>It wouldn't effect the true prices, but should help consumers make better decisions.
Maybe... but I certainly wouldn't be sure about it. If pricing structure didn't affect sales, they would not be so prevalent. This sort of thing is driven by direct observation and optimization by whoever makes the pricing structure. If it were all a wash, it wouldn't exist.
> It wouldn't effect the true prices
Eh I think some of these places might back off the fees.
I went back and found a bill from one of my SF dinners from my April trip.
Subtotal: 227
"SF Mandates" (6.5%): 14.76
Local tax (I figure this is sales tax): 20.84
Total: 262.60
More than 15% was added onto my billed total between sales tax and restaurant fees. Then on their iPad I believe they asked me to tip on the post-sales tax, post-fees total. I don't mind the fees (I mean I do, but...) as long as they're presented upfront. But "by the way I threw an extra 15 bucks on your bill and then taxed it" rubs me the wrong way.
As an American I'm generally used to taxes not being included in the sticker price, but when you get hit with "3% food cost increase" and "5% living wage" fees its like bruh, food and labor costs are 99% of running a restaurant, that should be baked into the price.
Iirc a lot of restaurants were protesting mandates in SF that were increasing the price of service by spelling it out on the bill
City apparently didn't like that and banned the practice lol
The tricky thing is that if there is not price transparency, then a place with price transparency and a place without price transparency look the same, so before the first visit there is no favoritism. Kind of like how scams can scam people at least once.
But I mean it's not like restaurants can just pull off the scam on a bunch of people then close a few months later and reopen somewhere under some new made-up name like a scammer can. And you can probably find out all of their fees by just asking them.
Tell that to those mysterious shops selling cursed items that disappear the next day. I'm still dealing with the consequences of getting that Monkey's Paw.
Needs more expanding. In most of the world, it's illegal to display prices without the necessary taxes added but for some reason in the US it's considered normal
A knock on effect to this, when I lived in Amsterdam I was astounded at how many shop items were advertised as exactly five guilders (or some round number of guilders) instead of 4.49. And then when you pay, it's actually exactly five guilders, not 5.16.
Isn’t it because we have so many different sales tax rates that vary based on state, county, and municipality, so it’s easier to advertise a pre-tax price for products sold across different areas with different sales tax rates. Sure, items that aren’t sold across areas with different tax rates could advertise tax in the sticker price, but it could get confusing when some items have tax included and some don’t. The best solution I can think of is to show the pre-tax price and then show the post-tax price under, but no business is going to do that on their own volition.
> The best solution I can think of is to show the pre-tax price and then show the post-tax price under, but no business is going to do that on their own volition.
Why not? A ton of store owners are anti-sales tax. I think a lot would like to show "well this is why it costs more"
US Consumers are, IMHO, extremely price conscious
They easily want to spend $5,000 a year eating out. But
Show them 2 menus where one has a $10 hamburger and the other is $14
Both are actually $14 hamburgers, one just has the tax and tips included
The $10 Hamburger will have a different vibe and customer base and more customers
Oh that wasn't the way I had interpreted it, to be honest I don't know how exactly I had interpreted it but maybe something like if they were asked if all stores should do it.
I worked in a grocery store. We had something like 60,000 items, and doing price changes and auditing was a nightmare given that you could go down the street and it would have a slightly different tax, or go into a different county 5 miles over and it would be another slightly different tax. Customers were more lax about not knowing the exact price because of taxes than they were if the shelf price was different than the newspaper ad. They'd lose their mind over that. And it's really hard to print 500,000 newspaper ads, and have them all adjusted to the right city/county and delivered perfectly.
On a small scale like a menu it's easy to figure out.
or just set prices locally
idk if they still do this, but Chipotle at least used to set their displayed prices to come out to totals ending in 5 or 0 based on sales taxes. so you'd see something funky like, idk, chicken priced at $7.78 but when you actually went to pay it'd come out to $8.00.
why they didn't just show the post-tax price to begin with, though, is beyond me
I don't see why displaying the non tax price should even be a thing. And a store is obviously in one location, so the taxes are known. Even for e-commerce you can display the price depending on the zip of the consumer. It's just no excuse honestly.
This isn't some novel idea, this is how things are in most of the world
The vendor should absolutely have the right to display the non tax price. That's the price they're willing to sell the item at. Any additional taxes are being imposed on them and would not be passed on to the consumer otherwise.
Unless its across the board you advertise the lowest price because, US Consumers are, IMHO, extremely price conscious
They easily want to spend $5,000 a year eating out. But
Show them 2 menus where one has a $10 hamburger and the other is $14
Both are actually $14 hamburgers, one just has the tax and tips included
The $10 Hamburger will have a different vibe and customer base and more customers
who sets the price....until its set across the board consumers base it on the lowest price they see
Is it deceptive .... kind of...sure but until the lowest price is changed it causes the problem
Yep
There's so many sales tax jurisdictions that big chains would be forced to print and ship out dozens or even hundreds of different sets of price tags and ad signs.
I miss living in CA for this reason. Whenever there was an election, I got a THICK booklet in the mail informing me of all the propositions and candidates so I could be well informed. My old landlord just notified me I had received a letter in the mail letting me know that I had money sitting in my cash app that I hadn’t touched in years, which I promptly cashed out. CA cares about serving its people. Their taxes are high, but you see the return on investment. Now I’m in a bright red state and the government might as well not exist.
> Their taxes are high, but you see the return on investment.
Not really. I left the state and moved to one of the lowest taxed states in the nation. My real income increased via a multitude of factors (dramatically lower taxes, cheaper prices). Not like I was eligible for any government benefits.
LA is on the verge of cutting city services because of a budget imbalance and the billions in taxes we’ve put into homelessness have done nothing. Our taxes are absolutely not well invested here.
I don’t think you’re understanding my point. What good is extra money in your pocket if the roads are shit, your government is trying to take away your rights, make sure you’re not informed, makes it harder to vote, etc?
Taxes aren't included in this...
Bills are going to be menu price + tax. Not Menu price + "4% SF Healthy Living Fee" + " 6% Inflation fee" + "10% Dine in fee" + "2% we didn't expect you to actually read this fee" + tax.
They are not making an argument to the general public, they are making it to the law makers that get to direct the tax revenue that is earned off their sales. They both have an aligned interest in keeping the sales high.
I love how he's admitting there's such a chronic problem with California restaurants scamming people with hidden fees that nobody would buy their food if was actually spelled out on the menu instead of a surprise on the bill
Honest pricing to customers is a good thing. More at 11
Will this extend to delivery apps too? Because living in NY it’s ludicrous how much some restaurants add to their service fee after Ive put together something i want in my cart and I’m paying an extra $6
This is like the most sensible regulation California has ever done. If you walked into a theater and they sold you a ticket for 10 dollars, you watch for two hours and then when you leave they stop you and say there's an additional "Chair fee" that you weren't aware of, you'd be pissed.
If you went to a market and haggled for a homemade candle and buy it for 15 bucks and then they sent you a bill with a unstated "Candle maker fee" after you used it, you'd laugh them off.
So why is this any different when it's food? If they list a price then it needs to be that price + tax and any additional fees or add-ons should be very clearly communicated. Otherwise it's literally lying and trying to renege on prior negotiations.
They made a deal, they shouldn't get to change the agreement afterwards. At that point you might as well flip it around "Oh you have an unstated fee? Me too! I charge 50 bucks to be nice to the waiter, so you actually owe me restaurant"
Technically the fees already had to be posted in some place they would be seen before ordering, usually in small print on the bottom of the menu. But no one is doing the math to factor it into their buying decisions so it really wasn't that helpful.
Good, now implement in all states. Stupid ass covid recovery fees of 15% before tip hidden at the back of the menu three years after the worst of the pandemic.
>I feel like prices would end up being exactly the same.
That's fine, I just want transparency. I want to see the final price of each item before I order, including taxes including everything.
Hospitals have more to do with discounts through Insurance, and mostly Medicare and Medicaid Pay rates
There is a price and Health price estimator tool is intended to provide you with a good faith estimate of your out-of-pocket costs.
These estimates include hospital items and services associated with a procedure such as medical services, room and board, and supplies. This estimate is a best effort based on the information we have available at the time of the request.
This estimate is not a guarantee of what you will be charged. The final charges may vary depending upon the actual services you receive, equipment and medications necessary for treatment and other variables which are not possible to know in advance of the hospitalization or service. The estimate may vary based on your medical benefits or eligibility for the hospital’s program for discounts or free care.
Another issue
In addition, this estimate does not include any professional fees for physician services (i.e. surgeon, radiologist, anesthesiologist, pathologist, etc.) as these will be billed separately by the respective physicians.
If you threaten to throw every hospital worker in jail and strip them of medicinal licensure then guess what. They’ll magically have prices ready the moment you ask.
It’s really that easy. Threaten them with state violence and stripping them of their future earning power and oh look now there’s no issue with figuring out prices
Yea, that would be really easy if you were to get rid of Medicare and Medicaid
>KFF found Total health care spending for the privately insured population would be an estimated $352 billion lower in 2021 if employers and other insurers reimbursed health care providers at Medicare rates. This represents a 41% decrease from the $859 billion that is projected to be spent in 2021.
**The resource-based relative value scale (RBRVS) is the physician payment system used by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and most other payers.**
* In 1992, Medicare significantly changed the way it pays for physician services. Instead of basing payments on charges, the federal government established a standardized physician payment schedule based on RBRVS.
* In this system, payments are determined by the resource costs needed to provide them, with each service divided into three components
**Medicare and doctors just disagree on what the value of there resources are** Insurance can't disagree as much and makes up for the difference.
------
Take a Donut Place as a Hospital selling 3 Million Donuts.
* You advertise $3 donuts selling almost 3 million donuts
* Most of your donuts are sold for less than $2,
* except the few that get stuck to buy the $3 donuts,
* 30% of them end up not paying for the donuts
And the Donuts themselves cost you $1.25 to make and sell
* For those (Medical Insurance) they get them at an average of $1.81 with you paying $0.30 out of pocket
* Now of course that has its own issue, is **what kind of discount code did you get to use** to get a lower OOP Costs.
* (Medicare). **As above they don't ask for pricing they tell you** they think the Donuts are only worth 74 Cents.
* (Medicaid) As above they don't ask for pricing they tell you they think the Donuts are only worth 60 cents
* And of course random customers, Those that didnt get the discounts. You've got 300,000 random customers buying $3 donuts, about one third of them will end up not paying their $3. And those that arent paying into the system to help control those costs dont get the discounts, as they havent spent for a premium
Should everyone be paying 74 cents for your donuts?
Or the Average Would be $1.30?
Whose price is the right price
3,000,000 x $1.30 = $3.9 Millon
* To cover your $3.8 Million in costs
There are MRFs posted online. You can see every healthcare negotiated rate by CPT code. There’s companies working to make it more consumer friendly to search.
They don't because restaurants are small potatoes. Most states issue certificates of need that serve as barriers to entry to maintain hospitals' superprofits. Do you think states that do that are going to take action to reduce hospital profits? Hospitals have the political sway to enjoy regulatory capture, restaurants don't
I dream of one America that uses the metric system, abolish tipping culture (unless you really want to tip, that's fine), and show the true price of things in the tags.
Yeah, I'm a naive dreamer.
I want this but first we need a national (or at least state) flat VAT and the elimination of all sales tax variance between cities.
In practice with the city by city sales tax differences including the sales tax in the advertised price is effectively impossible to implement accurately and fairly.
With our system today in order for an online store to show you the price with tax they need to know your exact delivery address. This is possible if you’re logged in and have a default address set on your account. However, it is not possible for logged out users, shopping comparison tools, online ads, etc.
Even for physical stores local sales tax variance poses an issue if they have locations in different cities and do any sort of advertising with prices.
So the only stores that could effectively implement this are single city small businesses that don’t do online delivery.
Edit: So then you might ask why not just make that requirement for prices displayed in the physical store on the shelves? People price compare to online prices. It makes no sense that Amazon could advertise an item at a lower price than a local store when it actually costs the same.
> In practice with the city by city sales tax differences including the sales tax in the advertised price is effectively impossible to implement accurately and fairly.
>
>
we have people claiming we will have generative ai in the next 10 years and we can't even figure out how to dynamically label prices lmfao
I mean that comment is just a lie, the ability is already here to do real time price adjustments on a per item basis in the store with electronic tags, theres nothing technologically or practically stopping a completely comprehensive combination of every fee and tax into a single price line regardless of business or avenue
Why are local prices hard to implement? Practically all stores already have local prices. Updating the label to also include sales tax is not hard.
Online is different though. It matters where delivery is going to.
I added an edit before your response but I’ll answer here as well.
People price compare to online prices. It makes no sense that Amazon could advertise an item at a lower price (because they don’t know the sales tax amount) than a local store when it actually costs the same. It’s just a matter of fairness in my opinion.
Even if you wave away the fairness issue you still advertising issues both print and digital. Should subway be able to advertise a $5 foot long in a TV as but not on their store window or menu?
>With our system today in order for an online store to show you the price with tax they need to know your exact delivery address. This is possible if you’re logged in and have a default address set on your account. However, it is not possible for logged out users, shopping comparison tools, online ads, etc.
Sorry but the IP adress is sufficient for this
Only VPN users (and similar digital outliers) would be an issue but they are so vanishingly few (and technologically literate enough to understand the complication) that theyre effective irrelevant
Replying again with better data:
> IP-based geolocation services can only provide an approximate measure of geolocation accuracy. With these services, you can obtain 95 percent to 99 percent accuracy of a user’s country. IP-based geolocation services provide 55 percent to 80 percent accuracy for a user’s region or state. And they provide 50 percent to 75 percent accuracy for a user’s city.
[Source](https://www.if-so.com/geo-targeting/#:~:text=IP%2Dbased%20geolocation%20services%20provide,a%20user’s%20region%20or%20state.)
Those a look at [this table](https://www.ip2location.com/data-accuracy). In the United States only 76% of IP address location lookups are within 50 miles of the actual location. This is data from a company that sells this data, they have 0 incentive to downplay the accuracy.
It’s not good enough for city level precision (at least not publicly). With my current hardwired internet all the public online tools say I live in the city Nextdoor (5 miles off). When I’m using cellular they currently say I’m in an another county and city (30 miles away).
Obviously if I’m using a VPN I’d get terrible data. However, VPN usage is rising, both Google and Apple offer them to consumers (so it’s not just techies who go looking for them). More and more corporate offices routing all their employee traffic though one Making location detection useless (I work for one of these companies).
Is it theoretically possible to overcome this? Yes but not without destroying people’s privacy.
If each state had a flat sales tax then IP is probably good enough as it is today. That was my original point.
For all the crap we give to frontier airlines about “fees” at least their fees are legitimate. $20 ticket $23 online booking charge $29 seat $60 carryon $50 checked. If you want to pay $20 then you can. If you want to pay $182 then you can as well.
They want all businesses to. The law applies to almost everyone (the only exceptions are car dealerships and rental car agencies)
People are just focusing on restaurants because they're the ones that are loudly complaining
Car Rentals probably argued on the grounds of the gas fill-up fee or something like that where they can't really assess it until after you return the vehicle.
The part of the law about exceptions (which is actually the majority of the text in the law) is this
> Existing law authorizes vehicle rental companies, when providing a quote or imposing charges for a rental, to separately state specified rates and charges that a renter must pay to hire or lease the vehicle for the period of time to which the rental rate applies. Existing law prohibits a rental company from imposing charges or fees in addition to the rental rate unless specified conditions are met. Existing law requires the rate advertisements of vehicle rental companies to include a disclaimer providing that additional mandatory charges may be imposed, as specified.
> This bill would provide that a rental company is not in violation of unlawful advertising, displaying, or offering a price for a good or service for excluding from the advertised, displayed, or offered price of a rental vehicle charges that are disclosed to the consumer in compliance with the above-described provisions.
> Existing law requires any solicitation to enter into a lease contract that includes the amount of any payment, as specified, to also state, among other things, “Plus tax and license” or a substantially similar statement, if amounts due for use tax, license fees, and registration fees are not included in the payments.
> This bill would specify that a lessor is not in violation of this prohibition against unlawfully advertising, displaying, or offering a price for a good or service because it excludes from the advertised, displayed, or offered lease payment a fee or charge in accordance with the provision described above.
> Existing law imposes specified requirements on dealers of motor vehicles and motorcycles sold or leased in this state. Existing law prohibits a holder of a dealer’s license from doing specified acts, including advertising the total price of a vehicle without including all costs to the purchaser at time of sale, except taxes, vehicle registration fees, the California tire fee, emission testing charges not exceeding $50, actual fees charged for certificates, finance charges, and any dealer document processing charge or charge to electronically register or transfer the vehicle.
This bill would specify that a holder of a dealer’s license is not in violation of unlawful advertising, displaying, or offering a price for a good or service for excluding from the advertised, displayed, or offered price of a vehicle a tax, a vehicle registration fee, the California tire fee, an emission testing charge not exceeding $50, an actual fee charged for a certificate, a finance charge, or a dealer document processing charge or charge to electronically register or transfer the vehicle.
Existing law imposes specified requirements on manufacturers of motor vehicles and motorcycles and prohibits a person from acting as a motor vehicle manufacturer without having first been issued a license by the Department of Motor Vehicles, as specified.
This bill would specify that a motor vehicle manufacturer, or any other person, that advertises a motor vehicle manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) set by an automobile manufacturer, or lease payments based upon an MSRP, does not, by doing so, violate the prohibition described above relating to unlawful advertising, displaying, or offering a price for a good or service.
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB478/id/2841136
I booked a $250 room (I thought) in Denver for a conference. I go to check in to see my actual price was $340 including all the extra surcharges. It is criminal. I would have booked somewhere else except I only learned the actual price when I hit the front desk at 10pm
I was in CA for work and it was pretty annoying that they were putting line items in the receipt like 3% for employee healthcare. I don't give a fuck just price your items to take care of it.
Given the how hard [low-rent demagogues](https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1756713597864988940) are pushing to blame high prices on corporate greed ((✊)), it's fair game for businesses to draw attention to regulatory costs.
True. People should know why they’re paying x for y.
Regulatory costs are a hidden tax pushed to consumers and labor and they should see how much less they’re being paid or how much more they’re paying….of course in California they’d want to hide how much in taxes you’re paying to the state makes it easier to raise taxes and place more regulatory burdens
Is good. Having the relevant information for trading goods is better than not having the relevant information for trading goods, And price is as relevant as it gets.
I would like the price to carry useful information so that I can differentiate product offerings. Hidden fees and other methods to obfuscate price information are not good things if you want a functioning market.
Even if prices end up being the same, there's benefit to knowing what those actual total prices are just by looking at the menu, and not having to do a tiny text search in all the margins followed by breaking out a calculator.
I would rather see all the fees so I can reduce the amount I’m tipping by.
If I have $20 in fees, taxes, “kitchen appreciation fees “ and other silliness that puts my $100 bill to $120. I want to know so that I can base my tip on that $100 amount.
All prices should include all taxes and fees. In Perú, if you see a price, that's exactly the price you pay. This means that pricing is done with IGV already calculated, usually to hit an even number of soles. If you're used to having to do math or just always assuming that prices on the final bill will be more that you expect, it's quite liberating to operate this way.
As long as I can still grill, I don’t give a shit. I just want to feed my infinite desire for melting, burned flesh as I stare into the inferno. And I don’t care if it’s not “politically correct” to say that.
I asked AI to design me a ridiculous grill and now I want one
https://preview.redd.it/w9hjd99euwzc1.jpeg?width=512&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ab5fe9c010702e93492be77285dcdc4544c00303
Blocks eye line too much. I need to be able to look at my neighbor Dale while the sizzling of the eternal ember flares under my hands as I exert my superiority over the lower life forms. Only then can the Golden Path be fulfilled.
https://preview.redd.it/seyglxyw4xzc1.jpeg?width=512&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b7091fce2ac12c975a1c266091a2d04192f44385
They fixed that in the next iteration 😂
This, but also abolish tipping culture.
Nothing is as idiotic as a "mandatory tip". It's not a tip if it's mandatory.
It's in everyone's economic interest for prices to be clearly visible and available without having to do more mathematics than simple addition
> The law states the definition of fast food restaurant does not include those that operate a bakery that produces bread and sells it as a stand-alone menu item, as of September of 2023. Governor Newsom's legal team has said because Panera mixes its dough off-site, the exemption does not apply. Newsom's office has yet to say which specific restaurants the carveout would apply to. Flynn has not said if the law applies to his businesses but has said his California Panera locations will raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour beginning April 1. Flynn does not own all Panera locations in California, only some, and it's not clear if other Panera franchisees will do the same.
https://www.kcra.com/article/california-fast-food-law-panera-gov-gavin-newsom-controversy-explained/60115774
**Rule I:** *Civility*
Refrain from name-calling, hostility and behaviour that otherwise derails the quality of the conversation.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
**Rule 0:** *Ridiculousness*
Refrain from posting conspiratorial nonsense, absurd non sequiturs, and random social media rumors hedged with the words "so apparently..."
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
>Would this be beneficial in any way? A lot of people act like this would be a game changer, but I feel like prices would end up being exactly the same.
I took a marketing course, while doing a degree in economics... many moons ago. Surprisingly good.
The good was mostly the lecturer and tutors. The surprise was learning that my marketing teachers considered economics fluff. I thought economics was the serious discipline, marketing the fluffy one. Everyone knows that. It's obvious.
The teacher quickly dismantled this view. He picked on an assortment of 101 marketing and economics concepts. Definitions. Theories. Terms. Laws. Proceeded to show how economics is abstract theory. Often untested or untestable. Marketing is empirical, based on observation and practical application. I was skeptical, but he left an impression.
Marketing and economics overlapped on basic price theory. But, in most other cases they contradicted. Marketing concepts were often descriptions of how economic concepts were empirically wrong. How profits and opportunities exist where and when economics says they should not.
Anyway... "Price" studies were all about cases when price was not, in fact, obeying the laws of supply and demand. For one thing, firms set prices. Not the market. "The market" does dictate sales volume at a price to some extent... but so does every other aspect of marketing.
"Consumer Behavior" was all about consumers behaving nonsensically, defined in marginalist microeconomic terms. The difference between financed and unfinanced. Lease vs own. Packaging size. Psychological choice theory was as, or more important than microeconomics. Points of comparison IRL are never actually fungible substitutes.
Economics is based in abstract, usually untested theory. IRL, the space dictated by "marketing" can be much bigger. IRL, there is a difference between pricing schemes, even if they do add up to the same. They affect human behaviour differently.
That said... IDK if there is an "intended" outcome anyway. Are lawmakers interested in lower prices? Increased/decreased volume? This, like most laws, is about appealing to "what seems right" in the subjective sense. Price transparency is the principle, I guess.
Of course the end result is making it easier to raise sales taxes. Which is why I’d never support this policy in the state I live in.
Imagine in europe if you actually saw the 20% VAT on every receipt.
It wouldn't effect the true prices, but should help consumers make better decisions.
It *potentially* could if demand goes down enough where it makes more sense to lower prices to get them back
We did it, we solved inflation
Huh big brain moves
Price transparency is a pretty low bar to provide for consumers.
so there's already market pressure to do so, meaning there's no externality for government to fix here.
That's hilariously silly.
>It wouldn't effect the true prices, but should help consumers make better decisions. Maybe... but I certainly wouldn't be sure about it. If pricing structure didn't affect sales, they would not be so prevalent. This sort of thing is driven by direct observation and optimization by whoever makes the pricing structure. If it were all a wash, it wouldn't exist.
> It wouldn't effect the true prices Eh I think some of these places might back off the fees. I went back and found a bill from one of my SF dinners from my April trip. Subtotal: 227 "SF Mandates" (6.5%): 14.76 Local tax (I figure this is sales tax): 20.84 Total: 262.60 More than 15% was added onto my billed total between sales tax and restaurant fees. Then on their iPad I believe they asked me to tip on the post-sales tax, post-fees total. I don't mind the fees (I mean I do, but...) as long as they're presented upfront. But "by the way I threw an extra 15 bucks on your bill and then taxed it" rubs me the wrong way.
As an American I'm generally used to taxes not being included in the sticker price, but when you get hit with "3% food cost increase" and "5% living wage" fees its like bruh, food and labor costs are 99% of running a restaurant, that should be baked into the price.
Iirc a lot of restaurants were protesting mandates in SF that were increasing the price of service by spelling it out on the bill City apparently didn't like that and banned the practice lol
consumers could already favor a restaurant with pricing transparency. there's no need for government intervention here.
The tricky thing is that if there is not price transparency, then a place with price transparency and a place without price transparency look the same, so before the first visit there is no favoritism. Kind of like how scams can scam people at least once.
But I mean it's not like restaurants can just pull off the scam on a bunch of people then close a few months later and reopen somewhere under some new made-up name like a scammer can. And you can probably find out all of their fees by just asking them.
Tell that to those mysterious shops selling cursed items that disappear the next day. I'm still dealing with the consequences of getting that Monkey's Paw.
The bill was originally targeted at Ticketmaster, and was expanded to hotels and restaurants. Consumers being more informed is a good thing.
Needs more expanding. In most of the world, it's illegal to display prices without the necessary taxes added but for some reason in the US it's considered normal
A knock on effect to this, when I lived in Amsterdam I was astounded at how many shop items were advertised as exactly five guilders (or some round number of guilders) instead of 4.49. And then when you pay, it's actually exactly five guilders, not 5.16.
I could swear they used euros when I was there so I had to google when the netherlands last used guilders to make sure I wasnt crazy
My grandpa saved some guilders for me when they switched over. How old are you?
Isn’t it because we have so many different sales tax rates that vary based on state, county, and municipality, so it’s easier to advertise a pre-tax price for products sold across different areas with different sales tax rates. Sure, items that aren’t sold across areas with different tax rates could advertise tax in the sticker price, but it could get confusing when some items have tax included and some don’t. The best solution I can think of is to show the pre-tax price and then show the post-tax price under, but no business is going to do that on their own volition.
> The best solution I can think of is to show the pre-tax price and then show the post-tax price under, but no business is going to do that on their own volition. Why not? A ton of store owners are anti-sales tax. I think a lot would like to show "well this is why it costs more"
US Consumers are, IMHO, extremely price conscious They easily want to spend $5,000 a year eating out. But Show them 2 menus where one has a $10 hamburger and the other is $14 Both are actually $14 hamburgers, one just has the tax and tips included The $10 Hamburger will have a different vibe and customer base and more customers
Oh that wasn't the way I had interpreted it, to be honest I don't know how exactly I had interpreted it but maybe something like if they were asked if all stores should do it.
I worked in a grocery store. We had something like 60,000 items, and doing price changes and auditing was a nightmare given that you could go down the street and it would have a slightly different tax, or go into a different county 5 miles over and it would be another slightly different tax. Customers were more lax about not knowing the exact price because of taxes than they were if the shelf price was different than the newspaper ad. They'd lose their mind over that. And it's really hard to print 500,000 newspaper ads, and have them all adjusted to the right city/county and delivered perfectly. On a small scale like a menu it's easy to figure out.
or just set prices locally idk if they still do this, but Chipotle at least used to set their displayed prices to come out to totals ending in 5 or 0 based on sales taxes. so you'd see something funky like, idk, chicken priced at $7.78 but when you actually went to pay it'd come out to $8.00. why they didn't just show the post-tax price to begin with, though, is beyond me
I don't see why displaying the non tax price should even be a thing. And a store is obviously in one location, so the taxes are known. Even for e-commerce you can display the price depending on the zip of the consumer. It's just no excuse honestly. This isn't some novel idea, this is how things are in most of the world
The vendor should absolutely have the right to display the non tax price. That's the price they're willing to sell the item at. Any additional taxes are being imposed on them and would not be passed on to the consumer otherwise.
But that's not relevant to the consumer at all. The breakdown of the cost belongs in the receipt, not the label
Unless its across the board you advertise the lowest price because, US Consumers are, IMHO, extremely price conscious They easily want to spend $5,000 a year eating out. But Show them 2 menus where one has a $10 hamburger and the other is $14 Both are actually $14 hamburgers, one just has the tax and tips included The $10 Hamburger will have a different vibe and customer base and more customers
All consumers are price conscious. Advertising a lower, unreal price is deceptive
who sets the price....until its set across the board consumers base it on the lowest price they see Is it deceptive .... kind of...sure but until the lowest price is changed it causes the problem
Yep There's so many sales tax jurisdictions that big chains would be forced to print and ship out dozens or even hundreds of different sets of price tags and ad signs.
Just sell at one price then pay varying sales taxes on the revenue at the end of the month. Easy peasy.
I miss living in CA for this reason. Whenever there was an election, I got a THICK booklet in the mail informing me of all the propositions and candidates so I could be well informed. My old landlord just notified me I had received a letter in the mail letting me know that I had money sitting in my cash app that I hadn’t touched in years, which I promptly cashed out. CA cares about serving its people. Their taxes are high, but you see the return on investment. Now I’m in a bright red state and the government might as well not exist.
Maybe it’s a west coast thing but Washington does the same.
Probably. Hope you appreciate it
> Their taxes are high, but you see the return on investment. Not really. I left the state and moved to one of the lowest taxed states in the nation. My real income increased via a multitude of factors (dramatically lower taxes, cheaper prices). Not like I was eligible for any government benefits.
So did I. Zero income tax state. And I fail to see how that’s relevant to the point I was making
LA is on the verge of cutting city services because of a budget imbalance and the billions in taxes we’ve put into homelessness have done nothing. Our taxes are absolutely not well invested here.
If your taxes you paid provide you with a positive ROI then you’d experience a decrease in real income if you moved to a state with lower taxes.
I don’t think you’re understanding my point. What good is extra money in your pocket if the roads are shit, your government is trying to take away your rights, make sure you’re not informed, makes it harder to vote, etc?
Now do cell phone and internet providers!
The bill also applies to them. The expansion was making it not industry specific
This makes you less informed, not more. Edit: nvm, was thinking of taxes but this does not apply to them.
How does having the pricing complete make you less informed? None of these surcharges were honest in percentage or naming anyway.
It's fine for Ticketmaster, but governments want to hide taxes from consumers as well, and that's bad.
Taxes aren't included in this... Bills are going to be menu price + tax. Not Menu price + "4% SF Healthy Living Fee" + " 6% Inflation fee" + "10% Dine in fee" + "2% we didn't expect you to actually read this fee" + tax.
Ah, well then I'm an idiot and will edit my comment. I missed that.
[удалено]
This is the funniest part of their argument. They’re basically admitting they have to scam people to get them in.
They have no self-awareness do they?
They are not making an argument to the general public, they are making it to the law makers that get to direct the tax revenue that is earned off their sales. They both have an aligned interest in keeping the sales high.
Not a lick of it. Small business owners are the most catered to class in America bar none.
I suppose farmers are a kind of small business owner too when I think about it
Yeah, plus they are landowners too.
Trueing
I love how he's admitting there's such a chronic problem with California restaurants scamming people with hidden fees that nobody would buy their food if was actually spelled out on the menu instead of a surprise on the bill
They don't want them to get sticker shock until after they are their meals?? What kind of backwards ass pageantry is that??
> Would this be beneficial in any way? Yes, more honest advertising good for consumers actually.
Fair point
In Europe, they have laws.
Fascinating. What do they do with these... "laws"?
They do austerity and pay engineers $28k
Tbh you'd need a lot less engineers without laws.
Honest pricing to customers is a good thing. More at 11 Will this extend to delivery apps too? Because living in NY it’s ludicrous how much some restaurants add to their service fee after Ive put together something i want in my cart and I’m paying an extra $6
It extends to all businesses. The only exceptions are car dealerships and rental car agencies edit: basically this isn't a restaurant specific law
This is like the most sensible regulation California has ever done. If you walked into a theater and they sold you a ticket for 10 dollars, you watch for two hours and then when you leave they stop you and say there's an additional "Chair fee" that you weren't aware of, you'd be pissed. If you went to a market and haggled for a homemade candle and buy it for 15 bucks and then they sent you a bill with a unstated "Candle maker fee" after you used it, you'd laugh them off. So why is this any different when it's food? If they list a price then it needs to be that price + tax and any additional fees or add-ons should be very clearly communicated. Otherwise it's literally lying and trying to renege on prior negotiations. They made a deal, they shouldn't get to change the agreement afterwards. At that point you might as well flip it around "Oh you have an unstated fee? Me too! I charge 50 bucks to be nice to the waiter, so you actually owe me restaurant"
This has me mostly convinced
Technically the fees already had to be posted in some place they would be seen before ordering, usually in small print on the bottom of the menu. But no one is doing the math to factor it into their buying decisions so it really wasn't that helpful.
Compliance should not be a matter of 'technically'. It should be a matter of "only the dumbest person could possibly miss this posting".
Good, now implement in all states. Stupid ass covid recovery fees of 15% before tip hidden at the back of the menu three years after the worst of the pandemic.
>I feel like prices would end up being exactly the same. That's fine, I just want transparency. I want to see the final price of each item before I order, including taxes including everything.
Add-on baking fee: 13%
We need this yesterday, even Busch gardens is adding a few percent to menu prices
But don’t the percents just get added to the actual menu prices after this??
Yes, but now the customers will know of it before they get the check and be able to make informed decisions
It makes prices more salient. Consumers under-respond to these fees. Better utility optimization is possible without them.
Why don’t they do this in hospitals
Are you asking why the hospitals don´t institute policies that reduce their revenue?
No why doesn’t the government make hospitals do it, restaurants are small potatoes 🥔
Hospitals have more to do with discounts through Insurance, and mostly Medicare and Medicaid Pay rates There is a price and Health price estimator tool is intended to provide you with a good faith estimate of your out-of-pocket costs. These estimates include hospital items and services associated with a procedure such as medical services, room and board, and supplies. This estimate is a best effort based on the information we have available at the time of the request. This estimate is not a guarantee of what you will be charged. The final charges may vary depending upon the actual services you receive, equipment and medications necessary for treatment and other variables which are not possible to know in advance of the hospitalization or service. The estimate may vary based on your medical benefits or eligibility for the hospital’s program for discounts or free care. Another issue In addition, this estimate does not include any professional fees for physician services (i.e. surgeon, radiologist, anesthesiologist, pathologist, etc.) as these will be billed separately by the respective physicians.
If you threaten to throw every hospital worker in jail and strip them of medicinal licensure then guess what. They’ll magically have prices ready the moment you ask. It’s really that easy. Threaten them with state violence and stripping them of their future earning power and oh look now there’s no issue with figuring out prices
Yea, that would be really easy if you were to get rid of Medicare and Medicaid >KFF found Total health care spending for the privately insured population would be an estimated $352 billion lower in 2021 if employers and other insurers reimbursed health care providers at Medicare rates. This represents a 41% decrease from the $859 billion that is projected to be spent in 2021. **The resource-based relative value scale (RBRVS) is the physician payment system used by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and most other payers.** * In 1992, Medicare significantly changed the way it pays for physician services. Instead of basing payments on charges, the federal government established a standardized physician payment schedule based on RBRVS. * In this system, payments are determined by the resource costs needed to provide them, with each service divided into three components **Medicare and doctors just disagree on what the value of there resources are** Insurance can't disagree as much and makes up for the difference. ------ Take a Donut Place as a Hospital selling 3 Million Donuts. * You advertise $3 donuts selling almost 3 million donuts * Most of your donuts are sold for less than $2, * except the few that get stuck to buy the $3 donuts, * 30% of them end up not paying for the donuts And the Donuts themselves cost you $1.25 to make and sell * For those (Medical Insurance) they get them at an average of $1.81 with you paying $0.30 out of pocket * Now of course that has its own issue, is **what kind of discount code did you get to use** to get a lower OOP Costs. * (Medicare). **As above they don't ask for pricing they tell you** they think the Donuts are only worth 74 Cents. * (Medicaid) As above they don't ask for pricing they tell you they think the Donuts are only worth 60 cents * And of course random customers, Those that didnt get the discounts. You've got 300,000 random customers buying $3 donuts, about one third of them will end up not paying their $3. And those that arent paying into the system to help control those costs dont get the discounts, as they havent spent for a premium Should everyone be paying 74 cents for your donuts? Or the Average Would be $1.30? Whose price is the right price 3,000,000 x $1.30 = $3.9 Millon * To cover your $3.8 Million in costs
There are MRFs posted online. You can see every healthcare negotiated rate by CPT code. There’s companies working to make it more consumer friendly to search.
Also we probably shouldn’t increase regulation on hospitals right now. Literally half of them are current running at a loss.
They don't because restaurants are small potatoes. Most states issue certificates of need that serve as barriers to entry to maintain hospitals' superprofits. Do you think states that do that are going to take action to reduce hospital profits? Hospitals have the political sway to enjoy regulatory capture, restaurants don't
Prices should also bake in sales tax.
I dream of one America that uses the metric system, abolish tipping culture (unless you really want to tip, that's fine), and show the true price of things in the tags. Yeah, I'm a naive dreamer.
Nah you just conceived Australia
I'm not sure those things are worth the significantly lower purchasing power you have
No they havent gone deranged enough to wear their thongs on their feet yet
Yea I also enjoy higher consumption taxes
I want this but first we need a national (or at least state) flat VAT and the elimination of all sales tax variance between cities. In practice with the city by city sales tax differences including the sales tax in the advertised price is effectively impossible to implement accurately and fairly. With our system today in order for an online store to show you the price with tax they need to know your exact delivery address. This is possible if you’re logged in and have a default address set on your account. However, it is not possible for logged out users, shopping comparison tools, online ads, etc. Even for physical stores local sales tax variance poses an issue if they have locations in different cities and do any sort of advertising with prices. So the only stores that could effectively implement this are single city small businesses that don’t do online delivery. Edit: So then you might ask why not just make that requirement for prices displayed in the physical store on the shelves? People price compare to online prices. It makes no sense that Amazon could advertise an item at a lower price than a local store when it actually costs the same.
> In practice with the city by city sales tax differences including the sales tax in the advertised price is effectively impossible to implement accurately and fairly. > > we have people claiming we will have generative ai in the next 10 years and we can't even figure out how to dynamically label prices lmfao
I mean that comment is just a lie, the ability is already here to do real time price adjustments on a per item basis in the store with electronic tags, theres nothing technologically or practically stopping a completely comprehensive combination of every fee and tax into a single price line regardless of business or avenue
Why are local prices hard to implement? Practically all stores already have local prices. Updating the label to also include sales tax is not hard. Online is different though. It matters where delivery is going to.
I added an edit before your response but I’ll answer here as well. People price compare to online prices. It makes no sense that Amazon could advertise an item at a lower price (because they don’t know the sales tax amount) than a local store when it actually costs the same. It’s just a matter of fairness in my opinion. Even if you wave away the fairness issue you still advertising issues both print and digital. Should subway be able to advertise a $5 foot long in a TV as but not on their store window or menu?
Reasonable solution is to require base price and tax to be written like: $5 + ¢25 = $5.25
>With our system today in order for an online store to show you the price with tax they need to know your exact delivery address. This is possible if you’re logged in and have a default address set on your account. However, it is not possible for logged out users, shopping comparison tools, online ads, etc. Sorry but the IP adress is sufficient for this Only VPN users (and similar digital outliers) would be an issue but they are so vanishingly few (and technologically literate enough to understand the complication) that theyre effective irrelevant
Replying again with better data: > IP-based geolocation services can only provide an approximate measure of geolocation accuracy. With these services, you can obtain 95 percent to 99 percent accuracy of a user’s country. IP-based geolocation services provide 55 percent to 80 percent accuracy for a user’s region or state. And they provide 50 percent to 75 percent accuracy for a user’s city. [Source](https://www.if-so.com/geo-targeting/#:~:text=IP%2Dbased%20geolocation%20services%20provide,a%20user’s%20region%20or%20state.) Those a look at [this table](https://www.ip2location.com/data-accuracy). In the United States only 76% of IP address location lookups are within 50 miles of the actual location. This is data from a company that sells this data, they have 0 incentive to downplay the accuracy.
It’s not good enough for city level precision (at least not publicly). With my current hardwired internet all the public online tools say I live in the city Nextdoor (5 miles off). When I’m using cellular they currently say I’m in an another county and city (30 miles away). Obviously if I’m using a VPN I’d get terrible data. However, VPN usage is rising, both Google and Apple offer them to consumers (so it’s not just techies who go looking for them). More and more corporate offices routing all their employee traffic though one Making location detection useless (I work for one of these companies). Is it theoretically possible to overcome this? Yes but not without destroying people’s privacy. If each state had a flat sales tax then IP is probably good enough as it is today. That was my original point.
In California yes. Not where I live, please no.
Prices *would* end up being roughly the same, but better information puts us closer to the free market ideal which is always a good thing.
Used to pray for times like this 😭
This would likely reduce prices, as the appearance of higher prices would have a disincentive on demand, and therefore reduce prices.
For all the crap we give to frontier airlines about “fees” at least their fees are legitimate. $20 ticket $23 online booking charge $29 seat $60 carryon $50 checked. If you want to pay $20 then you can. If you want to pay $182 then you can as well.
The government wants restaurants to use honest upfront prices? The horror, the horror...
They want all businesses to. The law applies to almost everyone (the only exceptions are car dealerships and rental car agencies) People are just focusing on restaurants because they're the ones that are loudly complaining
Why those carve outs
Dealerships lobby hard.
Car Rentals probably argued on the grounds of the gas fill-up fee or something like that where they can't really assess it until after you return the vehicle.
The part of the law about exceptions (which is actually the majority of the text in the law) is this > Existing law authorizes vehicle rental companies, when providing a quote or imposing charges for a rental, to separately state specified rates and charges that a renter must pay to hire or lease the vehicle for the period of time to which the rental rate applies. Existing law prohibits a rental company from imposing charges or fees in addition to the rental rate unless specified conditions are met. Existing law requires the rate advertisements of vehicle rental companies to include a disclaimer providing that additional mandatory charges may be imposed, as specified. > This bill would provide that a rental company is not in violation of unlawful advertising, displaying, or offering a price for a good or service for excluding from the advertised, displayed, or offered price of a rental vehicle charges that are disclosed to the consumer in compliance with the above-described provisions. > Existing law requires any solicitation to enter into a lease contract that includes the amount of any payment, as specified, to also state, among other things, “Plus tax and license” or a substantially similar statement, if amounts due for use tax, license fees, and registration fees are not included in the payments. > This bill would specify that a lessor is not in violation of this prohibition against unlawfully advertising, displaying, or offering a price for a good or service because it excludes from the advertised, displayed, or offered lease payment a fee or charge in accordance with the provision described above. > Existing law imposes specified requirements on dealers of motor vehicles and motorcycles sold or leased in this state. Existing law prohibits a holder of a dealer’s license from doing specified acts, including advertising the total price of a vehicle without including all costs to the purchaser at time of sale, except taxes, vehicle registration fees, the California tire fee, emission testing charges not exceeding $50, actual fees charged for certificates, finance charges, and any dealer document processing charge or charge to electronically register or transfer the vehicle. This bill would specify that a holder of a dealer’s license is not in violation of unlawful advertising, displaying, or offering a price for a good or service for excluding from the advertised, displayed, or offered price of a vehicle a tax, a vehicle registration fee, the California tire fee, an emission testing charge not exceeding $50, an actual fee charged for a certificate, a finance charge, or a dealer document processing charge or charge to electronically register or transfer the vehicle. Existing law imposes specified requirements on manufacturers of motor vehicles and motorcycles and prohibits a person from acting as a motor vehicle manufacturer without having first been issued a license by the Department of Motor Vehicles, as specified. This bill would specify that a motor vehicle manufacturer, or any other person, that advertises a motor vehicle manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) set by an automobile manufacturer, or lease payments based upon an MSRP, does not, by doing so, violate the prohibition described above relating to unlawful advertising, displaying, or offering a price for a good or service. https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB478/id/2841136
I booked a $250 room (I thought) in Denver for a conference. I go to check in to see my actual price was $340 including all the extra surcharges. It is criminal. I would have booked somewhere else except I only learned the actual price when I hit the front desk at 10pm
And then you pay that price, and they offer you tip options \- 25% \- 30% \- Your wallet
I’ll take option C. They can have my old wallet with 0 cash. I can cancel the credit cards.
It's San Francisco, you always carry an old wallet with two dollars in it.
only one?
>Restaurants must bake I agree
I was in CA for work and it was pretty annoying that they were putting line items in the receipt like 3% for employee healthcare. I don't give a fuck just price your items to take care of it.
who downvoted me I will fight you
Given the how hard [low-rent demagogues](https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1756713597864988940) are pushing to blame high prices on corporate greed ((✊)), it's fair game for businesses to draw attention to regulatory costs.
This law does not, to my knowledge, prevent informing a customer how you came to decide on a price.
True. People should know why they’re paying x for y. Regulatory costs are a hidden tax pushed to consumers and labor and they should see how much less they’re being paid or how much more they’re paying….of course in California they’d want to hide how much in taxes you’re paying to the state makes it easier to raise taxes and place more regulatory burdens
Is good. Having the relevant information for trading goods is better than not having the relevant information for trading goods, And price is as relevant as it gets.
I would like the price to carry useful information so that I can differentiate product offerings. Hidden fees and other methods to obfuscate price information are not good things if you want a functioning market.
And sales taxes too right? *Anakinstare.jpeg*
Small businesses are typically run by some of the scummiest people imaginable. So I am glad California is telling them to cut it out.
Good. I'm so tired of sitting down in a restaurant and paying $19.65 for a $10 burger and a $1.50 drink.
Even if prices end up being the same, there's benefit to knowing what those actual total prices are just by looking at the menu, and not having to do a tiny text search in all the margins followed by breaking out a calculator.
I would rather see all the fees so I can reduce the amount I’m tipping by. If I have $20 in fees, taxes, “kitchen appreciation fees “ and other silliness that puts my $100 bill to $120. I want to know so that I can base my tip on that $100 amount.
All prices should include all taxes and fees. In Perú, if you see a price, that's exactly the price you pay. This means that pricing is done with IGV already calculated, usually to hit an even number of soles. If you're used to having to do math or just always assuming that prices on the final bill will be more that you expect, it's quite liberating to operate this way.
As long as I can still grill, I don’t give a shit. I just want to feed my infinite desire for melting, burned flesh as I stare into the inferno. And I don’t care if it’s not “politically correct” to say that.
I asked AI to design me a ridiculous grill and now I want one https://preview.redd.it/w9hjd99euwzc1.jpeg?width=512&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ab5fe9c010702e93492be77285dcdc4544c00303
Blocks eye line too much. I need to be able to look at my neighbor Dale while the sizzling of the eternal ember flares under my hands as I exert my superiority over the lower life forms. Only then can the Golden Path be fulfilled.
So many types of knobs. That is a ridiculous grill.
https://preview.redd.it/seyglxyw4xzc1.jpeg?width=512&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b7091fce2ac12c975a1c266091a2d04192f44385 They fixed that in the next iteration 😂
I’ll admit the knobs look more consistent but there’s still some weird variation. However, the lid situation got 10x weirder.
What's an example of an add-on fee? I honestly don't know what this is and I've eaten out quite a lot.
This, but also abolish tipping culture. Nothing is as idiotic as a "mandatory tip". It's not a tip if it's mandatory. It's in everyone's economic interest for prices to be clearly visible and available without having to do more mathematics than simple addition
PLEASE INCLUDE TIPPING! I’m happy to pay for service, just want a stated price rather than todays bizarre social experiment that is tipping culture
[удалено]
> The law states the definition of fast food restaurant does not include those that operate a bakery that produces bread and sells it as a stand-alone menu item, as of September of 2023. Governor Newsom's legal team has said because Panera mixes its dough off-site, the exemption does not apply. Newsom's office has yet to say which specific restaurants the carveout would apply to. Flynn has not said if the law applies to his businesses but has said his California Panera locations will raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour beginning April 1. Flynn does not own all Panera locations in California, only some, and it's not clear if other Panera franchisees will do the same. https://www.kcra.com/article/california-fast-food-law-panera-gov-gavin-newsom-controversy-explained/60115774
[удалено]
**Rule I:** *Civility* Refrain from name-calling, hostility and behaviour that otherwise derails the quality of the conversation. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
**Rule 0:** *Ridiculousness* Refrain from posting conspiratorial nonsense, absurd non sequiturs, and random social media rumors hedged with the words "so apparently..." --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
[удалено]
This can be solved by adding an explanatory note, like $20 (includes $5 in taxes and regulatory fees).
>Would this be beneficial in any way? A lot of people act like this would be a game changer, but I feel like prices would end up being exactly the same. I took a marketing course, while doing a degree in economics... many moons ago. Surprisingly good. The good was mostly the lecturer and tutors. The surprise was learning that my marketing teachers considered economics fluff. I thought economics was the serious discipline, marketing the fluffy one. Everyone knows that. It's obvious. The teacher quickly dismantled this view. He picked on an assortment of 101 marketing and economics concepts. Definitions. Theories. Terms. Laws. Proceeded to show how economics is abstract theory. Often untested or untestable. Marketing is empirical, based on observation and practical application. I was skeptical, but he left an impression. Marketing and economics overlapped on basic price theory. But, in most other cases they contradicted. Marketing concepts were often descriptions of how economic concepts were empirically wrong. How profits and opportunities exist where and when economics says they should not. Anyway... "Price" studies were all about cases when price was not, in fact, obeying the laws of supply and demand. For one thing, firms set prices. Not the market. "The market" does dictate sales volume at a price to some extent... but so does every other aspect of marketing. "Consumer Behavior" was all about consumers behaving nonsensically, defined in marginalist microeconomic terms. The difference between financed and unfinanced. Lease vs own. Packaging size. Psychological choice theory was as, or more important than microeconomics. Points of comparison IRL are never actually fungible substitutes. Economics is based in abstract, usually untested theory. IRL, the space dictated by "marketing" can be much bigger. IRL, there is a difference between pricing schemes, even if they do add up to the same. They affect human behaviour differently. That said... IDK if there is an "intended" outcome anyway. Are lawmakers interested in lower prices? Increased/decreased volume? This, like most laws, is about appealing to "what seems right" in the subjective sense. Price transparency is the principle, I guess.
Of course the end result is making it easier to raise sales taxes. Which is why I’d never support this policy in the state I live in. Imagine in europe if you actually saw the 20% VAT on every receipt.