California AG and state senators introduce bill to ban hidden fees
> Sellers often hide these additional, mandatory charges by using small type, vague descriptions or misleading wording such as “service fees,” by bundling them with <i>legitimate charges like taxes</i>, or revealing them clearly only after the consumer has invested time in the transaction.<p>The tiny libertarian inside of me recoils at the description of taxes as legitimate, but that's a point for a different type of discussion. I'd just like to call attention to the concept of hidden fees being called out. And remember, that's fees, as in plural.<p>Government officials are pointing out that multiple end of sale charges can be confusing and misleading dark patterns? Ok, great, lets analyze that logic through for consistency.<p>Governments are engaging in the same bullshit.<p>Look at how many Government Fees and taxes are on my basic phone bill.<p>> City District Sales Tax - Telecom<p>> City Sales Tax - Telecom<p>> County Public Safety Communications Surcharge<p>> State Sales Tax - Telecom<p>> State Public Safety Communications Surcharge<p>There might be at least a few more, but I can't quite confirm if they're actually taxes or not.<p>You might say that paying a tax is a necessary part of a functional society. Again, I'm not here to debate that.<p>But why the bullshit with having an entire pile of random taxes given in a piecemeal fashion? If it's misleading and complicated for consumers to understand payments with 500 different surcharges and fees, certainly consumers also aren't understanding their true tax burden if they're nickle and dimed with tons of extra taxes that are only visible at the end of the process and not spelled out up front. If it's good for consumers to know about all of their commercial fees, shouldn't the same logic apply to taxation? Shouldn't voters be made to understand their true tax burden in the simplest fashion possible?