Comments that are bringing up taxes (which are totally exempted by this bill anyway) and tips (with one small caveat) are completely missing the point.
You can have a debate about how to display those items on a price list, but everyone knows about them and they are expected. The whole point of this bill is to prevent bait-and-switch, where loads of unknown or variable fees are tacked on after the price is initially shown.
The one caveat I'd say about a tip is if it's mandatory. E.g. if a place requires a minimum tip amount for large parties, it's no longer a tip, it's appropriately called a service charge.
Traveling to the US is for most Europeans a mightmare on this point. We are used to have a price that includes the taxes, services, delivery, wathever, you pay this much for this good ot service, and not an anachronistic 'tip' incantation for which you have to be tuned in to the latest local vibes so as not to unintentionaly run afoul of some obfuscated social rules, or you have to wip out your phone to google tax rates and calculate these on in step 2.
'Every one knows' is a very US centric view, which even I doubt is true given the degree of illiteracy and math deficiency in the overall population.
> have to be tuned in to the latest local vibes so as not to unintentionaly run afoul of some obfuscated social rules
You do realise you are travelling to a foreign country, right? This rings to me like Americans who travel to Spain and complain about the siesta, or Argentina and how late they dine.
Lots of local government means taxes change over smaller distances in America than most of the world. Also, most retailers here use paper labels—a result of historically-low inflation expectations. It’s easier to implement that complexity at check out than on the shelves. (I’d also guess that America’s credit card use means more check-out stations are digital than in much of the world.)
Add to that a cultural distrust of taxation and government, a decreasing tendency to use cash and a higher income per capita and you have a genuine difference in preferences.
"Everyone knows" is indeed US-centric in this case, but when we are talking about the state of things where it relates to a US state's law, the US-centric view is entirely fine and should be expected.
If we were talking about, say, a French law, I would expect the default assumption to be French standards and customs.
It is because you are listening to bullshit online too much.
I have lived in the US my whole life and I can't remember that last time I left a tip for anything besides a place that you sit down to eat and someone brings you food.
My first job was delivering pizza and that is something with a long social norm of tipping. A tip was a nice bonus but if someone didn't tip it didn't matter because someone else people would tip an irrationally large amount. I didn't think bad of those that didn't tip, I just assumed they were that broke.
It is not that "every one knows" it is that no one cares about this in the real world the way they do when grandstanding on social media.
This is the US, it's gonna be US-centric. But tax should be part of the price anyway for a physical store, cause there's no reason for it not to be. At least tip sorta has the point of being variable.
Disagree. Bait and switch is one symptom of the issue that the price is not what you'll pay. Which to be clear is awful.
And that matters if you have to be careful about spending. Also, "everyone knows about them", really? If it's so easy to "know" the local tax rate for various things, why isn't it easy to label them?
See the rest of the world, where even young kids can go shopping. If you give them 5 <amount of currency>, and the item they want is less than 5, or they want five of something that is 1, they can buy it.
Like I said, you can have a debate about how taxes are displayed on a price list. I respectfully disagree on solely including them in the price and making them "hidden". Calling them out is a good reminder of exactly how much you are paying for government services.
For example, the one common tax in the US that is hidden in the price is tax on gasoline. I think it would be better to specifically call this out, especially since gas taxes can vary so much by jurisdiction. I mean, pretty much all adults where I live know our sales tax rate is 8.25%, but I have actually no clue what my per-gallon tax on gas is.
> if it's so easy to "know" the local tax rate for various things, why isn't it easy to label them?
We know them generally enough to get by. That doesn’t mean calculating them precisely is a peach.
There have been stores that tried to differentiate on the basis of all-in pricing. It fails. Unless you’re paying cash or precisely monitoring spending, it doesn’t matter. (There is also a transparency argument in knowing how much is going to the business versus state.)
In summary, it’s not an issue for most Americans. (When I travel in Europe, having all-in prices doesn’t even remotely occur as a perk.) And there are ideological reasons that resonate with many Americans that are against it. Nobody to fight for it, a vocal minority against; seems like a silly hill to die on.
> See the rest of the world, where even young kids can go shopping. If you give them 5 <amount of currency>, and the item they want is less than 5, or they want five of something that is 1, they can buy it.
In the US even young kids can go shopping too. If you give them $5 + <tax on $5>. They can then buy any item whose price tag says $5 or less or 5 of any $1 item.
I really like how tips are done in most of europe, where the tip is included by default in the restaurant price. So now your choices are - add additional tip if you’re really satisfied with your service, or retract the default tip if you’ve been wronged in some way.
Just by default you don’t have to think about it, and it shows up in all the places if should - government included.
It’s not that hard. Europeans act like it’s impossible to calculate taxes in your head.
If the sales tax is 9.25%, round up to 10%, so $1 on every hundred.
I walk into a store and buy something for $7.32. Ok, I know in my head the tax is about $0.70, so cool, it’s be “about” $8.
That’s all I need to know. I don’t carry rolls of Pennie’s around so I’m not worried about the cents. He’ll, when was the last time you paid in cash?
It’s the same with Fahrenheit or miles. It’s a simple calculation, not a massive obstacle that holds Americans back from daily living or technological advances.
>If it's so easy to "know" the local tax rate for various things, why isn't it easy to label them?
Because you pay the tax from the total of your purchase and not from each item separately. E.g. in Santa Monica, CA sales tax is 10.25%, a price on a $4.95 item with tax included would be $5.46 but on 10x of these items it's just $54.58.
I always find it weird that people (usually non-Americans) get so worked up about how US prices generally exclude taxes. I agree that it would be better and clearer if listed prices were tax-included. But they're usually not in the US. That's just how it is. Chill out, get over it, it's really not that big a deal.
This particular new law is not attempting to address that. Maybe it should. But maybe doing so would be biting off too much, and its sponsors believe it would never pass if they tried that.
The purpose of this law is much less ambitious, but that's fine. Incremental improvements are better than no improvements. I am pleased that now hotels can't spring daily "resort fees" on guests after they show up for their reservation. That sort of thing.
If you live in the United States, you know that a) listed prices rarely include tax, and b) for an annoyingly large number of things, you will be expected to add a tip. If you live here and don't know that, you are not particularly well-equipped to operate in the real world, and you should learn. If you don't live here but are visiting, it's unfortunate that you might not know about these quirks of American capitalism, but the law is not really aimed at you. Sorry, but our quality-of-life laws are tailored to people who live here first and foremost.
> If it's so easy to "know" the local tax rate for various things, why isn't it easy to label them?
It's not about being easy. It's about stupid psychological effects. If I list my price tax-inclusive, and my competitor lists theirs without the tax (but ultimately will charge the same price as I will), my competitor will get more business than I will. It's dumb, but that's human psychology for you.
> See the rest of the world, where even young kids can go shopping.
Young kids can shop here just as well. They just have an extra step to learn. They deal with it just fine; kids are smart and adaptable.
In Washington State, Gov Inslee imposed the equivalent of a $.50 per gallon tax on the oil companies. The oil companies raised the WA gas prices by $.50 per gallon. Inslee blamed the price rise on the greedy oil companies.
The taxes should be a separate line item on all purchases, so people can see what the taxes are.
I've seen tax breakdown signs for gas at some California gas stations (it might be all of them for all I know). I think it would help people figure out how much of the price is taxes and how much of it is something else.
I do also like how Costco breaks down the taxes on liquor, as far as I know those taxes existed before privatization of liquor sales in Washington, its just they were hidden in the "tax in" prices Washington State Liquor stores would post.
Sure but while we're at it, let's also break out things like wholesale costs, manufacturing marginal unit cost, per-unit profits, etc. Shed some light on what every layer is getting rather than being distracted by focusing on only a single one.
And of course none of this is incompatible with still printing one big-print all-inclusive price.
The taxes are on the companies, not the people. If the companies want to pass it along to the people while swimming in record profits, instead of paying with some of those record profits, as the people want and intend: then that is a choice they must consciously choose, and yes, doing so makes them greedy.
I mean, they have a lot of money and want more. That's greed. You can argue that you're personally okay with them being greedy, or even channel your inner Gordon Gekko and say that you personally think greed is good, but you can't argue it isn't greedy.
Displayed prices should be the price you have to pay - full stop. No math required or knowledge of local municipal/state/federal tax structures, no required knowledge of local cultural expectations around tipping. Just pay the price. Just because you're accustomed to tax/tip additions doesn't mean they are in any way a good thing that should be preserved.
Do I get a breakdown of what went into each item's price on the display sticker?
Because we get that now on most (if not all) grocery stores and retailers. I can see what items in my grocery receipt were charged which of the various local taxes and can dispute them. I've had groceries miss-categorized and considered prepared food which carries a local tax in my area, but they were not prepared foods and should not have been taxed.
Having a full price up front isn't the magical cure a lot of people paint it as.
This happens a lot with apartment search engines. It used to just be a $10 trash fee or something but now they have gone so far as to add amenity fees. Good luck finding these fees on any website. So you go to view two different apartments listed at the same price online but one ends up having $50 in mandatory monthly fees and the other has $300.
Basically it should be illegal to not include any required monthly fee in an advertised price.
What isn't expected is the 3% fee for credit cards, the 2% for additional healthcare.
And yes they are on the menu, but they are hidden on at the end in fine print. I don't think that is correct.
Same goes for say renting a jet-ski. They advertise price X. I select the venue based on advertisement X, because it is cheaper than its neighbor. But the venue tacks on a mandatory $30 refilling fee that I cannot get rid of.
Or a hotel and their resort fees. The only reason it is separate is to show a lower price on the comparison sites.
If it's mandatory, it should be in the price, at least then I can compare.
And I believe that putting a 3% credit card surcharge should also be banned. If they put in a 3% cash discount, I'm fine with that. At least it allows me to compare prices.
I don't know why we can't just force everyone to show post tax/fees price upfront. It's complete bullshit that every restaurant bill comes with 3 different taxes.
I'm in Ireland, I'd say a good third of printed on labels are not even in the right currency, as companies have a single UK and Ireland SKU. It's also understood that generally it's the retailer that sets pricing, not the manfucturer, so when a book has $9.99/£8.99 printed on it and a store sticker with €12.99, nobody is confused that that's not the exchange rates, or about which price they'll pay.
Taxes are set at a multiple levels (federal, state, district, and city) so it's pretty much impossible to show the post tax price on the label. Hidden fees are a completely different issue.
That argument about multiple level taxes is always beyond me. Taxes are not stock market which changes in unknown direction constantly, they are always known at the worst weeks before implementation.
In my eastern European country even biggest supermarkets can change all labels overnight (I even bet they can can do at least twice daily - albeit with here and there confusions when there multiple labels for same good)
Almost every other country in the world has solved this problem.
It’s always fascinating when Americans have problems other countries don’t have, and just throw their hands in air saying “welp nothing we can do about it”
What do you mean "impossible" If waiter or cashier calculates final price when you pay, it must be possible to calculate it upfront. Im not aware of situations where final price would depend on the purchaser. That would be discrimination.
The good thing is that prices (in stores) are set in the store. The labels are most likely little e-ink displays. There's absolutely no reason to not show the final price there aside from wanting the advertised price to be lower than it actually is.
The same chocolate might have a different price depending on the store I go to as well and that doesn't seem to be a problem at all.
That only makes sense for an online store that's going to ship you something, in which case asking for the destination ZIP code up front solves that problem.
For brick-and-mortar stores, the store can quite easily calculate the final price of an item on its own. Sales taxes do change on occasion, but likely less often than the pricing of the items themselves do, so there's no added burden in having to update them due to tax changes.
And yet the register magically knows how much tax to add for each and every item you buy. I could maybe agree with your argument if taxes changed often, but they don't, and it's very much possible to calculate them beforehand and display full price.
I disagree. Note the California bill specifically exempts taxes from this "upfront pricing" requirement.
The reason I think listing taxes separately is OK is because (a) it is not something that the business itself has any choice over, and (b) all businesses have to tax the same for equivalent services. I think listing the taxes separately serves an important purpose to remind the purchaser about where your payments are actually going. If you don't like the fact that you have to pay 3 different taxes, well, if enough other people agree with you, you can change that.
I'd be OK with listing taxes up front (but I will say that restaurants I've been to always highlight any mandatory fees besides normal sales tax on the menu) but I'm absolutely in favor of breaking out the cost of government services on the bill.
but I will say that restaurants I've been to always highlight any mandatory fees besides normal sales tax on the menu
In San Francisco, restaurants rarely highlight the fees. They are usually in smaller font at the bottom of the menu (and maybe only on one side of a double-sided menu) and sometimes not discoverable until you get the bill.
Tartine hides the 5% surcharge at the bottom of the menu in smaller font. It's also one of three bullets: the first and third are about food safety.
What's the rationale for putting the surcharge bullet in between the two food safety bullets?
Also: if you order online from Tartine, you won't see the surcharge until you go to check out. And if you order from one of the handwritten 'daily specials' signs, you won't see the surcharge until you pay.
> The reason I think listing taxes separately is OK is because (a) it is not something that the business itself has any choice over and (b) all businesses have to tax the same for equivalent services.
(a) is really just like the price of basically all of utilities, and all the indirect taxes paid on salaries... the only difference is that they are not directly calculated on turnover. Should we also break that out?
(b) is actually an argument in favour of integrating the taxes in the prices : there's no difference between businesses, thus no need to bother the consumers with it -- in the end, they will pay something that includes the taxes, wherever they go.
> I'd be OK with listing taxes up front (but I will say that restaurants I've been to always highlight any mandatory fees besides normal sales tax on the menu) but I'm absolutely in favor of breaking out the cost of government services on the bill.
You mean like basically everywhere in the world where your receipt does show "of which VAT rate A% : X, rate B% : Y, Special Tax: Z" ?
From the article linked in the first paragraph: "The legislation — the first bill of its type across the state — would prohibit advertising a price for a good or service that does not include all required charges other than taxes and fees imposed by a government.
Why are taxes and govt fees exempt? This reeks of "rules for thee but not for me." Either to goal is to avoid misleading customers with low advertised prices, or it's not. For example, California has a ~50 cents/gallon fuel tax. Can gas stations start advertising prices that are 50 cents lower than they actually charge and be compliant with this law?
A classic example in the US is sales tax. Those are taxes determined by the final sale price which can vary depending on state, county, or city. More importantly because those fees aren't controlled by the company doing the bait and switch it's the same for every company.
This bill is very clear that the target is "prices" that reject parts of the price that are entirely set by the person selling the goods or services. e.g. Ticketmaster, etc's entirely bogus "service" charges, or airbnb's that say $x/night but have a $500 cleaning "fee".
I hear you, but the press release explicitly said that the goal of the bill is to prevent companies from attracting customers with a misleadingly low price and then charging a higher price. How are government fees and taxes -- especially industry-specific government fees that consumers may not be aware of -- not the exact thing that this bill stands against?
If anything, this just encourages lobbying and corruption. If you have a restaurant, you can't just covertly charge a 5% worker benefit fee. But you could if you're part of a restaurant lobby that turns that 5% worker benefit fee into a 5% restaurant tax that benefits restaurant workers!
Independent of the bill's goal, I also think that seeing all govt fees and taxes upfront might be a useful exercise in California and elsewhere. When fees are hidden, people forget about them and don't evaluate them. But if they are front and center, then that would hopefully make politicians more accountable. For example, the California train project has spent something like $10b so far and there's nothing to really show for it. And that money came from somewhere, but it's easy to forget about that if you're not reminded constantly. But if every driver in California paid $1 extra on every gas bill for the last 20 years for a "train tax" that was on the receipt, then maybe people would hold their government more accountable. (This is an apolitical comment: caring more can mean cancelling the train project, or funding it 3x more. Whatever constituents think is best.)
Taxes and government fees are exempt because it promotes transparency!
I wish gas stations showed taxes separately, but I'm guessing retail gas stations aren't the ones collecting and remitting those taxes. It's probably taken earlier in the supply chain.
It doesn't promote transparency. It means you still don't know how much something is going to cost by looking at the listed price of that thing. That's the opposite of transparency.
Including taxes and fees in the advertised price won't prevent stores (or anyone else) from making it clear what percentage of that price comes from taxes and government fees. I'd love to see more stores provide an itemized breakdown of those fees so that we can see how much of the price to blame on greedy vendors vs sneaky governments.
What I want most of all though is to only ever pay what the listed price of an item is. I want to be able to walk in with a single $5 bill and pay for something that says it costs $5 and have that be the end of it. It should really just be that simple. Other countries do it. We can too.
Looks like Ticketmaster, AT&T, Comcast Xfinity, Hotels with mandatory "resort fees", airlines, banks, car dealerships and rental agencies, realtors, landlords, etc. may have to make some changes.
Deceptive pricing is extremely annoying, as are stealth price increases.
I’d like to see IATA set some standards for airfares that mean you can easily search like-for-like knowing you’ll want to be able to choose your seat and have a bag. Google Flights do an OK but not perfect job at this
> Hidden fees are fees in which a seller uses an artificially low headline price to attract a customer and usually either discloses additional required fees in smaller print, or reveals additional unavoidable charges later in the buying process.
The hidden fee that I hope this deals with is the mandatory "resort fee" that is showing up more and more frequently on hotel bills. You find an online room rate for $120, go to book it, and it is $120 + $50 resort fee + taxes, and it ends up being > $200.
Expected tips are known up front, they are variable, and I certainly think it's totally fine to not tip in places where it's not usually expected, "flipping around the iPad" be damned.
It's not true that tips are known up front. E.g. when you're travelling, you don't know. And taxes are (can be) also known up front. But that's the point - avoid the guesswork and let me know what you expect me to pay.
Yes, I understand. But if you want to come to the same restaurant again and you don't tip, it may be a problem. Imagine Amazon not wanting to do business with you because you didn't add extra X% to your previous purchase.
This is a good point. When I go to a coffee shop and order a latte I am buying a latte and the appreciation of the person that makes it. If they think I’m a dick it renders my coffee undrinkable and the comfort in knowing that I’m liked should be free.
See, that's the problem, people are worried that if they don't tip that employee is going to do something to their food. That's absolutely disgusting. Maybe I should piss on the dollar before I give it to them?
We could learn from for example Japan where there is no cents and all fees included so 5000 Yen is 5000 yen no tip no tax no fees no cents it's really cortisol reducing.
Aside from the cents bit, it's like that in Australia too. If something (retail) says $30 then it's $30. If it says $30.95 then it's $30.95. It's very simple. When you're selling wholesale it's different because it's a sales tax, and that's paid by the consumer, not the retail business.
Tax is not always included in Japan in the shown price①. For example, the 100 yen stores the tax is separate so I know if I pick up five items I am paying 550 yen.(10% sales tax nationwide for almost everything.)
①However, by law the price tag is required to also show the with tax（税込） price if displaying the without tax price.
1 US cent = ~1.5 JPY. Putting the decimal point a couple digits over doesn't really change anything. If you really want to, you can tell people that you spent "100 cents" instead of "1 dollar". They'll probably look at you funny, though.
I'd be perfectly willing to tell people that I spent 100 cents as long as it meant that every time the listed price said 100 cents I could just pay with a single dollar. That'd be a huge change from what we have now, where the price says $0.97 and the cashier demands $1.06
Yes but Japan also has hidden fees sometimes. Like in certain restaurants they serve you an appetizer that you dont ask for and charge you for it before the real order comes.
That happened briefly for a couple of years, then it was made illegal, because we have governments that actually care about making things better for their people.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but people in countries where sales tax is included in the price (which is virtually every other country in the world), are well aware of sales tax.
Many countries also exempt sales tax from essential groceries, which is not true for all US states. So the idea that the US model is somehow good for lower-income consumers is laughable.
I have no desire to learn what the tax rate is for X in any state at all (since I cannot vote to change it in any case), what I am interested in day-to-day is the all-in price of whatever I’m about to buy.
Eliminating junk fees (looking at you, AT&T) is a net win for reducing cognitive load. The idea I should have to learn the tax rates of the multiple jurisdictions I may or may not be in just to serve your political views is fucking asinine.
> Including taxes in the sticker price is bad. It allows the government to quietly increase taxes without people noticing.
Oh please. When taxes go up, people notice. In California, new taxes have to be approved directly by voters, even. If you choose not to be civically engaged enough to notice new taxes, that's your problem.
This is the same dumb argument people use for not allowing the IRS to send us a pre-filled tax return. Instead, we flush billions of dollars a year down the toilet on tax prep.
Whilst encouraging, I also feel like US policies are part of the problem, besides allowing it for so long. The fact that sales tax in the US doesn't just depend on state, but can be down to the house number on a street, means it's difficult to present automated listing of all fees online. There are reasons why sales taxes are not included in price tags in shops. Among them, that the tax could be different if you went across the street, and you don't want to advertise that. (There are numerous other policies contributing to hidden fees, like minimum wage laws leading to tipping.)
Readit News
You can have a debate about how to display those items on a price list, but everyone knows about them and they are expected. The whole point of this bill is to prevent bait-and-switch, where loads of unknown or variable fees are tacked on after the price is initially shown.
The one caveat I'd say about a tip is if it's mandatory. E.g. if a place requires a minimum tip amount for large parties, it's no longer a tip, it's appropriately called a service charge.
'Every one knows' is a very US centric view, which even I doubt is true given the degree of illiteracy and math deficiency in the overall population.
You do realise you are travelling to a foreign country, right? This rings to me like Americans who travel to Spain and complain about the siesta, or Argentina and how late they dine.
Lots of local government means taxes change over smaller distances in America than most of the world. Also, most retailers here use paper labels—a result of historically-low inflation expectations. It’s easier to implement that complexity at check out than on the shelves. (I’d also guess that America’s credit card use means more check-out stations are digital than in much of the world.)
Add to that a cultural distrust of taxation and government, a decreasing tendency to use cash and a higher income per capita and you have a genuine difference in preferences.
If we were talking about, say, a French law, I would expect the default assumption to be French standards and customs.
I have lived in the US my whole life and I can't remember that last time I left a tip for anything besides a place that you sit down to eat and someone brings you food.
My first job was delivering pizza and that is something with a long social norm of tipping. A tip was a nice bonus but if someone didn't tip it didn't matter because someone else people would tip an irrationally large amount. I didn't think bad of those that didn't tip, I just assumed they were that broke.
It is not that "every one knows" it is that no one cares about this in the real world the way they do when grandstanding on social media.
And that matters if you have to be careful about spending. Also, "everyone knows about them", really? If it's so easy to "know" the local tax rate for various things, why isn't it easy to label them?
See the rest of the world, where even young kids can go shopping. If you give them 5 <amount of currency>, and the item they want is less than 5, or they want five of something that is 1, they can buy it.
For example, the one common tax in the US that is hidden in the price is tax on gasoline. I think it would be better to specifically call this out, especially since gas taxes can vary so much by jurisdiction. I mean, pretty much all adults where I live know our sales tax rate is 8.25%, but I have actually no clue what my per-gallon tax on gas is.
We know them generally enough to get by. That doesn’t mean calculating them precisely is a peach.
There have been stores that tried to differentiate on the basis of all-in pricing. It fails. Unless you’re paying cash or precisely monitoring spending, it doesn’t matter. (There is also a transparency argument in knowing how much is going to the business versus state.)
In summary, it’s not an issue for most Americans. (When I travel in Europe, having all-in prices doesn’t even remotely occur as a perk.) And there are ideological reasons that resonate with many Americans that are against it. Nobody to fight for it, a vocal minority against; seems like a silly hill to die on.
In the US even young kids can go shopping too. If you give them $5 + <tax on $5>. They can then buy any item whose price tag says $5 or less or 5 of any $1 item.
Just by default you don’t have to think about it, and it shows up in all the places if should - government included.
If the sales tax is 9.25%, round up to 10%, so $1 on every hundred.
I walk into a store and buy something for $7.32. Ok, I know in my head the tax is about $0.70, so cool, it’s be “about” $8.
That’s all I need to know. I don’t carry rolls of Pennie’s around so I’m not worried about the cents. He’ll, when was the last time you paid in cash?
It’s the same with Fahrenheit or miles. It’s a simple calculation, not a massive obstacle that holds Americans back from daily living or technological advances.
Because you pay the tax from the total of your purchase and not from each item separately. E.g. in Santa Monica, CA sales tax is 10.25%, a price on a $4.95 item with tax included would be $5.46 but on 10x of these items it's just $54.58.
Disagreed as well. With Taxes, literally 100% of all items have the same convention that is not "bait and switch".
This particular new law is not attempting to address that. Maybe it should. But maybe doing so would be biting off too much, and its sponsors believe it would never pass if they tried that.
The purpose of this law is much less ambitious, but that's fine. Incremental improvements are better than no improvements. I am pleased that now hotels can't spring daily "resort fees" on guests after they show up for their reservation. That sort of thing.
If you live in the United States, you know that a) listed prices rarely include tax, and b) for an annoyingly large number of things, you will be expected to add a tip. If you live here and don't know that, you are not particularly well-equipped to operate in the real world, and you should learn. If you don't live here but are visiting, it's unfortunate that you might not know about these quirks of American capitalism, but the law is not really aimed at you. Sorry, but our quality-of-life laws are tailored to people who live here first and foremost.
> If it's so easy to "know" the local tax rate for various things, why isn't it easy to label them?
It's not about being easy. It's about stupid psychological effects. If I list my price tax-inclusive, and my competitor lists theirs without the tax (but ultimately will charge the same price as I will), my competitor will get more business than I will. It's dumb, but that's human psychology for you.
> See the rest of the world, where even young kids can go shopping.
Young kids can shop here just as well. They just have an extra step to learn. They deal with it just fine; kids are smart and adaptable.
The taxes should be a separate line item on all purchases, so people can see what the taxes are.
I do also like how Costco breaks down the taxes on liquor, as far as I know those taxes existed before privatization of liquor sales in Washington, its just they were hidden in the "tax in" prices Washington State Liquor stores would post.
And of course none of this is incompatible with still printing one big-print all-inclusive price.
I mean, they have a lot of money and want more. That's greed. You can argue that you're personally okay with them being greedy, or even channel your inner Gordon Gekko and say that you personally think greed is good, but you can't argue it isn't greedy.
Displayed prices should be the price you have to pay - full stop. No math required or knowledge of local municipal/state/federal tax structures, no required knowledge of local cultural expectations around tipping. Just pay the price. Just because you're accustomed to tax/tip additions doesn't mean they are in any way a good thing that should be preserved.
Because we get that now on most (if not all) grocery stores and retailers. I can see what items in my grocery receipt were charged which of the various local taxes and can dispute them. I've had groceries miss-categorized and considered prepared food which carries a local tax in my area, but they were not prepared foods and should not have been taxed.
Having a full price up front isn't the magical cure a lot of people paint it as.
Basically it should be illegal to not include any required monthly fee in an advertised price.
And yes they are on the menu, but they are hidden on at the end in fine print. I don't think that is correct.
Same goes for say renting a jet-ski. They advertise price X. I select the venue based on advertisement X, because it is cheaper than its neighbor. But the venue tacks on a mandatory $30 refilling fee that I cannot get rid of.
Or a hotel and their resort fees. The only reason it is separate is to show a lower price on the comparison sites.
If it's mandatory, it should be in the price, at least then I can compare.
And I believe that putting a 3% credit card surcharge should also be banned. If they put in a 3% cash discount, I'm fine with that. At least it allows me to compare prices.
I'm in Ireland, I'd say a good third of printed on labels are not even in the right currency, as companies have a single UK and Ireland SKU. It's also understood that generally it's the retailer that sets pricing, not the manfucturer, so when a book has $9.99/£8.99 printed on it and a store sticker with €12.99, nobody is confused that that's not the exchange rates, or about which price they'll pay.
In my eastern European country even biggest supermarkets can change all labels overnight (I even bet they can can do at least twice daily - albeit with here and there confusions when there multiple labels for same good)
At the Co-op supermarket in our little UK town (population 3000) they’ve even just replaced the shelf price tickets with tiny colour displays.
It’s always fascinating when Americans have problems other countries don’t have, and just throw their hands in air saying “welp nothing we can do about it”
The same chocolate might have a different price depending on the store I go to as well and that doesn't seem to be a problem at all.
For brick-and-mortar stores, the store can quite easily calculate the final price of an item on its own. Sales taxes do change on occasion, but likely less often than the pricing of the items themselves do, so there's no added burden in having to update them due to tax changes.
The reason I think listing taxes separately is OK is because (a) it is not something that the business itself has any choice over, and (b) all businesses have to tax the same for equivalent services. I think listing the taxes separately serves an important purpose to remind the purchaser about where your payments are actually going. If you don't like the fact that you have to pay 3 different taxes, well, if enough other people agree with you, you can change that.
I'd be OK with listing taxes up front (but I will say that restaurants I've been to always highlight any mandatory fees besides normal sales tax on the menu) but I'm absolutely in favor of breaking out the cost of government services on the bill.
Here's a typical example (click on 'menu'): https://maps.app.goo.gl/XS3puQEttQVtTW1FA
Tartine hides the 5% surcharge at the bottom of the menu in smaller font. It's also one of three bullets: the first and third are about food safety.
What's the rationale for putting the surcharge bullet in between the two food safety bullets?
Also: if you order online from Tartine, you won't see the surcharge until you go to check out. And if you order from one of the handwritten 'daily specials' signs, you won't see the surcharge until you pay.
(Using Tartine as an example. It's not unique.)
(a) is really just like the price of basically all of utilities, and all the indirect taxes paid on salaries... the only difference is that they are not directly calculated on turnover. Should we also break that out? (b) is actually an argument in favour of integrating the taxes in the prices : there's no difference between businesses, thus no need to bother the consumers with it -- in the end, they will pay something that includes the taxes, wherever they go.
> I'd be OK with listing taxes up front (but I will say that restaurants I've been to always highlight any mandatory fees besides normal sales tax on the menu) but I'm absolutely in favor of breaking out the cost of government services on the bill.
You mean like basically everywhere in the world where your receipt does show "of which VAT rate A% : X, rate B% : Y, Special Tax: Z" ?
You can list post tax price and then write components if you so please. But showing price without tax is just attempt to look cheaper.
Why are taxes and govt fees exempt? This reeks of "rules for thee but not for me." Either to goal is to avoid misleading customers with low advertised prices, or it's not. For example, California has a ~50 cents/gallon fuel tax. Can gas stations start advertising prices that are 50 cents lower than they actually charge and be compliant with this law?
This bill is very clear that the target is "prices" that reject parts of the price that are entirely set by the person selling the goods or services. e.g. Ticketmaster, etc's entirely bogus "service" charges, or airbnb's that say $x/night but have a $500 cleaning "fee".
If anything, this just encourages lobbying and corruption. If you have a restaurant, you can't just covertly charge a 5% worker benefit fee. But you could if you're part of a restaurant lobby that turns that 5% worker benefit fee into a 5% restaurant tax that benefits restaurant workers!
Independent of the bill's goal, I also think that seeing all govt fees and taxes upfront might be a useful exercise in California and elsewhere. When fees are hidden, people forget about them and don't evaluate them. But if they are front and center, then that would hopefully make politicians more accountable. For example, the California train project has spent something like $10b so far and there's nothing to really show for it. And that money came from somewhere, but it's easy to forget about that if you're not reminded constantly. But if every driver in California paid $1 extra on every gas bill for the last 20 years for a "train tax" that was on the receipt, then maybe people would hold their government more accountable. (This is an apolitical comment: caring more can mean cancelling the train project, or funding it 3x more. Whatever constituents think is best.)
I wish gas stations showed taxes separately, but I'm guessing retail gas stations aren't the ones collecting and remitting those taxes. It's probably taken earlier in the supply chain.
Including taxes and fees in the advertised price won't prevent stores (or anyone else) from making it clear what percentage of that price comes from taxes and government fees. I'd love to see more stores provide an itemized breakdown of those fees so that we can see how much of the price to blame on greedy vendors vs sneaky governments.
What I want most of all though is to only ever pay what the listed price of an item is. I want to be able to walk in with a single $5 bill and pay for something that says it costs $5 and have that be the end of it. It should really just be that simple. Other countries do it. We can too.
Deceptive pricing is extremely annoying, as are stealth price increases.
Like tips?
We can make the argument that it is hard for Amazon to show you the price of widget X, as it changes where it gets shipped.
But for a hotel it doesn't matter whether you fly in from Alaska (no sales tax) or Los Angeles (9.25% I believe)
You pay the rate of the state and city where the hotel is at.
Expected tips are known up front, they are variable, and I certainly think it's totally fine to not tip in places where it's not usually expected, "flipping around the iPad" be damned.
This is a good point. When I go to a coffee shop and order a latte I am buying a latte and the appreciation of the person that makes it. If they think I’m a dick it renders my coffee undrinkable and the comfort in knowing that I’m liked should be free.
I stopped going to restaurants that charge those fees, but it's become so widespread that it can be a challenge to find any that don't at this point.
They may be able to keep them if they allow customers a way to opt-out, but this is less clear.
①However, by law the price tag is required to also show the with tax（税込） price if displaying the without tax price.
Sales taxes are in general regressive and harm lower-income people the most, so they should be visible and attributable to government.
Many countries also exempt sales tax from essential groceries, which is not true for all US states. So the idea that the US model is somehow good for lower-income consumers is laughable.
I have no desire to learn what the tax rate is for X in any state at all (since I cannot vote to change it in any case), what I am interested in day-to-day is the all-in price of whatever I’m about to buy.
Eliminating junk fees (looking at you, AT&T) is a net win for reducing cognitive load. The idea I should have to learn the tax rates of the multiple jurisdictions I may or may not be in just to serve your political views is fucking asinine.
Oh please. When taxes go up, people notice. In California, new taxes have to be approved directly by voters, even. If you choose not to be civically engaged enough to notice new taxes, that's your problem.
This is the same dumb argument people use for not allowing the IRS to send us a pre-filled tax return. Instead, we flush billions of dollars a year down the toilet on tax prep.
After all, the company is only collecting them for governments.
Yet nothing prevents companies from showing all fees the company charges. All of them.
This is what the new law addressees.