Shopping Discussion

Dollartree charged me $0.57 for buying $1.25 cable!!!! 47% tax fee

  • Last Updated:
  • Feb 16th, 2021 6:12 pm
[OP]
Newbie
Jan 8, 2020
8 posts
9 upvotes

Dollartree charged me $0.57 for buying $1.25 cable!!!! 47% tax fee

Ok I went today to Scarborough dollartree

Bought a USB micro Cable

Cost's 1.25
FRPA fee 0.57
HST tax 0.24

I asked what is this charge cashier couldn't give straight answer found out batteries were also being charged this fee but it was 0.08 for AA batteries

Found this is part of EEE program tax. What doesn't make sense is that everything is hidden no info.
18 replies
Deal Guru
User avatar
Jan 9, 2011
10113 posts
12086 upvotes
Vancouver
The 57 cents is not a tax. It's part of the price of the product and should be built in. You paid the correct amount of tax, 13% on $1.82. You are correct that that part of the price of the product shouldn't be hidden from us. Manufacturers and retailers shouldn't be allowed to get away with this kind of false advertising about prices. And frankly, government shouldn't be able to get away with it either (in most of the world everything is built into the price including the sales tax, should be the same here) but I digress.
Last edited by Kiraly on Feb 12th, 2021 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Addict
Jun 20, 2020
2901 posts
2448 upvotes
Toronto
Zak2020 wrote: Ok I went today to Scarborough dollartree

Bought a USB micro Cable

Cost's 1.25
FRPA fee 0.57
HST tax 0.24

I asked what is this charge cashier couldn't give straight answer found out batteries were also being charged this fee but it was 0.08 for AA batteries

Found this is part of EEE program tax. What doesn't make sense is that everything is hidden no info.
Read thread Ontario's new EEE (Electronics) Regulations Start Jan 1 2021

Complying with Ontario Reg. 522/20: Electrical and Electronic Equipment (EEE)

Electrical and Electronic Equipment – RPRA
[OP]
Newbie
Jan 8, 2020
8 posts
9 upvotes
So retailer can charge me whatever they want and call it FRPA fee??
[OP]
Newbie
Jan 8, 2020
8 posts
9 upvotes
Ok here the receipt from another store
Images
  • 1613184980162437172222.jpg
  • 16131851723051915759070.jpg
Deal Guru
User avatar
Jan 9, 2011
10113 posts
12086 upvotes
Vancouver
Zak2020 wrote: So retailer can charge me whatever they want and call it FRPA fee??
From @Dhanushan's second link:
The regulation is silent on fees so producers can choose to have visible fees on receipts or include fees in the product price, as long as producers follow RPRA’s requirements:

If fees are visible:

1) The producer or retailer cannot claim they are mandatory, or a tax, or a regulatory charge, or an RPRA fee; and
2) The fee must be reflective of an actual cost.

Failure on any one of these amounts to misrepresentation and depending on the circumstances, also misleading advertising.


So if you are able to show that the cost of recycling the cable is lower than 57 cents you can dispute it.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jun 19, 2001
8595 posts
2284 upvotes
Dollar tree is also raising prices. Bread and other things are 1.50, staffer said being phased in until everything is 1.50.
Deal Fanatic
Nov 11, 2008
7955 posts
1598 upvotes
Zak2020 wrote: Ok I went today to Scarborough dollartree

Bought a USB micro Cable

Cost's 1.25
FRPA fee 0.57
HST tax 0.24

I asked what is this charge cashier couldn't give straight answer found out batteries were also being charged this fee but it was 0.08 for AA batteries

Found this is part of EEE program tax. What doesn't make sense is that everything is hidden no info.
I saw the notice posted around the electronics section. Started Jan 1st. Not sure if its government mandated though
Deal Guru
User avatar
Jan 9, 2011
10113 posts
12086 upvotes
Vancouver
EPcjay wrote: I saw the notice posted around the electronics section. Started Jan 1st. Not sure if its government mandated though
The fees are not government mandated. At all. By listing them separately on the receipt, producers and retailers are are trying to fool customers into believing they are government mandated and/or a tax. They have fooled, and continue to fool, a lot of people: see the OP's use of "47% tax fee" in the thread title. The fees are neither, of course. They are simply a part of the cost of producing the product, and as such should be built in—just as the cost of providing employees with lunch breaks is built in. Nobody would be fooled with a 5¢ "employee lunch break fee" tacked on at the end. But it's just too easy to fool people about an "eco fee". Fundamentally it is no different.
Deal Fanatic
Dec 5, 2006
9211 posts
4503 upvotes
Markham
Kiraly wrote: The fees are not government mandated. At all. By listing them separately on the receipt, producers and retailers are are trying to fool customers into believing they are government mandated and/or a tax. They have fooled, and continue to fool, a lot of people: see the OP's use of "47% tax fee" in the thread title. The fees are neither, of course. They are simply a part of the cost of producing the product, and as such should be built in—just as the cost of providing employees with lunch breaks is built in. Nobody would be fooled with a 5¢ "employee lunch break fee" tacked on at the end. But it's just too easy to fool people about an "eco fee". Fundamentally it is no different.
Provide 5 cents for lunch is business decision. EEE is government decisions

Including EEE as build in cost is actually trying to fool customers and government loves it. That's why they specifically asked that it shouldn't be called tax. It's really just you prefer government fool people or producers fool people
Deal Guru
User avatar
Jan 9, 2011
10113 posts
12086 upvotes
Vancouver
smartie wrote: Provide 5 cents for lunch is business decision. EEE is government decisions

Including EEE as build in cost is actually trying to fool customers and government loves it. That's why they specifically asked that it shouldn't be called tax. It's really just you prefer government fool people or producers fool people
You drank the Kool-aid.
Businesses have to provide lunch breaks because it's the law. It costs them money.
Businesses have to have their elevators inspected because it's the law. It costs them money.
Manufacturers have to have fire safety plans and emergency equipment that is regularly tested because it's the law. It costs them money.
Manufacturers have to take back and recycle the products they sell because it's the law. It costs them money.
Raising the price of the product to cover all of the above is a business decision. It all gets passed to the consumer.

Passing on the cost of the recycling legislation is not fundamentally different from passing on the cost of the lunch break legislation or the inspect-your-fire-sprinklers legislation. It's all the same thing. All that's different is the listing of them separately on the receipt, which has one purpose—to fool people and get them to blame government.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 13, 2010
3085 posts
3041 upvotes
GTA
Kiraly wrote: The fees are not government mandated. At all. By listing them separately on the receipt, producers and retailers are are trying to fool customers into believing they are government mandated and/or a tax. They have fooled, and continue to fool, a lot of people: see the OP's use of "47% tax fee" in the thread title. The fees are neither, of course. They are simply a part of the cost of producing the product, and as such should be built in—just as the cost of providing employees with lunch breaks is built in. Nobody would be fooled with a 5¢ "employee lunch break fee" tacked on at the end. But it's just too easy to fool people about an "eco fee". Fundamentally it is no different.
Kiraly wrote: You drank the Kool-aid.
Businesses have to provide lunch breaks because it's the law. It costs them money.
Businesses have to have their elevators inspected because it's the law. It costs them money.
Manufacturers have to have fire safety plans and emergency equipment that is regularly tested because it's the law. It costs them money.
Manufacturers have to take back and recycle the products they sell because it's the law. It costs them money.
Raising the price of the product to cover all of the above is a business decision. It all gets passed to the consumer.

Passing on the cost of the recycling legislation is not fundamentally different from passing on the cost of the lunch break legislation or the inspect-your-fire-sprinklers legislation. It's all the same thing. All that's different is the listing of them separately on the receipt, which has one purpose—to fool people and get them to blame government.
I've never worked for a business that paid me for a lunch break. Businesses have to provide breaks after 5 hours but they don't have to pay you for them. Most 9-5 jobs are 37.5 paid hours weekly, That's an 8 hour work day with 30 minutes for lunch. "Employers must give meal breaks to employees to ensure they do not work more than 5 consecutive hours without an opportunity for a break. There is no requirement to pay an employee for this meal break" https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/empl ... section-32
Deal Fanatic
Dec 5, 2006
9211 posts
4503 upvotes
Markham
Kiraly wrote: You drank the Kool-aid.
Businesses have to provide lunch breaks because it's the law. It costs them money.
Businesses have to have their elevators inspected because it's the law. It costs them money.
Manufacturers have to have fire safety plans and emergency equipment that is regularly tested because it's the law. It costs them money.
Manufacturers have to take back and recycle the products they sell because it's the law. It costs them money.
Raising the price of the product to cover all of the above is a business decision. It all gets passed to the consumer.

Passing on the cost of the recycling legislation is not fundamentally different from passing on the cost of the lunch break legislation or the inspect-your-fire-sprinklers legislation. It's all the same thing. All that's different is the listing of them separately on the receipt, which has one purpose—to fool people and get them to blame government.
Government passed the legislation and add additional cost on consumer, nothing wrong to blame government. Trick people think it's part of manufacturing cost is to fool people
Deal Guru
User avatar
Jan 9, 2011
10113 posts
12086 upvotes
Vancouver
smartie wrote: Government passed the legislation and add additional cost on consumer, nothing wrong to blame government. Trick people think it's part of manufacturing cost is to fool people
Do you think every cost of following every type of government regulation should be hidden from the consumer and tacked on to the receipt at the end, right down to “fire extinguisher recharge fee”? If not, why not?
Deal Expert
Jun 30, 2006
18649 posts
6706 upvotes
Toronto
All these eco fees are pure scams.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 27, 2006
3535 posts
621 upvotes
Not so easy there Ma…
Glad they put in those quick drop off recycle bin boxes at Dollar Tree at the same time the extra fees were imposed!
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 3, 2017
2587 posts
2196 upvotes
K-W/Guelph
I just love how people voted for Ford to get rid of these eco fees and then he just brings them back in an even worse form! Yay.
DUCA credit union member

Top