Re:Bill to Ban Hidden Fees in California Signed into Law
by kelipso on Monday October 09, 2023 @09:45PM
(#37827688)
The whole point is that you want the shopping experience to be such that a child can predict how much they will pay at the counter, not so much that this particular scenario has to be considered and fulfilled.
Re:Bill to Ban Hidden Fees in California Signed into Law
by lttlrck on Tuesday October 10, 2023 @12:30AM
(#37828517)
on the other hand the shopping experience reflects reality.
Re:Bill to Ban Hidden Fees in California Signed into Law
by kelipso on Tuesday October 10, 2023 @09:57AM
(#37832168)
Whose reality lol. It can be changed easily.
Re:Bill to Ban Hidden Fees in California Signed into Law
by aziaziazi on Tuesday October 10, 2023 @10:43AM
(#37832738)
I disagree, in the shopper view the full price would better reflect it’s own reality.
Re:Bill to Ban Hidden Fees in California Signed into Law
by pauldenton on Monday October 09, 2023 @10:38PM
(#37827978)
This is on an article about a bill banning hidden fees
But when you see something that says 4.99$ when you ring up that item at the counter, you will not have enough to pay for your 5$ because of a fee which is not posted on the pricetag
You're overlooking the context. Someone said it was easy to let young children go shopping in places where taxes are included in the sticker price because you can give the kid $5 and the kid knows they can buy any item with a sticker price that does not exceed that or a combination of cheaper items whose sticker prices do not sum to more than 5$.
The implication was that this is harder for young children in the US, presumably because young children won't be able to do the complicated mathematical finagling that the rest of the world apparently thinks Americans do every time they go to the store.
My point is that in the US you just give the child $5 plus enough to cover tax, and then the child can use exactly the same approach those kids elsewhere use: if sum of sticker prices <= $5 they have enough money.