allowed to sell stuff for cheaper than you advertised, so if one location has a 2% lower tax rate, you can sell it cheaper there; or you can charge different pre-tax prices so that the total is the same, if that's more profitable for you; I've seen both options used when advertising prices in EU-wide international campaigns despite different VAT rates across EU countries.
So let the billboard say $5+tax. The price tag in the store should still say $5.99 - the state border doesn't go down the middle of the checkout line. If it's online and you know where I live, it should say $5.99 too.
This is what is done now, and what the FTC/FCC are trying to make illegal. The sticking point is that these specific industries have gotten very creative about what constitutes a tax or government fee, so it isn't as simple for consumers as knowing you have to tack on sales tax.
It is far easier than this framing, though. They already have to worry about high variations in every other cost that goes into what they are doing. Heck, running an ad campaign will have variable costs that are also based on location of ad.
Which is all to say that dealing with variable costs is part of doing business. That they are currently able to dodge responsibility for some things by attaching them after the fact as "fees" is kind of upsetting to me. Consider if you had them send out a service unit to fix a line in the neighborhood, and they decided to line item send you a fuel bill for the work. Was something they always had to deal with, but finding a way to keep an expense from cutting into profits by directly passing it to users is a touch crazy.
It is EXACTLY that easy: "$PRICE + applicable tax".
It's truly bizarre to see people here hurling themselves to defend slimy, deceptive business practices and acting like in 2024 this is some utterly complex insoluble problem.
And finally: too fucking bad for the businesses. Prices should be completely transparent, consumers should know precisely what they're going to be asked to pay upfront, if that creates a burden for businesses tough shit.
I get we are all nerds here who love nothing more than to examine the unlikeliest of edge cases in great depth,and that typically makes us very good at our jobs... but this is all slipping into profound apologist territory.
While there are a vast number of people from different localities laws and regulations here,for most people the issue we are trying to solve here is simple and the surcharge is not tax or regulation based. In particular, when buying vehicles dealer surcharges are one massive entry and taxes are a) already separately listed b) in great detail and c) not typically that variable. Similar with various telecom completely BS charges which are variations of "we need this money to actually be profitable" - which is fine as such,you're a business and need to be profitable,cool. But don't make me drive 50km or spend 3 hours signing up based on advertised price and then add on BS surcharges that have nothing to do with local regulation and everything to do with your business and marketing plan.
that is the problem we are trying to solve,and again,arguments here seem to veer from "let us definitely let the perfect be enemy of the good and not solve anything until my favourite clever unlikely edge case is addressed" , to "shirley I have a vested interest somewhere to be protesting this much" :)
P.s. and then there are Ticketmaster convenience fees and other companies service fees. I want to see somebody stand up and defend them here as a complicated problem and undue business burden and the right thing for the consumer :)
Just make the billboard display the correct price for where the billboard is physically located. If you have a newspaper ad, make the price correct for the main city of distribution.
Fees that may not be in general waived or avoided should not be broken out from the price. Examples: Ticketmaster "convenience" fees, Las Vegas hotel "resort" fees. AT&T / Comcast / etc "recovery" and other fees. It's disingenuous to tag contributions to the price "fees" so they can be hastily added at or near the end of a transaction, rather than just giving the true cost to a consumer up front.
What next? McDonald's $2.00 value menu plus $5.99 Oxygen and Water Fee at checkout?
The larger question about Chevron doctrine is really the issue. SCOTUS gutting Chevron will cripple the ability of the market to be regulated. You think companies charging fees is bad now? Just wait… you think you’ve seen OSHA violations now? Just wait. You think companies don’t give a shit about pollution now? Just wait.
Agency heads appointed via cronyism is undemocratic. Better we move to a system where Congress has to pass laws rather than installing yes-men into these agencies to push through their own personal agenda with little to no pushback.
Said as a person who clearly does not pay attention to Congress. Congressmen are in no way equipped to deal with minutia from agencies. They can barely pass a budget.
Think about how little your Congressperson knows about technology - a field you're presumably well-versed in. Then imagine if they brought that depth of knowledge to every single field they pass laws in.
"Leave it to Congress" is tantamount to deregulating literally everything.
This is a false dilemma fallacy. The options are not "let Congress vote on everything forever only" and "unelected agency heads rule your life". There are shades of gray between those two extremes.
Is the dilemma actually false, in actual practice?
I understand there is an infinite number of possible policies, but in a representative democracy there are usually only a couple possible policies to choose from.
What is the actual thing that will happen if the Supreme Court rules one way or another in the Chevron thing?
What is the actual thing that will happen if the Supreme Court rules one way or another in the Chevron thing?
Very roughly, the Chevron ruling ensures that federal courts give deference to executive agency policies when those policies are reasonably based on the law passed by Congress. Federal judges, lacking detailed knowledge of some specific set of regulation, cannot impose their judgement during a case - they must defer to the agency.
Overturning Chevron could allow lower-level, unelected judges impose their personal views when hearing cases (vs deferring to the agency tasked with enforcing laws). The argument that an unelected bureaucracy is "making law" doesn't pass the sniff test - those agencies are reviewed by Congress and limited by law. Federal judges have no such oversight - our primary recourse when they go off the rails is impeachment.
Super-simplified example...
Boeing doesn't want the FAA to regulate airplane doors, so they sue on the grounds regulating doors isnt explicitly listed in law as a something the FAA can regulate.
The judge hearing the case believes Boeing should be able to build doors however it wants and rules against the FAA (under Chevron, judge would be required to defer to FAA's industry knowledge).
Impact: Boeing can now install doors with fewer bolts that required without risk of being grounded by the FAA.
And the people opposing the Chevron doctrine are pushing for "let Congress vote on everything forever only".
And the Chevron doctrine is not "unelected agency heads rule your life" - remember those agency heads can make rules because Congress said they could. By doing nothing, Congress implies approval. If Congress doesn't like what they're doing, Congress can easily pass a law overriding it or even abolishing the agency.
So, instead of FAA saying "the doors have to stay attached to the fuselage (and the planes are grounded until you prove that's the case)", you want Congress to explicitly spell out every detail about airline safety on the fly as problems occur? That's sure to work out fantastic.
Why doesn’t the company boardroom just make all the decisions for the company, down to the brand of bulk toilet paper that’s going to be used at the remote branch?
Figure that out, and then you’ll figure out why Congress doesn’t just make all the decisions.
This is the key point here. There are just too many things that genuinely do need regulation and Congress simply doesn't have the time or expertise to deal with everything. Losing Chevron would leave too many things unregulated, and would make it too easy to slip an industry-friendly regulation into a large regulation bill.
The article regularly refers to Automakers (e.g. in the headline), but the actual suit is from NADA and its Texas equivalent, who represent auto dealers.
When my wife first moved here to the US (from overseas), we'd pass by some used car places and they had cars with big "$1999" and "$2799" in the windows. "Wow... they've got great prices!" she said. I burst her bubble with "that's just 'downpayment'". Eventually we went up close to one to show her "yep, the car is actually $11k, but they put $1999 in giant numbers to get you to pull in.
She's not dumb by any means, but I don't think this was legal in the UK where she came from. That was a bit of an eye-opener for me.
I once read a comment here on HN from someone in Australia, saying that, according to local laws, advertised prices must match the final price, including taxes, fees, etc. So, if the price says "$100", you're gonna pay $100. That blew my mind. I've lived in the US my whole life; I never really thought a straight-forward pricing system was possible. Seriously.
Then I remember getting kinda depressed, because the pricing system here (in the US) isn't going to change anytime soon. I recalled an article about Ticketmaster, which basically said that their system of showing the final price only at checkout, after a bunch of screens/clicks, is hugely profitable for them, almost everyone still purchases the tickets, regardless of the fees, because the process is so painful and there's really no alternative. Back to reality. Advertised ticket price = $100. Final price = $165. Ugh.
With so many local taxing jurisdiction, it's essentially impossible. I bought something from my office, and if it's shipped to my office, I pay one tax. Shipped to my home (in a neighboring county), it's a different (lower) tax.
I did some POS work for a company years back and tried to integrate 'taxes'. I was replacing an earlier system, and I used modern tax SaaS (avalara, IIRC). The client was telling me all my taxes were wrong, but... digging in... Avalara was correct, and the client had been calculating and collecting taxes wrong for... about 15 years. I had no way to try to figure out how they were doing it 'wrong' to match how they'd been doing it. This had to do with 'service/labor' income vs 'product' vs 'chemicals' they used. Different counties in the same state had different rates (which changed over different months/years historically). Tribal lands had different rules still.
The biggest lesson I took from that was... if you do something (tax calculations), do it consistently and uniformly. Should they have been audited, it may have looked a bit better that they were at least consistent in their tax issues, instead of looking like they were explicitly trying to somehow intentionally scam customers or the govt.
I don't think that's true. India for example has a ton of different taxes and until a few years ago the differences between states and different products were significant. Yet that didn't make it impossible, because everyone was already used to it.
> India for example has a ton of different taxes and until a few years ago the differences between states and different products were significant
India has two, maybe three, levels of taxation: central, state and maybe local. In America, you may have dozens of overlapping cities, counties, water districts, school districts and high school districts before we get to municipal, state and federal.
My own experience in a few different states is that it's usually just township/city, then maybe county, then state to be concerned about, but... the what is often more confusing. Selling a chemical? That's a specific tax rate. Applying that chemical? Might be a different rate, and might only be applied to the labor.
The big one that tripped up the client was not charging/collecting tax on shipping. They weren't, but the tax engine said that they should be. I think the rules on that had changed sometimes perhaps 10-15 years earlier in the areas they served, but they never kept abreast of that change. This was already several years ago, so my recollection is a bit hazy now.
1. Allow companies to advertise a price exclusive of tax (but inclusive of fees)
2. Require companies to list a single total price where the final price the customer pays is less than or equal to. So their advertised price would be inclusive of the highest tax rate the customer would be required to pay.
The oft-cited tax calculation "problem" is just an excuse.
But the collection and remittance of the taxes to the specific taxing authorities is a whole other ballgame. Whether or not you see "$499 + $17 + $12 + $34" or you see "$571" on an item... the 'correct' amounts need to be identified, accounted for and sent to the specific taxing authorities. Doing that well enough, at scale, is not trivial, depending on where you're selling to, and how much.
> Allow companies to advertise a price exclusive of tax (but inclusive of fees)
But that's what they want -- to advertise the price exclusive of tax.
And some of the fees are the same thing. They depend on different factors and aren't necessarily fixed. You could say that fixed fees have to be included, but that's an obvious loophole; they'll make the fee $5 if you're in California and $4.99 otherwise. Or $5 normally and $0 if you meet some esoteric condition that hardly anybody does, if you require the minimum fee to be included.
> Require companies to list a single total price where the final price the customer pays is less than or equal to. So their advertised price would be inclusive of the highest tax rate the customer would be required to pay.
But then they can't advertise the lower price even if that's what many or most of their customers would actually be paying. Suppose San Francisco has a weird law that would add 300% to the price of the product but only for people who live there, and you're advertising across the entire state.
Also, then they bypass it by advertising a product which is only available to be shipped to addresses in states with no sales tax or expensive regulatory requirements. When you show up and ask for that product they say it isn't available to you but here's one that is which is really the same thing under a different SKU, for the same price exclusive of local taxes and fees.
>With so many local taxing jurisdiction, it's essentially impossible.
What is this nonsense?
Businesses advertise "Widget is $PRICE + applicable tax". When you go to an individual store you pay ($PRICE + applicable tax). On the receipt it can show a breakdown of what that is.
If that's hard to do on the backend for the business too fucking bad. Consumers should know exactly what they're going to be asked to pay upfront.
You're focusing just on consumer/retail/store sort of thinking. The problem is wider than that. Figuring out where someone placed an order is sometimes required, even if it will be delivered or provided somewhere else. Understanding the use case - you may be selling a service, but if the service is performed in different locales, the service may be taxed at different rates. Advertising a service for $399, but performed in different counties, will mean a different tax rate. Now... you can figure it out after the fact, and charge everyone a flat $399, and pay the different taxes yourself (so your revenue might $380, $370, $360, etc), or you add on variable tax based on where that service is done, so the purchaser is paying $399 + ($local tax rate).
Be transparent with the price, tell the consumer precisely what they're going to be paying upfront. If it's hard, too bad, figure it out or don't be in business. At least that's how it should be.
"Prices shown for delivery to Denmark, click here to change delivery location." (based on GeoIP lookup, or a previous purchase if I'm logged in/cookied.)
> With so many local taxing jurisdiction, it's essentially impossible.
You can't honestly believe that only the US has different tax rates depending on which state/city you are in?
Obviously it could be difficult but once the sale happens you need to know the final price. So if you can figure out when selling the good you can figure it out when advertising the good.
"Impossible" to have one single price that is applicable to every single potential buyer in all cases.
Easiest example: if a computer is advertised as $2199 "including all taxes!" and a buyer who is tax exempt is buying... they wouldn't pay the $2199 advertised price (or... shouldn't).
I'm fairly sure the same is true in India, however I think restaurants/eateries can have exceptions but it is mandatory to mention if tax is not included in listed prices.
Fun fact: India also has a system called MRP or maximum retail price. This is a price printed on the product at the factory, above which a shop cannot sell it. So no up-charging based on where you're buying it.
It is all about priorities. Do you want a feel good law that requires final price, or to pay less? I've just priced same import car in US and Australia. Yes, the manufacturer website in Australia lists all junk fees (Appointment fee???) upfront. But I'd rather deal with a surprise "doc fee" and pay 33% less.
How does consumer protection === higher prices? And anyway I would rather that nobody be scammed out of money instead of a select few with the means to play the game (who could afford to pay more anyway) coming out on top.
My favorite thing is the documentation fee. Yeah, we're going to charge you a fee because we're selling you a car and we have to put in some information. Tax? Title? License? Don't forget the bullshit documentation fee. How about the fee just because we can fee. Nitrogen in the tires? Window tint that we install on every car that touches our lot no matter what that we up charge 100% on?
And then how about an extended warranty? Want to finance through us so we can double dip?
Buying a car in America is one big show and dance as to who can screw the customer the most. And then god forbid you need to get service on the vehicle, they will do everything they possibly can to make sure it's not covered under warranty.
Yeah, with some rare exceptions, I think I agree: even if you happen across an untrustworthy person in person-to-person sales, at least they don't have the additional benefit of a whole infrastructure around them set up specifically to aid in screwing you.
Right. People tell me "but how can you trust a perfect stranger?" To which I reply most people selling cars are honest. Most car salesmen are dishonest. I trust private sellers more than I trust car salesmen.
Get the car checked out by a trusted mechanic or shop before buying it (a mechanic or shop that you've used before). They charge less than $200. Yes, they can miss problems, but they're not going to miss obvious problems. i've done this and the buyers never had a problem with it. If the buyer pressures you, "I've got 3 other people lined up to buy", then walk. You don't need THAT car THAT badly.
I've never heard of getting a new car checked out before driving it. Interesting. What would you expect to find? That the car might have been abused at the dealership before it was sold?
Lots of new cars have been damaged. It isn't every car, but enough that one should look. Sometimes it is little things like dents done during shipping and fixed by the local dealer. Then there are occasional major repairs done if something went wrong at the factory during assembly. And we cannot forget that Tesla that was delivered "new" but missing a brake pad.
QC/QA isn't an infallible process (see: Boeing) and defects or even missing parts may well slip by as the vehicle leaves the factory. Though, I haven't gone so far as to have a new car inspected by a mechanic, personally.
Every time I've purchased a used car from a real person, getting it to my mechanic for a once-over has never been a problem. Usually, they've let me take the car there myself pre-purchase, sometimes wanting me to leave some sort of collateral (such as the car I drove to them in). They already know where I live and what my phone number is, so if I steal their car, the cops won't have any problem finding me.
A couple of times, I've been fine with buying the car first, but with a clause in a sales contract saying that I have the right to return the car within 3 days for a full refund (basically replicating the effects of my state's lemon law. The lemon law only applies to new car purchases).
But the mechanic's check has never actually revealed any issues that the seller hadn't already disclosed to me. People tend to be pretty honest about those sorts of things.
Genuine question, how do you find a trusted mechanic? I know close to nothing about cars. Just the basic things I need to do to maintain it really. I find the space intimidating because I don’t have the ability to sus out the people I’m interacting with, and my impression of the field is that it’s kinda “get all you can” out of a customer. Ultimately I end up leasing so I get the two years free maintenance and oil changes and never have a vehicle long enough to have to deal with real issues. I have good credit so I don’t feel too bad about the trade off just for the sake of not having to worry about cars. I basically have the feeling I imagine tech illiterate people get when they talk to Best Buy geek squad employees but for me it’s with cars.
Except it would be a complete dud, have spun bearings masked with thick oil, any number of issues. Oh and then you get to pay tax on that purchase again.
You can get it looked over by a mechanic before you buy. You can take it on a test drive - I thought this was standard practice. And I'll mention that your likelihood of major horribleness is much less if you are buying a newer car rather than an older one.
And yes, you might have to pay taxes, but you get that with the dealership as well. Dealerships aren't immune to taxes.
One could also say that ownership is theft: you're putting up a fence and preventing other people from using a resource, backed with a gun.
More reasonable people acknowledge that there are obligations both ways: Society has an obligation to the individual (private rights and ownership), and individuals have an obligation to society (taxes and limitations on what you can do to private property).
I do agree that sales taxes seem kind of weird and arbitrary way to collect society's obligations. Personally I prefer something along the lines of Georgeism, where only property is taxed. This makes the ownership / taxation thing symmetric.
In practice, we seem to be electing people whose main difference is which country we're going to bomb next year. It would sure be nice to vote for someone who'd use all that money for something actually useful, and who could credibly win. But so far I haven't seen any such. Which is not surprising, since the people who get elected through the current system have a vested interest in maintaining it, no matter which side of the aisle they're on other issues.
I have always preferred buying used cars from real people over used car companies because the companies tend to be sleazy.
I've never been burned or disappointed buying from a real person. I've bought two cars from used car dealers and deeply regretted both of those purchases.
In contrast, buying my Tesla new was about as easy as any Amazon order. I don't know why other car manufacturers don't make D2C a bigger focus for their business.
My Polestar purchase was essentially the same way. PS put restrictions on what the dealership could actually offer as addons (tow-hook, overhead rais for skis, and all weather door mats; all official addons), which meant that I walked in, signed the deal, and was out in about 30 minutes.
Still not as ideal as other countries, but cest la vie.
IIRC dealerships were required because manufacturers were screwing over customers before. So much of modern society is ultimately due to path dependence
Dealerships were required because the carmakers started consolidating and dealing with incumbents in a consolidated market is terrible. But it doesn't actually work because you're still ultimately dealing with them indirectly. The actual solution should have been to break up the Big Three, though of course that happened anyway as foreign competitors came into the market and the argument for continued bans on direct sales has essentially evaporated.
The exception is service, because that's actually a separate market and not just a middle man on sales in the original market. Prohibiting manufacturers from operating service centers and leaving it to independent mechanics is essentially a ban on vertical integration and still makes a lot of sense. Because service for a particular model of car is in many ways back to being a consolidated market, since that model may need specific parts or tools and you still want to maintain a competitive market for service for customers with that model of car. You also want to make sure mechanics can service cars of multiple makes, since that fosters competition too.
Tesla sells cars to most states D2C so while I agree it is unfortunately illegal in some places, it doesn't seem to be omnipresent. I think mainstream vendors are just slow to sacrifice their relationships with dealers, who are currently 100% of their sales.
This is why it's important to note that the group arguing against the FTC is not the automakers, it's auto dealers. the NADA is the associate of auto dealers, not manufacturers
I agree, though I think in order to be fair, we need to do an apples-to-apples comparison.
Most people go into a car dealer expecting to haggle. For better or worse, we know they're going to screw around and so we're prepared to do battle. If you go into it with a different mindset, it can be pretty painless most of the time.
Walk in the door and offer them MSRP. Then fill out the DMV registration paperwork, give them your payment, and leave with the car. It won't be quite as smooth as Tesla because you're not pre-filling this out online, but it is still pretty painless.
During the pandemic this wouldn't work because the market was commanding premiums on available stock. That means mark-ups from dealers, but Tesla is hardly immune -- go look at what a Model 3 was priced at later in 2022. The difference is that dealers at least have -some- competition. Tesla just tells you what you must pay.
Because avocado farmers don't want to set up a retail store selling exclusively avocados in each and every little town, they want to sell them in bulk to grocery store chains.
Manufacturer-to-consumer sales make the most sense for big ticket items and things that can be easily sold over the internet. Retail stores can make more sense for perishable goods and things you might want to inspect before purchasing and convenience purchases and things with a high ratio of shipping cost to price etc.
It's fine for them to cover the costs. They just have to include all the price (except sales tax in the USA for some reason) in the price tag just like every other company. You don't go to McDonalds, order some food that says $5, and then pay $5 for the food, $3.99 for being allowed to eat it, and $0.99 for processing the transaction.
I've leased 3 Nissan Leafs from the same salesman because he has a no-bs pricing model. What he advertises is exactly what you pay, no additional fees or anything. He earned a bunch of #1 salesman of the year in the world awards precisely because of that, so maybe others have something to learn.
Last renewal, the Nissans were out of my budget so I had to go with a different car, and I was brutally reminded of how absolutely awful the experience is: after seeing an ad online and emailing the salesguy to confirm the complete pricing, once I got there he started the dog&pony show of "let me talk to my manager", "that was actually just for one specific car which we already sold", "but that doesn't include these 7 fees we're adding to all cars", etc. It was disgusting.
The way to do it now is entirely by email. If they won't take the time to write up an actual sales agreement and sign it, stop talking to them. Never ever go into a dealership with just a promise to act in good faith.
> I've leased 3 Nissan Leafs from the same salesman because he has a no-bs pricing model. What he advertises is exactly what you pay, no additional fees or anything. He earned a bunch of #1 salesman of the year in the world awards precisely because of that, so maybe others have something to learn.
This is what Saturn did in the 1990s across the entire brand and customers loved it.
Then they stopped making their own cars. The Saturn Ion was a Chevy Cobalt with a Saturn badge. But that doesn't work because they can't set the Saturn price in a way that saves both the customer and the dealer the trouble of haggling or customers wouldn't go to the Chevy dealer, whereas if they set the same MSRP for the same car then customers go to the Chevy dealer so they can haggle for a discount. And you can't split the difference or customers self-select and nobody pays MSRP at the Chevy dealer. Then when that didn't work they discontinued the brand instead of going back to the original model.
Most online stores that do that, when you're about to checkout, they ask you if you want to add a previously viewed item, or some other kind of add-on, etc. Its a sales tactic and I can see how it works. If the FTC is to regulate this, to make it fair I'd say broaden the scope to make it more general for other stores and domains.
I just finished ordering groceries just a few minutes ago. I make heavy use of the site's carousel listing my previously purchased items. It is a huge time saver for me since I re-order things all the time. They offer one on the main page after logging in, but offer it again at check-out. More than once, I've found something I was about to forget. Since it's something I use and find useful, I don't think of it as a sales tactic in a negative manner. Not to say that there are not different versions that are more on the dark arts side though
Sure but the tradeoff is that either you accidentally order more things than you need (based on retailer recommendation), or you have to do a new order because you forgot (when there are no retailer recommendations). Some retailers allow you to modify an existing order, which can partially solve the problem as well. Overall, I think its not a good idea for a retailer to be so pushy at checkout especially when I want to checkout quickly and get back to doing whatever I was doing.
> As it stands, Congress passes a (often vague and badly written) law, and it’s up to regulators with very tailored knowledge (on subjects ranging from wireless spectrum management to emission controls) to implement useful rules within the confines of the law.
To what degree is this actually true?
My experience with regulators is that they often do not have "very tailored knowledge" - they are just cogs in their own machine. They are often generalists whose skills are more transferrable to other regulatory branches than they are to the industries in question.
This is simple without getting the state to meddle in the business of private individuals. Just set FairBusiness, LLC.
Businesses who want clients have to be certified by FairBusiness in how they don't screw up customers. Customers who want to find the nearest non-screwing business have to pay a listing annual fee to FairBusiness, LLC. And thus the market polices itself. No need for noisy governmental agency.
But guess what? There are plenty of underhanded businesses that could care less about a bad rating from the BBB, because the type of customer they're fleecing is not particularly savvy. Think elderly folks who are a little too trusting, or immigrants with a bit of a language barrier who aren't familiar with the BBB.
This type of "buyer beware" position describes the exact problem US auto dealerships already take advantage of, and advocating for more uses of this methodology doesn't address any of the actual problems, and makes the problems the industry are currently facing actively worse.
I agree with you in principle. However, I've had occasion to deal pretty often with elderly friends and family lately, and there's a clear problem there. Many of us lose a lot of our ability to think critically or recognize the latest scam flavor when we get into our 80s (or thereabouts). I've seen it repeatedly. People I know who are smart, who had careers as engineers, accountants, etc.
Also, BBB is basically just pre-Internet Yelp. Their business model is to extort businesses for better ratings, not to actually provide useful ratings to end-users.
Whoops! Someone who happens to be very good friends - no official association - with the C-suite of (WLOG) Stellantis NA has sent FairBusiness, LLC's CEO a bottle of Château Lafite Rothschild. He'd just like to invite you to dinner. In Las Vegas. He'll fly you out, no, really, it's no trouble.
Maybe you balk and refuse. Sure, we've got EquiConsumer, LLC ready to go and backed by a $30M grant and an ad campaign by WPP. And we'll wait and try again with the guy who replaces you as CEO. Or you can play ball and take the flight and the steak and the four tickets to the Sphere.
This is an example of corporations working directly counter to the interests of consumers. I reluctantly concede that we need government intervention in this case.
It’s only coincidental that companies work in the interest of consumers. Profit is the only real incentive. Often times, the profit and consumer benefit are aligned, but it’s because of feedback systems like public reputation, product usefulness, pricing, and government regulation that those two things are coupled at all.
There’s no inherent reason why any business must work in the interests of consumers. Without social or government regulation, the dynamic reduces to an oscillatory predator/prey system, where maximal profit is extracted at any cost until the consumer base is damaged. The damaged consumer base reduces profits and causes the company to extract less, allowing the consumer base to recover… repeat.
It's truly amazing how hard they're fighting against the idea of actually telling people what things cost in an honest and transparent fashion. It doesn't speak well of their intentions.
It’s not just cars and cable, most services are loaded with “fees”, what is the point of a price sticker if you gonna charge whatever you want, it should be like retail, you have to charge what is posted.
126 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 207 ms ] threadApply this everywhere, including restaurants, delivery services, etc.
Make it so that anything beside price and taxes can be ignored at the discretion of the customer. If it not in the price and it’s not a sales tax, I’m free to ignore it.
They add their own misleadingly named fees to give the illusion that they're direct taxes paid to the government. For example, Vonage: https://support.vonage.com/articles/answer/Regulatory-Compli...
> The Regulatory, Compliance and Intellectual Property (RCIP) Fee covers regulatory, legal, intellectual property and compliance-related expenses, including those related to customer privacy protection, anti-fraud protection, number portability and innovation, all of which enable our services to enhance your communication experience. The RCIP fee is not a government mandated fee.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/01/verizon-wont-sto...
> Verizon Wireless customers may get up to $100 each as part of a $100 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit over Verizon's monthly "Administrative and Telco Recovery Charge."
> But as is typical in class-action settlements, Verizon isn't admitting any wrongdoing. It also plans to keep charging the monthly fee and says it may raise it in the future.
Either their fee is wrong and they should both have to stop charging it and pay a settlement or the fee is totally fine and Verizon should pay nothing.
This is less about "show full breakdown of price in final bill",which is what I see debating here and what level should that be taken to,and more "don't advertise $X and then show $x+$y+$z unexpectedly" on final bill which I assume is less controversial .
I'm somewhat sympathetic to billboard advertising, as that is something that can't really do this. But the vast majority of advertising can, in fact, show this level of detail quite easily.
At least in MA, you have to pay the sales tax in order to register the vehicle. It doesn't matter what state you bought the car in.
The regulators aren't letting that loophole slip in. Everyone here goes to NH to skip out on sales taxes, including the regulators that pass the sales taxes.
This is what is done now, and what the FTC/FCC are trying to make illegal. The sticking point is that these specific industries have gotten very creative about what constitutes a tax or government fee, so it isn't as simple for consumers as knowing you have to tack on sales tax.
Which is all to say that dealing with variable costs is part of doing business. That they are currently able to dodge responsibility for some things by attaching them after the fact as "fees" is kind of upsetting to me. Consider if you had them send out a service unit to fix a line in the neighborhood, and they decided to line item send you a fuel bill for the work. Was something they always had to deal with, but finding a way to keep an expense from cutting into profits by directly passing it to users is a touch crazy.
It is EXACTLY that easy: "$PRICE + applicable tax".
It's truly bizarre to see people here hurling themselves to defend slimy, deceptive business practices and acting like in 2024 this is some utterly complex insoluble problem.
And finally: too fucking bad for the businesses. Prices should be completely transparent, consumers should know precisely what they're going to be asked to pay upfront, if that creates a burden for businesses tough shit.
While there are a vast number of people from different localities laws and regulations here,for most people the issue we are trying to solve here is simple and the surcharge is not tax or regulation based. In particular, when buying vehicles dealer surcharges are one massive entry and taxes are a) already separately listed b) in great detail and c) not typically that variable. Similar with various telecom completely BS charges which are variations of "we need this money to actually be profitable" - which is fine as such,you're a business and need to be profitable,cool. But don't make me drive 50km or spend 3 hours signing up based on advertised price and then add on BS surcharges that have nothing to do with local regulation and everything to do with your business and marketing plan.
that is the problem we are trying to solve,and again,arguments here seem to veer from "let us definitely let the perfect be enemy of the good and not solve anything until my favourite clever unlikely edge case is addressed" , to "shirley I have a vested interest somewhere to be protesting this much" :)
P.s. and then there are Ticketmaster convenience fees and other companies service fees. I want to see somebody stand up and defend them here as a complicated problem and undue business burden and the right thing for the consumer :)
What next? McDonald's $2.00 value menu plus $5.99 Oxygen and Water Fee at checkout?
"Leave it to Congress" is tantamount to deregulating literally everything.
I understand there is an infinite number of possible policies, but in a representative democracy there are usually only a couple possible policies to choose from.
What is the actual thing that will happen if the Supreme Court rules one way or another in the Chevron thing?
Very roughly, the Chevron ruling ensures that federal courts give deference to executive agency policies when those policies are reasonably based on the law passed by Congress. Federal judges, lacking detailed knowledge of some specific set of regulation, cannot impose their judgement during a case - they must defer to the agency.
Overturning Chevron could allow lower-level, unelected judges impose their personal views when hearing cases (vs deferring to the agency tasked with enforcing laws). The argument that an unelected bureaucracy is "making law" doesn't pass the sniff test - those agencies are reviewed by Congress and limited by law. Federal judges have no such oversight - our primary recourse when they go off the rails is impeachment.
Super-simplified example... Boeing doesn't want the FAA to regulate airplane doors, so they sue on the grounds regulating doors isnt explicitly listed in law as a something the FAA can regulate.
The judge hearing the case believes Boeing should be able to build doors however it wants and rules against the FAA (under Chevron, judge would be required to defer to FAA's industry knowledge).
Impact: Boeing can now install doors with fewer bolts that required without risk of being grounded by the FAA.
And the Chevron doctrine is not "unelected agency heads rule your life" - remember those agency heads can make rules because Congress said they could. By doing nothing, Congress implies approval. If Congress doesn't like what they're doing, Congress can easily pass a law overriding it or even abolishing the agency.
Figure that out, and then you’ll figure out why Congress doesn’t just make all the decisions.
She's not dumb by any means, but I don't think this was legal in the UK where she came from. That was a bit of an eye-opener for me.
Then I remember getting kinda depressed, because the pricing system here (in the US) isn't going to change anytime soon. I recalled an article about Ticketmaster, which basically said that their system of showing the final price only at checkout, after a bunch of screens/clicks, is hugely profitable for them, almost everyone still purchases the tickets, regardless of the fees, because the process is so painful and there's really no alternative. Back to reality. Advertised ticket price = $100. Final price = $165. Ugh.
I did some POS work for a company years back and tried to integrate 'taxes'. I was replacing an earlier system, and I used modern tax SaaS (avalara, IIRC). The client was telling me all my taxes were wrong, but... digging in... Avalara was correct, and the client had been calculating and collecting taxes wrong for... about 15 years. I had no way to try to figure out how they were doing it 'wrong' to match how they'd been doing it. This had to do with 'service/labor' income vs 'product' vs 'chemicals' they used. Different counties in the same state had different rates (which changed over different months/years historically). Tribal lands had different rules still.
The biggest lesson I took from that was... if you do something (tax calculations), do it consistently and uniformly. Should they have been audited, it may have looked a bit better that they were at least consistent in their tax issues, instead of looking like they were explicitly trying to somehow intentionally scam customers or the govt.
India has two, maybe three, levels of taxation: central, state and maybe local. In America, you may have dozens of overlapping cities, counties, water districts, school districts and high school districts before we get to municipal, state and federal.
The big one that tripped up the client was not charging/collecting tax on shipping. They weren't, but the tax engine said that they should be. I think the rules on that had changed sometimes perhaps 10-15 years earlier in the areas they served, but they never kept abreast of that change. This was already several years ago, so my recollection is a bit hazy now.
1. Allow companies to advertise a price exclusive of tax (but inclusive of fees)
2. Require companies to list a single total price where the final price the customer pays is less than or equal to. So their advertised price would be inclusive of the highest tax rate the customer would be required to pay.
The oft-cited tax calculation "problem" is just an excuse.
But the collection and remittance of the taxes to the specific taxing authorities is a whole other ballgame. Whether or not you see "$499 + $17 + $12 + $34" or you see "$571" on an item... the 'correct' amounts need to be identified, accounted for and sent to the specific taxing authorities. Doing that well enough, at scale, is not trivial, depending on where you're selling to, and how much.
But that's what they want -- to advertise the price exclusive of tax.
And some of the fees are the same thing. They depend on different factors and aren't necessarily fixed. You could say that fixed fees have to be included, but that's an obvious loophole; they'll make the fee $5 if you're in California and $4.99 otherwise. Or $5 normally and $0 if you meet some esoteric condition that hardly anybody does, if you require the minimum fee to be included.
> Require companies to list a single total price where the final price the customer pays is less than or equal to. So their advertised price would be inclusive of the highest tax rate the customer would be required to pay.
But then they can't advertise the lower price even if that's what many or most of their customers would actually be paying. Suppose San Francisco has a weird law that would add 300% to the price of the product but only for people who live there, and you're advertising across the entire state.
Also, then they bypass it by advertising a product which is only available to be shipped to addresses in states with no sales tax or expensive regulatory requirements. When you show up and ask for that product they say it isn't available to you but here's one that is which is really the same thing under a different SKU, for the same price exclusive of local taxes and fees.
What is this nonsense?
Businesses advertise "Widget is $PRICE + applicable tax". When you go to an individual store you pay ($PRICE + applicable tax). On the receipt it can show a breakdown of what that is.
If that's hard to do on the backend for the business too fucking bad. Consumers should know exactly what they're going to be asked to pay upfront.
Be transparent with the price, tell the consumer precisely what they're going to be paying upfront. If it's hard, too bad, figure it out or don't be in business. At least that's how it should be.
You can't honestly believe that only the US has different tax rates depending on which state/city you are in?
Obviously it could be difficult but once the sale happens you need to know the final price. So if you can figure out when selling the good you can figure it out when advertising the good.
"Impossible" to have one single price that is applicable to every single potential buyer in all cases.
Easiest example: if a computer is advertised as $2199 "including all taxes!" and a buyer who is tax exempt is buying... they wouldn't pay the $2199 advertised price (or... shouldn't).
Fun fact: India also has a system called MRP or maximum retail price. This is a price printed on the product at the factory, above which a shop cannot sell it. So no up-charging based on where you're buying it.
And then how about an extended warranty? Want to finance through us so we can double dip?
Buying a car in America is one big show and dance as to who can screw the customer the most. And then god forbid you need to get service on the vehicle, they will do everything they possibly can to make sure it's not covered under warranty.
A couple of times, I've been fine with buying the car first, but with a clause in a sales contract saying that I have the right to return the car within 3 days for a full refund (basically replicating the effects of my state's lemon law. The lemon law only applies to new car purchases).
But the mechanic's check has never actually revealed any issues that the seller hadn't already disclosed to me. People tend to be pretty honest about those sorts of things.
"I'm looking to buy a used car and wanted somewhere to give it a once-over? Do you do that? If so, how much and do you have availability on (day)?"
And yes, you might have to pay taxes, but you get that with the dealership as well. Dealerships aren't immune to taxes.
More reasonable people acknowledge that there are obligations both ways: Society has an obligation to the individual (private rights and ownership), and individuals have an obligation to society (taxes and limitations on what you can do to private property).
I do agree that sales taxes seem kind of weird and arbitrary way to collect society's obligations. Personally I prefer something along the lines of Georgeism, where only property is taxed. This makes the ownership / taxation thing symmetric.
If you aren't getting much value for your taxes, perhaps elect better people to handle that tax money.
I've never been burned or disappointed buying from a real person. I've bought two cars from used car dealers and deeply regretted both of those purchases.
Still not as ideal as other countries, but cest la vie.
Because in most cases it's literally illegal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_dealerships_in_the_United_...
The exception is service, because that's actually a separate market and not just a middle man on sales in the original market. Prohibiting manufacturers from operating service centers and leaving it to independent mechanics is essentially a ban on vertical integration and still makes a lot of sense. Because service for a particular model of car is in many ways back to being a consolidated market, since that model may need specific parts or tools and you still want to maintain a competitive market for service for customers with that model of car. You also want to make sure mechanics can service cars of multiple makes, since that fosters competition too.
Most people go into a car dealer expecting to haggle. For better or worse, we know they're going to screw around and so we're prepared to do battle. If you go into it with a different mindset, it can be pretty painless most of the time.
Walk in the door and offer them MSRP. Then fill out the DMV registration paperwork, give them your payment, and leave with the car. It won't be quite as smooth as Tesla because you're not pre-filling this out online, but it is still pretty painless.
During the pandemic this wouldn't work because the market was commanding premiums on available stock. That means mark-ups from dealers, but Tesla is hardly immune -- go look at what a Model 3 was priced at later in 2022. The difference is that dealers at least have -some- competition. Tesla just tells you what you must pay.
So does Dell or Samsung. That doesn't mean they have no competitors.
And the carmaker is ultimately deciding what the dealer has to pay, so what's the difference except another middle man wanting a cut?
Manufacturer-to-consumer sales make the most sense for big ticket items and things that can be easily sold over the internet. Retail stores can make more sense for perishable goods and things you might want to inspect before purchasing and convenience purchases and things with a high ratio of shipping cost to price etc.
Last renewal, the Nissans were out of my budget so I had to go with a different car, and I was brutally reminded of how absolutely awful the experience is: after seeing an ad online and emailing the salesguy to confirm the complete pricing, once I got there he started the dog&pony show of "let me talk to my manager", "that was actually just for one specific car which we already sold", "but that doesn't include these 7 fees we're adding to all cars", etc. It was disgusting.
This is what Saturn did in the 1990s across the entire brand and customers loved it.
Then they stopped making their own cars. The Saturn Ion was a Chevy Cobalt with a Saturn badge. But that doesn't work because they can't set the Saturn price in a way that saves both the customer and the dealer the trouble of haggling or customers wouldn't go to the Chevy dealer, whereas if they set the same MSRP for the same car then customers go to the Chevy dealer so they can haggle for a discount. And you can't split the difference or customers self-select and nobody pays MSRP at the Chevy dealer. Then when that didn't work they discontinued the brand instead of going back to the original model.
To what degree is this actually true?
My experience with regulators is that they often do not have "very tailored knowledge" - they are just cogs in their own machine. They are often generalists whose skills are more transferrable to other regulatory branches than they are to the industries in question.
But guess what? There are plenty of underhanded businesses that could care less about a bad rating from the BBB, because the type of customer they're fleecing is not particularly savvy. Think elderly folks who are a little too trusting, or immigrants with a bit of a language barrier who aren't familiar with the BBB.
This kind of stuff will break down trust in each other and we will all be cultivating cabbage to feed our own.
Maybe you balk and refuse. Sure, we've got EquiConsumer, LLC ready to go and backed by a $30M grant and an ad campaign by WPP. And we'll wait and try again with the guy who replaces you as CEO. Or you can play ball and take the flight and the steak and the four tickets to the Sphere.
There’s no inherent reason why any business must work in the interests of consumers. Without social or government regulation, the dynamic reduces to an oscillatory predator/prey system, where maximal profit is extracted at any cost until the consumer base is damaged. The damaged consumer base reduces profits and causes the company to extract less, allowing the consumer base to recover… repeat.