Re: Brinks Alarms: Beware of the Fuel Surcharge Tax

["Doug" <not@xxxxxxxx>]

"Matt Ion" <soundy106@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:g65p51$k45$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> nmarkowitz@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> On Jul 21, 1:39 pm, Jim <alarmi...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Jul 21, 8:47?am, "George Siegle" <gsie...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <nmarkow...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:2f3e19ac-41fa-4160-b9a3-
>>>> They try that here in state of pa there in trouble ?the ag has already
>>>> warned buisness owners about it.
>>>> What was / is the warning?
>>>> I know of guys here not calling it a fuel surcharge, but have just
>>>> increased
>>>> service calls to cover the amount to hide the name "Fuel Surcharge."
>>> "Hide the name Fuel Surcharge"?
>>>
>>> Isn't that called increasing prices because the cost of doing business
>>> has gone up?
>>>
>>> As I mentioned earlier .... I'm sure no one added a "wire surcharge"
>>> when the cost of wire went up. You just increase your prices to
>>> reflect the cost of doing business. Ta DAaaaaaa!
>>
>> You can increase your service fee or cost of your product as a cost
>> increase in doing buisness.
>
> I guess the difference is in how intelligent you think your customers are.
> Some will complain about increased service rates ("Prices are going up
> AGAIN?!"), but if you tack it on as a "fuel surcharge" they understand
> (even if they're not happy about it).  Others will just recognize it as
> the euphemism that it is (and still not be happy about it).

I think the issue is that people are not  telling the customer in advance,
so if  you tell your customer  the service call is $135.00 for the first
half hour plus a $5.00 fuel surcharge or even if you add $5.00 on and tell
them its $140.00 for the first half hour then its  OK.  What I believe the
problem is when you tell someone its going to be $135.00 and then when you
are finished you tack on a $5.00 fuel surcharge.

Doug