I have good news! (as long as Lina Khan stays on as commissioner)

> FTC Proposes Rule to Ban Junk Fees: The proposed rule would ban businesses from running up the bills with hidden and bogus fees, ensure consumers know exactly how much they are paying and what they are getting, and help spur companies to compete on offering the lowest price. Businesses would have to include all mandatory fees when telling consumers a price

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/10/...

> (as long as Lina Khan stays on as commissioner)

She may not be around for long (a travesty in my opinion if so). Neither presidential candidate is stumping for her kind of activism, even the Dem one. And the big money wants her gone.

Sure we can vote, but it seems big money has more influence regardless.

> Neither presidential candidate is stumping for her kind of activism, even the Dem one

Harris hasn't outright said she would keep on Khan, but from a policy perspective I think they are very aligned, even to the point of Harris copying Khan's homework a bit (not in a bad way, just interesting). They have both explicitly called out grocery revenue growth exceeding total costs, both want to go after PBMs to lower drug prices, both want to go after junk fees, both have come out against algorithmic rent pricing, both have called out misclassification of workers.

If Harris does want to keep her on I still don't think it's in either of their interests for Harris to stake out a position. It opens the Harris campaign up to attacks on Khan's many court setbacks and erodes whatever bipartisan support Khan still has. Also, Harris doesn't have to do anything to keep her on, if she doesn't appoint anyone then by law Khan will remain acting commissioner indefinitely.

Her big funders are pushing for Khan's removal (e.g. Mark Cuban). The big issue that these people have against Khan is the blocking of mergers that's a big source of bonuses for Wall St.

Obviously Khan is out if Trump is elected.

While the candidates may not like her, support for her crosses party lines and so there may be enough people to make a stink about it to make it politically unviable. I do concede that both candidates are just terrible on this.

Hmmm...the phone companies have this down to a fine art. Get legislation passed that lets you charge a fee, show it on the bill as a "regulatory fee." Just like how the cable companies and banks send scare envelopes to senior citizens to get them to sign up for add ons and shitty insurance plans.

"Fees" on top of the top line price should be illegal. It's just a way to smuggle in a 100% increase in the purchase price to get an initial buy in for a product. It is super scammy.

Heck, I would even take this a step further and say that taxes as well should always be fully included in the topline price. If a company wants to add a breakdown of how much went to taxes, I'm ok with that.

The sticker price should always be the full price.

As a British person this is always so alien when traveling in the US. You could go one step further and suggest that perhaps tips which are practically mandatory should be included in the headline price but that might be a step too far.

Many restaurants have tried this, and end up switching back because comparing prices to other restaurants puts them at a disadvantage. I think the only way for it to happen is regulation that forces it. Might as well include taxes in that price too.

Staff often doesn’t like it either. Probably some combination of actually making less money and being overly optimistic about what they would be making if they were getting tips. a bar I was aware of that advertised paying $20+ and hour with no tips switched to a tipped model due to staff complaints.

there would be a rough transition period, but i do believe that in countries where tipping is not the norm, places just pay more to get better stuff the way non-tipped labor already works.

one of the breweries i live by recently moved from non-tipped to tip, and it's generally a disliked change from what I hear because most of the time the brewery is open it's not busy enough to make up for the loss in wages, and then people fight over the really busy shifts.

it sounds like what happened is management simply did not replace the tipped wage with an appropriate flat wage. if management provided a satisfactory wage, nobody would complain.

The best employees complain loudly. End of discussion on that one.

The trouble is that sales tax can be different in every municipality. National advertising would be a nightmare. However, I think prices at brick and mortar stores should be tax included and, when shopping online, if my address is known, the tax should be include as well.

I also think "plus Tax/Tax included" should be featured more prominently but I think that businesses would likely do that themselves given the conditions above so that, when comparing prices, you would very noticeably see that whether tax was included or not in your price. ie, Amazon would put in green letters near the price "Tax included" so when I compared their price to another place I would know why Amazon's price might be higher.

I agree that tips are stupid. But they are technically different as you can pay the price without them and be fine. This is unlike "convenience fees" and tax which are required but not displayed in the advertised price.

I definitely believe that you should be able to purchase something for the advertised price. Maybe that is "starting at" but you should be able to check out at that price.

tipping culture is so annoying here in the Bay Area. the other day i was at a coffee shop and cashier handed me a device that had suggested tips from 18-22% with no obvious Cancel button. i was infuriated and the cashier had a smug look on her face. she knew what i was looking for and she didn't bother telling me how to skip it. mind you, this was for a coffee to-go order.

I get very annoyed at things like that where there shouldn't be a tip. Tip is for service quality and counter service there is no differentiation in service between different servers. People do go to restaurants and ask for their favorite waiter. There often is a difference in service between different waiters at the same restaurant - enough that I like the ability to pay for good service (if you always give the same tip you are doing it wrong - you should be giving as many 10% tips as 20%.

Taxes should also be included in the advertised price, then. Just imagine!

That would be nice, but there is a LOT of background work before that is feasible (in the US). As it currently stands, for many products a vendor would need to know who you are and where you live before they could quote you a total price. That's unacceptable.

other countries have figured that out even countries with multiple levels of taxation like in the U.S. it's not an unsolvable problem.

> not an unsolvable problem

I never said it was. In fact, I specifically said that there is work to do before making the rule about listing all prices inclusive of taxes.

but you did say that figuring out the final price is "unacceptable"? why is it unacceptable? my point is that other countries have figured out a way to display the final prices, but USA still hasn't figured out how to do it or they don't have any plans to do it.

As things stand currently, it would be unacceptably intrusive as you have to collect information on all shoppers whether they purchase or not.

Do the pre-work first, and then make a rule about displaying the final price.

In Europe they make a best guess based on IP location, and if logged in using the account address or previous delivery address.

Then the price may change at the checkout if you put in a different/unexpected delivery address.

Actually there's a purpose to keeping taxes separate. Policymakers want the tax burden to be visible, it is not part of price transparency because the vendor has nothing to do with the tax rate.

Taxes are also hyper local and can differ between dine in/out making it hard to show the final price up front.

US policymakers want this. Euro/Asian policymakers have moved beyond this - whenever you travel you pay the sticker on the tin.

It's a solved problem but we can't make it happen here. Why?

Interestingly, in some states it's illegal to post the "price" as one including all applicable taxes.

I mentioned the reason in another comment, it's an important govt transparency principle that the tax burden be separate and visible.

Yes, but much like cigarette lobbying, you want to look at who's paying for the given outcome. We have cigarette minimum prices because it increases profits for tobacco companies, and we have this fraudulent price reporting nonsense because lower advertised prices result in more sales. Transparency could just as easily be achieved via a tax breakdown on the receipts merchants are already required to provide on request, while correctly advertising what the consumer will actually pay.

Do you mean states of the USA or states as in "country"? Which ones?

I meant states of the USA. It looks like it's not as bad as it used to be (time for me to read a few more laws I guess). A decade ago WA prohibited the practice. I'm not sure where it might currently be illegal.

California did this:

> Guests in California will see a fee-inclusive total price—before taxes—on all listings.

https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/3610

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...

> before taxes

Now they just need to fix that part.

Right up front: I agree. But, implementing this will be an absolute PITA because so many other things are systemically broken.

Case in point: cost breakdown from the invoice of an online order a few months ago (with the dollar amounts removed):

> Subtotal

> Shipping (Economy)

> Tax (Solano County Tax 0.25%)

> Tax (Vacaville City Tax 0.75%)

> Tax (Solano County District Tax Sp 0.125%)

> Tax (Solano Co Local Tax Sl 1.0%)

> Tax (California State Tax 6.0%)

Once your address is known taxes can be calculated. At what point is an after-tax final price to be shown? On an ad? On a targeted Ad? Once you reach the storefront based on unreliable geolocation? (which would be wrong for me, because geolocation bundles two cities here together as one) Once you create an account? At the checkout when you've specified the shipping address? As things tend to happen today, its usually only at the last step.

As much as I'd like to see it, I don't see much chance of improving the visibility of final prices without comprehensive systemic tax reform first.

The obvious quick solutions aren't exactly fair in the current US system. Imagine a "quick fix" of requiring the vendors to price in-a generic taxes for everyone. Just like with credit card system fees, "simple" fixes like that that benefit the residents of high-sales-tax states to the detriment of no-sales-tax state residents. While such a system would work for physical stores, they would get hammered if they had to prices on the shelves or signs that were higher than online prices.

As much as we all want a fair straight-forward system, I don't imagine it happening any time soon in the US. There are way too many unresolved zero-sum political fights and ideological differences standing in the way.

It certainly can be done (eg: Australia) but the circumstances there were very different.

I agree, it is not currently feasible in all cases. But something like AirBNB should be straightforward. Price tags on store shelves also straightforward. As you point out, it's tough for online shopping, at least until you have an established account. For advertising purposes it would be tough.

My guess is the only solution (and it would suck and be met with much resistance) would be to make all the taxes based strictly on where the seller is, not where the buyer is. Then the buyer would have to be on hook for use tax instead of sales tax. States would not like this because most people skip paying use tax altogether.

Or just get rid of sales tax as a thing, and if you want localized taxes put them on property. That's what my state does (plus income tax).

I agree that we're unlikely to see any sane solution in the US in our lifetime.

It's really simple: ban sales taxes levied by anyone except the national government. That's how other countries do it, and it works fine. Then everyone in the whole country pays the same tax rate, no matter where they are.

Short of that, ban sales taxes levied by local governments; only allow states to levy them. It's easy enough to figure out which state someone is in.

For plane that's pretty unfair. If you don't get any ancillary fees, the price you see is almost exactly up to the cent what you pay.

Now if you get any extra, sure. But that's a different problem from Airbnb hiding 100% of the cost in mandatory cleaning fees.

The trouble is, without some overriding authority defining what it means to "have a plane ticket", what counts as "included"? Because anything that doesn't can then be considered an "add-on".

Carry-on luggage. Meal/snack and beverage service. A pillow and blanket. A seat that's not a middle seat. Even the ability to choose your seat at all.

Airlines that want to tighten the screws on their passengers can, in theory, start charging for all of those, and calling them "paid add-ons", even under a "no junk fees" law, if we don't clearly define what passengers should be able to expect to be included in their ticket.

I get you. AFAICT what's included for airlines is basically "get me from A to B".

There are usually ways to filter out by seat types, though, both on airlines websites and in places like Google flights. In my experience those are also pretty accurate.

The comparison price for flights should be normalized. Like for example including either a carry on luggage or a checked in bag but not necessarily both, and no reserved seat.

If some even cheaper airline wants to sell tickets without carry on or whatever then they’ll have to list the higher price and offer a pleasant surprise of a lower-than-advertised price when the customer completed the booking.

There are some completely new and wacky fee structures though. I recently flew Avelo airlines - baggage fees were a function of when I paid - rising as I got closer to the flight date.

You're describing legitimate add-ons though. The most important part about plane tickets is that I get from A to B. If whatever price compare tool I'm using doesn't let me select the add-ons I want, I can at least find the cheapest base price of a few competitors and then go from there.

If I need luggage, I can do my own legwork to make sure that I factor that in.

None of those things should be included. I want none and dont want to pay for having access to them. What we actually need is a business that lets you put in the add ons you want and shows you how much that would cost.

That's a very "I got mine" type of attitude.

You think everyone should be expected to pay extra not to

- fly with nothing but the clothes on their back

- separated from their family

- with no food or drink, on a 5, 10, 15-hour flight

- with no leg or elbow room

- and no pillow or blanket to make it even vaguely possible to sleep?

I am happy with the current situation. Airlines are segmented so that people like me can fly spirit or frontier for rock bottom rates and people who want to enjoy the flight can fly delta or whoever.

The Minnesota law which provides exactly this goes into effect in 2025.

https://www.allaboutadvertisinglaw.com/2024/06/minnesota-joi...

Wanted to see if it finally included taxes on price tags… but instead this law explicitly excludes taxes. So close.

The government needs to provide a service if we ever want taxes to be included. Taxes vary by city and can even depend on where you live, so sellers wouldn't be able to give you a price until you say where you are and where you're from for some sales.

That's why you basically need a third party if you run an ecommerce website, unless you have a team to track down every time a county or city changes their taxes.

You could exclude prices on preprinted tags and just regulate shelve pricing and store signs I guess.

>That's why you basically need a third party if you run an ecommerce website, unless you have a team to track down every time a county or city changes their taxes.

Every ecommerce site already has to calculate taxes on checkout, already has a third party for this information (usually the payment processor).

> book a plane ticket without being lied to about what the actual prices is

This hasn't been true for at minimum 10 years. Paying for extra leg room is not a "junk fee"

That really depends. Me and everybody else in my close family doesn't really need that.

And we short but not to that far from the average height.

Biden admin did add upfront fee declarations to show the consumer the actual price.

Plane tickets legally have to include all required fees. I do not pay any more than google flights shows.

Plane tickets show you all included price including taxes/fee. It was part of 2012 regulation requiring full fare disclosure passed in 2012. Telecom/Internet providers ares ones that need to be fixed because companies like Verizon will charge you bogus "taxes" like a network portability tax which isn't a tax and they pocket the money.

Even then, there's other challenges. With Delta, booking a flight, I see a rough return airfare when I select my outbound leg, that then might be tweaked by my inbound leg choices.

Booking with Alaska, I get a fare listed that is only the outbound leg, and then I have to discover the inbound leg price.

This often gives the impression that fares are or will be cheaper with Alaska, and then after a few clicks, you realize that they're (mostly) the "same".

There’s actually a way to do this currently: https://jake.tl/notes/2022-05-how-to-airbnb