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

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.

Zak2020 wrote: ↑ So retailer can charge me whatever they want and call it FRPA fee??

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.

EPcjay wrote: ↑ I saw the notice posted around the electronics section. Started Jan 1st. Not sure if its government mandated though

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.

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

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.

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.

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