I could be wrong, but, that feels like a weak position to run on. I’m not sure I want the government worrying about the unexpected fee at the hotel I cannot afford to go to.
Isn’t there a way to spend the money you’re going to spend on that to spend it on like food availability, or affordable housing, or education…?
Idk. Seems like a waste of resources but, I suppose they probably have a massive team figuring out what the country is worried about. Just seems like a weird thing to underline, it feels like a back burner issue.
It isn’t spicy but junk fees are a big deal when it comes to fleecing the American people. Adding a take out fee at a restaurant for example, I have a fee to get my own food?
Yeah, I can definitely see it. Idk, at that point, a lot of places are just going to increase prices I would imagine. Again, could be wrong. But, there is definitely merit behind going after it, especially after your reply and the other I got. I suppose I didn’t think through to the entire scope.
Though, if it is bipartisan, and basically an easy win… why not just do it? I hate politics lol.
It’s not really bipartisan. They call things “bipartisan” now because there’s a handful of Republicans who are willing to come to the negotiating table and extort pork or deregulation for your goals, and it doesn’t cross the filibuster-proof majority in order to pass in a Republican house. The majority of Republicans are going to default to opposing any kind of consumer protection legislation just because their fundamental ideology favors large corporations cheating individuals and families repeatedly.
Why do you think every American gets 15 robocalls per day and the government refuses to do anything about it? Republicans are getting their kickback from the robocallers.
Lol go check out mildly infuriating. Someone posted a receipt with the added 18% service fee. The “gotcha” fees are annoying, and if you need to raise the prices on your food, then raise the prices on the food. That’s how you know if your food is worth it if people are willing to pay for the actual price of it.
I work in a business that owns a hundred restaurants or so, we charge a to-go fee of a couple dollars since our restaurants are there to keep you at the property, not really to make money themselves. If this becomes illegal then we’ll just raise prices to make the difference, this won’t make things cheaper, just less sneaky.
The point is that they should not be sneaky. Raise your prices so people know what the actual cost is. That is the point of the law. People want to shop for the best rate but these fees hide a lot of the cost. Once passed all prices will reflect the final cost, taxes included.
I’m confused by what you mean “keep you at the property”.
Obviously the business is there to make money, or it wouldn’t be a business. Servers wages are hardly an overhead concern, I’m saving you the table space for other paying customers, and I’m still paying full price for a product that now cost you less to sell me.
Unless you’re implying that your business sells food at a loss and only makes money on alcohol served on site. Maybe that’s a problem by itself, but it’s not a problem to foist on the customer by charing more for a to go order, that’s absurd.
I kinda see where you’re coming from but junk fees are really something that affects everyone, especially those near the bottom of society. Stuff like cell phone fees inflating phone prices, online commerce fees making transactions more expensive, credit card/banking fees, overdraft fees a literal tax on being poor, convenience fees because they can, maintenance fees. It all adds up to tens of billions of dollars annually.
Okay, see, this is a much better list than “concert tickets, hotels, and cellphone bills” lmao. Now you can get me to care and see the merit.
Not sure it still should be an underlined campaign promise, but, as stated, it’s bipartisan, everyone hates them. Then you add your reasoning in there too, and I could get behind it.
What’s going to stop the companies from just rolling that convenience fee into the price of the service though?
The fact that if they’re not baiting and switching people, folks might actually be able to shop around for the best listed price rather than getting swindled by the “cheapest” up front. Particularly for poorer people, surprise fees can really hurt your ability to treat yourself once in a while and still meet your financial goals.
Thats part of the point, It makes the upfront pricing more visible. Clear, easy to understand information means better purchasing decisions are made by consumers.
It’s a lot harder to sell a $1500 phone than it is to sell a $1000 phone with $500 in extra fees tacked on at the time of purchase.
If you’re purchasing a phone ABC phone company and XYZ phone company might both offer the latest iDroid model for $1000+tax and fees, but you have no idea what the specifics of those taxes and fees are until you actually get to the point of sale.
It is possible to work on multiple issues of varying importance at the same time
“Small” inconveniences like this (among other things) are how asshole capitalists win. They nickle and dime us in ways that aren’t “worth” pushing back against. We tell ourselves “It’s just a little bit extra. Not worth pushing back just for that.”, but there are countless little bit extras and they drain us without resistance. And it’s not like individuals are going to be able to change any of that, so it’s entirely up to our governments to address those issues. Of course there are big things to work on too, but fixing some things doesn’t mean we can’t work on the big things too.
How many resources do you think it takes to ban junk fees?
Because it’s nowhere comparable to the cost of any of your alternatives
I see you’ve bought into the Republican myth that the reason Americans have a shoddy social support infrastructure is due to budgetary tradeoffs. It’s not. It’s a failure of will of the American people to do what’s necessary to stop preventable innocent casualties.
Care to elaborate? I probably have, I was raised in that environment, though, I wouldn’t call myself right leaning on most things.
Isn’t there a way to spend the money you’re going to spend on that to spend it on like food availability, or affordable housing, or education…?
I think this sentence is what I was trying to point out. Basically, it’s not a question of “pay for X or Y” but a question of “do we have the votes for X, will Americans reelect us for Y”. Let me detail:
Americans don’t care about or understand the deficit
There has never been a true austerity party in the US. Bush Sr. ran on cutting taxes. Bush Jr. ran on massive tax cuts. Trump’s taxation policy was a massive billionaire tax cut. Every single time a Republican has been in office for the past three decades they’ve exploded the deficit by cutting revenue without substantial enough spending cuts. They still win reelection.
Americans “concerned about the deficit” typically fall into two camps: those who erroneously compare it to a household budget, and those who engage in vague pronouncements about its “impact on our children”. So one who seems to have a concrete idea of what will happen but is wrong, and one who seems not to know what the consequences will be but are worried sick about them.
The reality is that the immediate and long-term impacts of the deficit are small, and the immediate and long-term impacts of failing to invest in infrastructure and social spending are very high
What Americans should be concerned about vis. the future of our children is producing a new generation that is healthy, educated, productive, housed affordably, expanding in size, and comfortable in illness and old age. We should care about being able to get around the country fast without boiling the oceans. We should care about being able to survive natural disasters, global pandemics, terrorism, war, and resource shortages. These are all things worth creating deficit for. The adage “you have to spend money to make money” makes sense here.
In summary
I agree that we should be spending money on social support- but the failure to do both isn’t because there’s a limited amount of money we have to spend on one or the other, it’s a lack of control of the levers of power and a failure of will.
