Hacker News Reader

Comment by hn_throwaway_99 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

  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.

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.)

Perhaps "highlight" was the wrong word choice, but it is specifically called out on that menu example. I didn't read the full bill but I'm assuming since the required charge is fully visible, this restaurant would be fine (of course, as long as that required charge was also shown in any advertising that included prices).

FWIW, I think those kinds of "5% employee surcharge" fees are total bullshit and should be included in the price. The only reason "fees" should ever be pulled out separately are if they're optional, variable, or depend on something besides the unit cost on the product.

  I didn't read the full bill but I'm assuming since the required charge is fully visible, this restaurant would be fine

That's not my understanding. Charging a random fee that's not disclosed to the customer before they order is already illegal. The new law goes further: any random fees should be rolled into the advertised prices.

You often see the same thing in the UK (a 12.5% "discretionary service charge" listed in small text that you must ask to have removed from your bill).

In this context, 'discretionary' is the opposite of 'mandatory'. This legislation is about mandatory fees.

I'd consider adding a fee that isn't included in the listed menu price to be predatory, even if you can ask to have it removed.

> 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" ?

It is not about reminding, it is about making final total price harder to see.

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.

Agreed. It’s also a reminder to the voter that these sales tax exist and a reminder they can be lowered or eliminated.

Virtually every other country lists prices inclusive of sales tax. People are still aware of sales tax.

There are pros to it, sure. How opposed you are to the sales tax could help dictate how much you want people reminded of it.

Sales taxes are good because tourists pay them. Most people mad about taxes hate property taxes, because they want to move all the tax burden to tourists (and their own children.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com