Search

"Beyond devastated": One Direction pay tribute to Liam Payne

One Direction band members Louis Tomlinson and Zayn Malik have shared emotional tributes to Liam Payne, who died at the age of 31 after falling from a hotel balcony on Thursday. Payne's <a href="https://oversixty.com.au/health/caring/one-direction-star-passes-away-aged-31" target="_blank" rel="noopener">death</a> was confirmed by Argentinian media outlet La Nacion, who reported that Payne fell from around 13 or 14 metres while on holiday in Buenos Aires and suffered "very serious injuries incompatible with life", while Alberto Crescenti, head of the state emergency medical system, confirmed "there was no possibility of resuscitation.” His sudden death has sent shockwaves through the music industry, with fellow artists and millions of fans expressing their sadness online. Louis Tomlinson, one of the members of One Direction, shared a lengthy post paying tribute to his friend and bandmate, recalling some of the moments they shared. "I am beyond devastated to be writing this but yesterday I lost a brother," he wrote alongside a photo of the pair on stage. "Liam was somebody I looked up to everyday, such a positive, funny, and kind soul. " "I first met Liam when he was 16 and I was 18, I was instantly amazed by his voice but more importantly as time went on I got a chance to see the kind brother I’d longed all my life for." "Liam was an incredible song writer with a great sense of melody, we often spoke of getting back in the studio together to try and recreate the writing chemistry we had built up in the band. And for the record, Liam was in my opinion the most vital part of One Direction. His experience from a young age, his perfect pitch, his stage presence, his gift for writing. The list goes on. Thank you for shaping us Liam." Tomlinson then shared a "message to you Liam if you’re listening", writing, "I feel beyond lucky to have had you in my life but I’m really struggling with the idea of saying goodbye. I’m so grateful that we got even closer since the band, speaking on the phone for hours , reminiscing about all the thousands of amazing memories we had together is a luxury I thought I’d have with you for life. I would have loved to share the stage with you again but it wasn’t to be. " He went on to share a message to Payne's seven-year-old son Bear, adding, "I want you to know that if Bear ever needs me I will be the Uncle he needs in his life and tell him stories of how amazing his dad was." "I wish I got chance to say goodbye and tell you one more time how much I loved you. Payno, my boy, one of my best friends, my brother, I love you mate. Sleep well X." Zayn Malik, another member of One Direction, also shared his own tribute, writing how he has found himself talking out loud to Payne “hoping you can hear me”. “I can’t help but think selfishly that there were so many more conversations for us to have in our lives,” he continued. “I never got to thank you for supporting me through some of the most difficult times in my life. When I was missing home as a 17 yr old kid you would always be there with a positive outlook and reassuring smile and let you know. that you were my friend and I was loved.” “I lost a brother when you left us and can’t explain to you what I’d give just to give you a hug one last time and say goodbye to you properly and tell you that I loved and respected you dearly.” “There is no words that justify or explain how I feel right now other than beyond devastated. I hope that wherever you are right now you are good and are at peace and you know how loved you are. Love you bro,” he concluded the post. Harry Styles also shared a tribute after Liam's sudden death, writing, "I am truly devastated by Liam's passing." "His greatest joy was making other people happy, and it was an honour to be alongside him as he did it," he continued. "Liam lived wide open, with his heart on his sleeve, he had an energy for life that was infectious. He was warm, supportive, and incredibly loving. The years we spent together will forever remain among the most cherished years of my life. I will miss him always, my lovely friend." He concluded his message, which was shared alongside the "🖤" emoji and a photo of Payne looking out onto the stage, with: "My heart breaks for Karen, Geoff, Nicola and Ruth, his son Bear, and all those around the world who knew and loved him, as I did." The One Direction Instagram account also shared a statement from all four of the members, that said, “We’re completely devastated by the news of Liam’s passing. In time, and when everyone is able to, there will be more to say." “But for now, we will take some time to grieve and process the loss of our brother, who we loved dearly. “The memories we shared with him will be treasured forever. For now, our thoughts are with his family, his friends, and the fans who loved him alongside us. We will miss him terribly. We love you Liam.” The statement was signed from Louis and Zayn, as well as Niall Horan and Harry Styles. Image credits: Instagram

Caring

Harry Potter stars pay tribute to Dame Maggie Smith

The stars of the Harry Potter franchise have paid tribute to Dame Maggie Smith, after the Oscar-winning actress passed away on Friday at the age of 89. Smith, who played the role of Professor McGonagall throughout the eight movies, was honoured by dozens of her co-stars, including Harry Potter himself: Daniel Radcliffe. Radcliffe shared a statement to Entertainment Weekly, writing, "She was a fierce intellect, a gloriously sharp tongue, could intimidate and charm in the same instant and was, as everyone will tell you, extremely funny." "I will always consider myself amazingly lucky to have been able to work with her, and to spend time around her on set. The word legend is overused but if it applies to anyone in our industry then it applies to her. Thank you Maggie." Emma Watson also shared a tribute on Instagram alongside the two actresses working together, reflecting on Smith's impact on set. She said, "When I was younger I had no idea of Maggie's legend — the woman I was fortunate to share space with. It is only as I've become an adult that I've come to appreciate that I shared the screen with a true definition of greatness." "She was real, honest, funny and self-honouring. Maggie, there were a lot of male professors and by God you held your own. Thank you for all of your kindness. I'll miss you." Rupert Grint also shared a photo of the pair together, referencing a particular fan favourite scene from the fourth Harry Potter film, writing, "Heartbroken to hear about Maggie. She was so special, always hilarious and always kind. I feel incredibly lucky to have shared a set with her and particularly lucky to have shared a dance. I'll miss you, Maggie. Sending all my love to her family." Gary Oldman, who played Sirius Black in the franchise, shared a statement with Entertainment Weekly on Maggie's passing, praising her acting talents, saying, "Maggie Smith, one of the true Greats along with [Laurence] Olivier and [John] Gielgud… those who saw her dazzling talent on the stage say they can never forget her. Her magnificent film performances remain for all to see and enjoy. Such an artist comes along about every other generation. If one is lucky." The news of Maggie Smith's passing was confirmed by her sons Chris Larkin and Toby Stephens who said in a statement, “She passed away peacefully in hospital early this morning, Friday 27 September." “An intensely private person, she was with friends and family at the end. She leaves two sons and five loving grandchildren who are devastated by the loss of their extraordinary mother and grandmother.” Image credits: Warner Brothers/Paul Marriott/Shutterstock Editorial

Caring

How to revive your curls without paying salon prices

Maintaining curly hair takes a lot of time and effort and sometimes no matter what you do, the frizz just cannot be tamed. While getting your hair done at the salon can be a treat, having to pay salon prices to get softness, shine and definition for your curls is just not sustainable in the long run. Enter <a href="https://www.johnfrieda.com/en-au/home/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">John Frieda</a>'s newest Frizz Ease Miraculous Recovery range, which is now infused with repairing ceramides designed to transform frizzy and damaged hair. The Miraculous Recovery Repairing shampoo and conditioner are two of my personal faves, as I could feel the difference in how soft my hair felt after the first use. Not only are the products safe for colour-treated hair, they also made my curls more manageable and easy to style, with the effects lasting for two days, which is amazing considering how quickly my curls can go limp. I also loved how subtle the scent was, and found the most effective way of applying the conditioner was to comb it through my hair with a detangling brush in the shower, as it helps distribute the product evenly. While different curls all need slightly different care, I found the shampoo provided the perfect balance of cleaning build-up on my hair without leaving it dry or flaky. The star of the range was definitely the All-in-1 extra strength serum, which provided extra protection for my colour-treated and chemically treated hair. I love that you can apply this product through wet or dry hair, and it was the perfect way to revive my curls. The Finishing Creme was a bit too thick for my fine, curly hair, but for those with tighter curls or those looking for some extra moisture during more humid days, a light layer of the product would surely tame any flyaways or frizz. With most of their products retailing for around $20 it is an affordable solution to bringing life back into colour-treated and damaged curls. The product can be found in all major supermarkets and pharmacies across <a href="https://www.chemistwarehouse.com.au/shop-online/5571/john-frieda-haircare" target="_blank" rel="noopener">AU</a> and <a href="https://www.chemistwarehouse.co.nz/shop-online/5571/john-frieda-haircare" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NZ</a>. Images: Supplied

Beauty & Style

Pay-by-weight airfares are an ethical minefield. We asked travellers what they actually think

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/denis-tolkach-11345">Denis Tolkach</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/james-cook-university-1167">James Cook University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/stephen-pratt-335188">Stephen Pratt</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-central-florida-1925">University of Central Florida</a> Imagine checking in for a flight with your two teenage children. At the counter, you are told that your youngest teenager’s suitcase is two kilograms over the limit. You get slapped with a $75 penalty for their excess luggage. This penalty feels arbitrary and unfair. The youngest weighs about 45 kg, and their luggage weighs 25 kg, making their total payload on the flight 70 kg. Their older sibling, on the other hand, weighs 65 kg, and has brought 23 kg of luggage to check in. Their total weight is higher – 88 kg – yet they receive no penalty. Obviously, things aren’t that simple. Charging passengers based on their weight is highly controversial for many reasons. But that hasn’t stopped some airlines <a href="https://theweek.com/articles/466035/should-airlines-charge-passengers-by-weight">experimenting</a> with such policies. Imagine checking in for your flight only to have the staff tell you to <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/plus-size-travelers-slam-airline-seat-policies/index.html">purchase an extra seat</a> as you are a plus-size passenger. You feel discriminated against because you are using the same service as other passengers and your weight is beyond your control. But despite the lived experience of many and hot debate in the media, there has not been a formal study into what passengers themselves think about this matter. Our recently published <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2691">research</a> examined air passengers’ views on alternative airfare policies to understand whether the public finds them acceptable and what ethical considerations determine their views. Though we found a range of ethical contradictions, most travellers were guided by self-interest. <h2>A controversial but important topic</h2> The issue of whether airlines should weigh passengers is an ethical minefield with no easy answers. Despite its sensitivity, the aviation industry can’t ignore passenger weight. Airlines intermittently undertake <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisagarcia/2024/02/11/despite-backlash-heres-why-airlines-need-to-weigh-passengers/?sh=5f07623e1bfa">passenger weight surveys</a> as they need to accurately calculate payload to ensure flight safety and estimate fuel consumption. The evidence shows passengers are <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisagarcia/2024/02/11/despite-backlash-heres-why-airlines-need-to-weigh-passengers/?sh=5f07623e1bfa">getting heavier</a>. Airlines including the now-defunct <a href="https://theweek.com/articles/466035/should-airlines-charge-passengers-by-weight">Samoa Air</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/23/hawaiian-airlines-american-samoa-weight-passengers">Hawaiian Airlines</a> have taken things one step further and experimented with weighing passengers regularly. Samoa Air, for example, became the first airline to introduce a “pay-as-you-weigh” policy, where the cost of your ticket was directly proportional to the combined weight of you and your luggage. In contrast, Canada has now long had a “<a href="https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/publication/additional-seating-and-one-person-one-fare-requirement-domestic-travel-a-guide">one person, one fare</a>” policy. It is prohibited and deemed discriminatory to force passengers living with a disability to purchase a second seat for themselves if they require one, including those with functional disability due to obesity. To complicate matters further, the issue of passenger and luggage weight is not only ethical and financial, but also environmental. More weight on an aircraft leads to more jet fuel being burned and more carbon emissions. About <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24091-y">5%</a> of human-driven climate change can be attributed to aviation, and the industry faces enormous pressure to reduce fuel consumption while it waits for low carbon substitutes to become available. <h2>What do passengers actually think?</h2> To get a better sense of how the public actually feels about this issue, we surveyed 1,012 US travellers of different weights, presenting them with three alternatives: <ul> <li>standard policy – currently the most widely used policy with passengers paying a standard price, irrespective of their weight</li> <li>threshold policy – passengers are penalised if they are over a threshold weight</li> <li>unit of body weight policy – passengers pay a personalised price based on their own body weight, per each pound.</li> </ul> The standard policy was the most acceptable for participants of differing weight, although the heavier the passenger, the more they preferred the standard policy. This can be partially explained by status quo bias. Generally, people are likely to choose a familiar answer. The threshold policy was the least acceptable. This policy was seen to violate established social norms and be generally less fair. The unit of body weight policy was preferred to the threshold policy, although participants raised concerns about whether it would be accepted by society. Perhaps unsurprisingly, we found that self-interest played a clear role in determining whether respondents considered a policy acceptable. Younger, male, financially well-off travellers with lower personal weight generally found the alternative policies more acceptable. <h2>An ethical conflict</h2> Alternative airfare policies that are based on passenger weight bring environmental and ethical concerns into conflict. Obviously, the effect isn’t from any one traveller, in particular, but averages over the entire industry. Interestingly, respondents that were more concerned about the environment – “ecocentric” – preferred air fare policies that would reduce the carbon emissions. This made them more open to the controversial alternatives. While the threshold policy was clearly rejected by many respondents as discriminatory, environmental concern played a role in the level of acceptance of the unit of body weight policy. It’s important to apply a critical lens here. These ecocentric travellers were also generally younger and had lower personal weights, so many would benefit from the alternative policies financially. For policymakers overall, our study suggests when it comes to controversial ticketing policies, the public is more likely to be swayed by self-interest than anything else.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/237856/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/denis-tolkach-11345">Denis Tolkach</a>, Senior Lecturer, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/james-cook-university-1167">James Cook University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/stephen-pratt-335188">Stephen Pratt</a>, Professor, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-central-florida-1925">University of Central Florida</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/pay-by-weight-airfares-are-an-ethical-minefield-we-asked-travellers-what-they-actually-think-237856">original article</a>.

Travel Trouble

Why is it so hard to cancel subscriptions or end ‘free’ trials? Report shows how companies trap you into paying

<div class="theconversation-article-body"><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/katharine-kemp-402096">Katharine Kemp</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-sydney-1414">UNSW Sydney</a> Many businesses are trapping Australian consumers in paid subscriptions by making them hard to cancel, hiding important details and offering “free” trials that auto-renew with hefty charges. We need law reform to tackle this continuing problem. <a href="https://cprc.org.au/report/let-me-out">A new report</a> shows 75% of Australian consumers have had negative experiences when trying to cancel a subscription, according to the Consumer Policy Research Centre (CPRC). It shows businesses use “<a href="https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-spot-avoid-dark-patterns/">dark patterns</a>”, which are designs that hinder consumers who try to act in their own best interests. Subscription traps are often called “<a href="https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2022/11/checking-out-ftcs-100-million-settlement-vonage">Hotel California</a>” techniques, referring to The Eagles’ famous lyric: “you can check out any time you want, but you can never leave”. In some of these cases, consumers may have remedies under our existing consumer law, including for misleading conduct. But we need law reform to capture other <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/consultation/c2023-430458">unfair practices</a>. In the meantime, the CPRC’s research also gives examples of businesses with fair, consumer-friendly subscription practices. These also benefit the business. <h2>Examples of unfair subscription traps</h2> <a href="https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinessdevelopmentcouncil/2022/09/12/the-evolution-of-the-subscription-model-and-whats-on-the-horizon/">Subscription business models</a> have become common – many products are now provided in the form of software, an app or access to a website. Some of these would once have been a physical book, newspaper, CD or exercise class. Most people who use online services have experienced the frustration of finding a credit card charge for an unwanted, unused subscription or spending excessive time trying to cancel a subscription. <figure class="align-center zoomable"><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/615486/original/file-20240826-16-fp57es.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/615486/original/file-20240826-16-fp57es.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/615486/original/file-20240826-16-fp57es.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=643&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/615486/original/file-20240826-16-fp57es.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=643&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/615486/original/file-20240826-16-fp57es.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=643&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/615486/original/file-20240826-16-fp57es.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=808&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/615486/original/file-20240826-16-fp57es.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=808&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/615486/original/file-20240826-16-fp57es.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=808&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="Infographic with a few statistics from the report." /></a><figcaption><a class="source" href="https://cprc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/CPRC_LetMeOut_SubsTraps_Report_FINAL.pdf">CPRC, Let me out – Subscription trap practices in Australia, August 2024</a></figcaption></figure> Businesses can make it difficult for consumers to stop paying for unwanted subscriptions. Some do this by allowing consumers to start a subscription with a single click, but creating multiple obstacles if you want to end the subscription. This can include obscuring cancellation options in the app, requiring consumers to phone during business hours or making them navigate through multiple steps and offers before terminating. The report points out many of the last-ditch discounts offered in this process are only short term. One survey respondent said: <blockquote> I wasn’t able to cancel without having to call up and speak to someone. Their business hours meant I had to call up during my work day and it took some time to action. </blockquote> Other businesses badger consumers with frequent emails or messages after they cancel. One respondent said a business made “the cancellation process impossible by making you call and then judging your reason for cancellation”. <h2>What does consumer law say?</h2> Some subscription traps already fall foul of the Australian Consumer Law and warrant investigation by the <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-warns-consumers-to-beware-of-subscription-traps">Australian Competition & Consumer Commission</a> (ACCC). Consumers may have remedies where the business has engaged in misleading conduct or imposes an unfair contract term. For example, the ACCC is <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-court-action-against-eharmony-for-alleged-misleading-online-dating-membership-statements#:%7E:text=The%20ACCC%20has%20today%20commenced%20proceedings%20in%20the,the%20pricing%2C%20renewal%20and%20duration%20of%20its%20memberships.">suing dating site eHarmony</a> for its allegedly misleading subscription practices. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/06/ftc-takes-action-against-adobe-executives-hiding-fees-preventing-consumers-easily-cancelling">has filed a complaint against software company Adobe</a> for allegedly using dark patterns in its subscription practices. The Federal Trade Commission has alleged that “Adobe pushed consumers toward the ‘annual paid monthly’ subscription without adequately disclosing that cancelling the plan in the first year could cost hundreds of dollars”. Adobe <a href="https://news.adobe.com/news/news-details/2024/Adobes-Recent-Statement-Regarding-Updated-Federal-Trade-Commission-Complaint-/default.aspx">issued a statement</a> arguing the commission’s complaint “mischaracterises” its business. The litigation is ongoing. <h2>We need an unfair practices prohibition</h2> Some subscription traps would fall outside the existing consumer law. This is because they don’t meet the test for misleading conduct or unfair contract terms, but make it practically very difficult to cancel. The <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-welcomes-consultation-on-possible-unfair-trading-practices-regulatory-reforms">ACCC has advocated</a> for Australia to follow other countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States to enact an unfair practices prohibition to capture conduct like this. <figure class="align-center zoomable"><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/615487/original/file-20240826-16-2j23h7.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/615487/original/file-20240826-16-2j23h7.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/615487/original/file-20240826-16-2j23h7.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=769&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/615487/original/file-20240826-16-2j23h7.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=769&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/615487/original/file-20240826-16-2j23h7.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=769&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/615487/original/file-20240826-16-2j23h7.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=966&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/615487/original/file-20240826-16-2j23h7.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=966&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/615487/original/file-20240826-16-2j23h7.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=966&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /></a><figcaption>The shift businesses can make today. <a class="source" href="https://cprc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/CPRC_LetMeOut_SubsTraps_Report_FINAL.pdf">CPRC, Let me out – Subscription trap practices in Australia, August 2024</a></figcaption></figure> <h2>Better practices benefit businesses too</h2> The CPRC report also revealed that 90% of Australians would likely purchase from the same organisation if cancelling a subscription process was quick and simple. Businesses focused on a short-sighted cash grab fail to realise that consumers might cancel but later return if treated well. The CPRC highlights businesses that are doing a good job. For instance, the habit change app Atoms (based on James Clear’s book Atomic Habits) has a genuinely free trial. It doesn’t require credit card details, doesn’t auto-renew, and lets consumers know how many trial days remain. The CPRC says the charity World Vision doesn’t auto-renew annual sponsorships, but reminds supporters about when the sponsorship will lapse. Importantly, some businesses – such as Netflix – use their data for good in this context. They notice when users are paying for the service without using it and help them unsubscribe. These practices should be applauded. But we need an unfair practices prohibition for businesses who don’t follow suit and recognise the long-term benefits of treating customers fairly.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/237236/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/katharine-kemp-402096">Katharine Kemp</a>, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law & Justice; Lead, UNSW Public Interest Law & Tech Initiative, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-sydney-1414">UNSW Sydney</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-is-it-so-hard-to-cancel-subscriptions-or-end-free-trials-report-shows-how-companies-trap-you-into-paying-237236">original article</a>. </div>

Money & Banking

How fear of missing out can lead to you paying more when buying a home

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/park-thaichon-175182">Park Thaichon</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-southern-queensland-1069">University of Southern Queensland</a> The property market is a competitive space where finding a nice home, in the area you want, at a price you can afford is a hard ask. With buyers outnumbering available properties, the pressure is even greater causing some would-be buyers to develop <a href="https://health.clevelandclinic.org/understanding-fomo">a fear of missing out</a> (FOMO) and to make irrational decisions. FOMO might make you worry others are finding nicer homes and getting better deals, or that prices will rise to the point where you are priced out of the market altogether. This could cause you to pay too much or to buy a property in an area unsuitable for your needs. Then there is <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/counseling-keys/202103/overcoming-fear-of-making-mistakes">fear of making a mistake</a> (FOMM), which can also cause problems if you’re a home hunter. You might be reluctant to bid or to negotiate because you are afraid of choosing the wrong property or paying more than it’s worth. <h2>Problems caused by FOMO and FOMM</h2> The principles of contagion theory, crowd psychology and the scarcity principle we identified in <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijcs.12649?casa_token=271MN72XdP8AAAAA%3AfhYF_2yUJtM7KGv5jvFdXn5UsXQLkMcIM_F6hffYa30QaSdRivjf2mhFX-cr5C7ttCuLl1-e2OFYXBA">our research</a> on panic-buying during the pandemic, can be applied to any purchasing decisions. In this instance we applied them to buying properties in a competitive housing market. <a href="https://www.communicationtheory.org/contagion-theory/">Contagion theory</a> applies when people act irrationally under the influence of a crowd. <a href="https://www.bestvalueschools.com/faq/what-is-crowd-psychology/">Crowd psychology</a> is similar but relates to how a crowd behaves in certain circumstances, while <a href="https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/scarcity-principle">scarcity principle</a> is the idea if there are fewer items available, their value increases. Each of these can increase the likelihood of several behaviours when purchasing a property. These include: <ul> <li>Underbidding and overbidding</li> </ul> Fearing other buyers might get the house, house hunters might get caught up in a bidding war and end up paying more than planned. Conversely, buyers with FOMM might fear spending too much so bid too low to start with and risk losing the house. <ul> <li>Following the crowd and peer pressure influence</li> </ul> Buyers might feel <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11403-021-00324-7">pressured to buy</a> in a certain area because it’s popular, even if it is not best fit for them. This can lead to paying more for a house just because others are doing the same. <ul> <li>Delaying decisions</li> </ul> FOMM can lead to <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ijcs.12990?casa_token=ZhJnLBOwVxUAAAAA%3AW5haHZKSA1rFQsRNdvw0liOoyvdxl0OrFR2phkhGfYC6TnWRv9EsnV-N8w52CmcnAVb8X2yU1obpIjKx">taking too long to decide</a>. This delay can mean missing out on good deals or being forced to rush into a decision and end up overpaying. <ul> <li>Avoiding negotiation</li> </ul> Some buyers might avoid negotiating the price or special conditions such as building and pest inspections and finance approval because they fear the seller will reject their offer. This can result in paying more than they need to if there are problems later. <ul> <li>Excessive inspections and appraisals</li> </ul> While inspections and appraisals are important, too many can suggest indecisiveness driven by fear, resulting in wasted money on unnecessary assessments, and more importantly, wasted time and delayed decisions. <h2>Removing fear from the buying process</h2> Start with thorough research and preparation by learning about different neighbourhoods and house prices. The history of properties and suburbs can be found for free on property websites and is a good place to start. Seek professional guidance from real estate agents or financial advisers to help you through the process. Get insights on market trends from an agent from a selling company or bank to help find homes that meet your criteria. Keep in mind these agents will get some form of incentive from your purchase. All the big banks or loan officers can provide free property reports on specific properties or suburbs. Don’t forget to check council mapping and water authority documents to check for potential future road projects and other developments and for an area’s flood rating. Perform due diligence by thoroughly inspecting properties and reviewing contracts to ensure they meet your needs and are a good investment. For example, it is a good idea to hire a home inspector to check for any hidden issues before making an offer. Another common mistake made by most buyers is not asking their <a href="https://www.qld.gov.au/law/housing-and-neighbours/buying-and-selling-a-property/buying-a-home/before-you-start-looking/appointing-a-solicitor">solicitor</a> to check and give suggestions before signing a contract or offer. A solicitor can check the sale contract before you sign, review the disclosure documents, give advice on your mortgage contract, carry out title searches and explain the results and explain how the purchase may affect your liability for land tax. Do some contingency planning by preparing for unexpected price increases and for the presence of other strong bidders to reduce anxiety about making the wrong decision. Setting aside extra funds could help deal with higher than expected prices or unexpected repairs that need doing. In the end, plan well and make decisions without letting emotions take over. Taking your time to find the right home that fits your budget and goals, rather than rushing into a purchase due to fear of missing out or making a mistake.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/233197/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/park-thaichon-175182">Park Thaichon</a>, Associate Professor of Marketing, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-southern-queensland-1069">University of Southern Queensland</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-fear-of-missing-out-can-lead-to-you-paying-more-when-buying-a-home-233197">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

Why you should expect to pay more tourist taxes – even though the evidence for them is unclear

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rhys-ap-gwilym-1531623">Rhys ap Gwilym</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/bangor-university-1221">Bangor University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/linda-osti-1431286">Linda Osti</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/bangor-university-1221">Bangor University</a> In April 2024, Venice began its controversial experiment to <a href="https://www.timeout.com/news/venice-will-charge-tourists-5-to-enter-the-city-from-next-year-090823">charge day trippers</a> €5 (£4.30) to visit the city on some of the busiest days of the year. But it’s not just the lagoon city, with its <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/travel/article/20230928-venices-new-5-entry-fee-explained#:%7E:text=Over%20the%20past%20three%20decades%2C%20Venice%20has%20become,thirds%20of%20visitors%20come%20just%20for%20the%20day.">30 million visitors</a> a year which is interested in trying out new tourism taxes. In the UK, a council in the county of Kent <a href="https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheconversationuk.cmail20.com%2Ft%2Fr-l-tiuhhult-iukktlluuk-o%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cr.a.gwilym%40bangor.ac.uk%7C39ac5db833674c1a026508dc63a24fa7%7Cc6474c55a9234d2a9bd4ece37148dbb2%7C0%7C0%7C638494795990617858%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=D6oVizx3pFoiwRaTcKaakQ079%2FIQx86jcbFpj2%2FS0RQ%3D&reserved=0">has recommended</a> introducing a tourism tax on overnight stays in the county. In Scotland, it seems likely that <a href="https://edinburgh.org/planning/local-information/visitor-levy-for-edinburgh/#:%7E:text=The%20Edinburgh%20Visitor%20Levy%2C%20otherwise%20referred%20to%20as,would%20then%20be%20invested%20back%20into%20the%20city.">visitors to Edinburgh</a> will be paying a fee by 2026, and the Welsh government <a href="https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/welsh-government-announces-tourists-pay-26591498">plans to introduce</a> similar legislation later this year. Such taxes may seem new to the UK, but there are more than 60 destinations around the world where this type of tax is already in place. These vary from a nationwide tax in Iceland to various towns across the US. Some have been in place for a long time (France was the <a href="https://www.impots.gouv.fr/taxe-de-sejour">first in 1910</a>), but most were introduced during the last decade or two. Before the pandemic really struck (and tourism was put on hold), 2020 was described by one newspaper as the <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/tourist-tax-amsterdam-venice/">“year of the tourist tax”</a>, as Amsterdam joined an ever-growing list of destinations, which includes Paris, Malta and Cancun, to charge visitors for simply visiting. Introducing these tourist taxes has often been controversial, with industry bodies <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-62707152">voicing concerns</a> about the potential impacts on the tourist trade. And it appears that the link between such levies and visitor numbers is not simple, with several studies reaching different conclusions. For example, some have suggested that tourism levies have hindered <a href="https://www-sciencedirect-com.bangor.idm.oclc.org/science/article/pii/S0261517704000238">international tourism in the Balearics</a> and <a href="https://journals-sagepub-com.bangor.idm.oclc.org/doi/pdf/10.1177/00472875211053658">the Maldives</a>, and that they may dissuade people from participating in <a href="https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/35087/1/ADEDOYIN%2C%20Festus%20Fatai_Ph.D._2020.pdf">domestic tourism</a>. Yet in one of the world’s most popular tourism spots with a levy, Barcelona, visitor numbers have <a href="https://groupnao.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/TOURISM-TAXES-BY-DESIGN-NOV12-2020_rettet-compressed-2.pdf">consistently risen</a>, with hotel guests increasing from 7.1 million in 2013 to 9.5 million in 2019. In fact, the relationship between a visitor levy and tourist flow is so complex that there is no unified view, even within the same country. Italy has been one of the most studied, and results <a href="https://crenos.unica.it/crenosterritorio/sites/default/files/allegati-pubblicazioni-tes/Indagine_Villasimius_Quaderno_Crenos_ISBN.pdf">are inconsistent</a> <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jtr.2123">there too</a>. Another study, looking at three neighbouring Italian seaside spots finds that only in one destination has the visitor levy <a href="https://www.rivisteweb.it/doi/10.1429/77318">reduced tourist flow</a>. And a study on the Italian cities of Rome, Florence and Padua shows that these cities <a href="https://link-springer-com.bangor.idm.oclc.org/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-61274-0_23">have not experienced any negative effects</a> either in terms of domestic or international demand. So the impact of tourism taxes on visitor numbers is inconclusive. But what about other effects, such as the potential benefits of spending the revenues raised? As part of an ongoing research project, we looked at seven different destinations in which tourist taxes are levied to look at how the money raised is then spent. For most places, tourism tax revenues were being used to fund marketing and branding – so invested directly into promoting more tourism. The income was also commonly used to fund tourism infrastructure, from public toilets and walking or cycling paths to a multi-billion dollar <a href="https://www.occc.net/About-Us-Media-Relations-Press-Releases/ArticleID/569/Orange%20County%20Board%20Votes%20to%20Approve%20Convention%20Center%20Completion%20with%20Tourist%20Development%20Tax%20Revenues">convention centre</a> in Orange County, Florida. In <a href="https://www.caib.es/sites/impostturisme/en/l/projects/?mcont=95762">the Balearics</a>, revenues tend to go to projects that mitigate the negative impacts of tourism on the environment, culture and society of the islands. These include waste management, conserving natural habitats and historical monuments, and social housing. But in general, tourism taxes have been implemented successfully across the destinations we looked at, and there is little evidence of tourists being put off from visiting. Research also suggests that when tourists are told what the levy is used for – and when it relates directly to <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/5/2/21">improving their experience</a> or <a href="https://ejtr.vumk.eu/index.php/about/article/view/2813/605">enhancing sustainable tourism</a> – <a href="https://www-sciencedirect-com.bangor.idm.oclc.org/science/article/pii/S2212571X20301621?casa_token=HcD-yQh65XcAAAAA:GhVRo4vX9JY1E3Lcx5ZPaTr5ZHArMGNrmK_2ASJCtMPjVpdCQLdun25BmFEYquGgz8-1riOWdg">tourists are willing to accept and pay</a> the levy. <h2>Day trippers</h2> For many tourism destinations, the major problem is not overnight tourists, but rather <a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fuming-snowdonia-visitors-demand-self-30203642">day visitors</a> who use local resources while making little in the way of a financial contribution. For these reasons, taxes might also be used to deter day visits and instead encourage longer stays. <a href="https://www.economist.com/why-venice-is-starting-to-charge-tourists-to-enter?utm_medium=cpc.adword.pd&utm_source=google&ppccampaignID=18156330227&ppcadID=&utm_campaign=a.22brand_pmax&utm_content=conversion.direct-response.anonymous&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjw_qexBhCoARIsAFgBleshST3IQMYR8hONLSLnA_loj9dukAqxURhdVCn1RmGeD5iOQzw_r2caAsqrEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds">Venice is at the forefront</a> of this shift. And in April 2024, after long discussions between the local authority, residents and business owners, Venice started a <a href="https://cdamedia.veneziaunica.it/en/video/it-is-difficult-to-book-a-visit-to-venice/">trial</a> of a day visitor tax (a so-called <a href="https://cda.veneziaunica.it/en">“access fee”</a>). Back in Kent, it may take longer for any such radical plans to come to fruition. In contrast to Scotland and Wales, there are currently no national plans to <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/commons/2023-09-13/199425">introduce tourist taxes</a> in England. This might be considered shortsighted, given the dire need of many destinations in England to improve local infrastructure that tourists rely on, including <a href="https://www.reading.ac.uk/news/2024/Research-News/Swimming-in-sewage-Bathing-forecasts-not-keeping-people-safe">clean bathing water</a> and <a href="https://www.lancs.live/news/cumbria-news/lake-district-warning-parking-issues-27173650">public transport</a>. In <a href="https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/business/finance-strategy/manchester-acts-as-trailblazer-for-tourist-tax">Manchester</a> and <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/0e0385e6-29ec-4302-9903-6fbf63d8854a">Liverpool</a>, businesses have implemented voluntary overnight charges on visitors, in the absence of the statutory basis to implement compulsory levies. Many other English towns and cities will probably follow their lead. Tourism taxes are something we might all have to consider budgeting for in our future travel plans, wherever we choose to visit.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/229134/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rhys-ap-gwilym-1531623">Rhys ap Gwilym</a>, Senior Lecturer in Economics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/bangor-university-1221">Bangor University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/linda-osti-1431286">Linda Osti</a>, Senior Lecturer in Tourism Management, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/bangor-university-1221">Bangor University</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-you-should-expect-to-pay-more-tourist-taxes-even-though-the-evidence-for-them-is-unclear-229134">original article</a>.

Travel Trouble

The hidden risks of buy now, pay later: What shoppers need to know

<div class="theconversation-article-body"><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/vivek-astvansh-1318943">Vivek Astvansh</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/mcgill-university-827">McGill University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/chandan-kumar-behera-1479139">Chandan Kumar Behera</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/indian-institute-of-management-lucknow-6023">Indian Institute of Management Lucknow</a> <iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100px; border: none; position: relative; z-index: 1;" src="https://narrations.ad-auris.com/widget/the-conversation-canada/the-hidden-risks-of-buy-now-pay-later-what-shoppers-need-to-know" width="100%" height="400"></iframe> <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/financial-consumer-agency/services/loans/buy-now-pay-later.html">Buy now, pay later</a> is a relatively new form of financial technology that allows consumers to purchase an item immediately and repay the balance at a later time in instalments. Unlike applying for a credit card, buy now, pay later <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4591446">doesn’t require a credit check</a>. Instead, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-11-2021-0923">these programs use algorithms</a> to perform <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/soft-inquiry.asp">“soft” credit checks</a> to determine <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-it-looks-like-debt-lets-treat-it-like-debt-buy-now-pay-later-schemes-need-firmer-regulation-in-nz-211820">a shopper’s eligibility</a>. This means buy now, pay later loans target <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/jan/27/buy-now-pay-later-schemes-entice-consumers-spend-more">low-income, tech-savvy</a> <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/27/gen-z-and-millennials-prefer-buy-now-pay-later-services.html">millennials and Gen Z shoppers</a> in an effort to <a href="https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2023/09/who-uses-buy-now-pay-later/">supposedly improve financial inclusion</a> for these groups. However, the newness of buy now, pay later programs means existing <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.13100">consumer credit laws don’t cover it</a>. This lack of regulation puts shoppers at financial risk of accumulating higher levels of debt. <h2>Credit cards versus buy now, pay later</h2> There are three key differences between credit cards and buy now, pay later loans. First, while buy now, pay later loans are a line of credit like credit cards are, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/04/klarna-to-report-buy-now-pay-later-data-to-uk-credit-bureaus.html">they don’t impact credit reports</a>. Because of this, shoppers might be less cautious when using buy now, pay later services. Credit cards typically have annual interest rates ranging from <a href="https://www.bankrate.com/finance/credit-cards/what-is-credit-card-apr/#credit-card-apr-vs-credit-card-interest">15 to 26 per cent</a>. While most buy now, pay later loans have no interest, longer term loans have <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/buy-now-pay-later-loans-interest-rate-fees-tips-what-to-know/">annual interest rates of about 37 per cent</a>. Shoppers are <a href="https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/buy-now-pay-later-how-retails-hot-feature-hurts-lower-income-shoppers">at risk of overusing buy now, pay later programs</a> and accumulating more debt than they can manage. In addition, formal lenders, such as banks, currently have no way of knowing what buy now, pay later debt a person is carrying. The lender, therefore, likely incurs more risk than they are aware of. Second, credit cards typically provide <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2022.2161830">an interest-free period</a>, after which <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/03128962211032448">borrowers must pay interest</a>. In contrast, buy now, pay later users typically don’t have interest fees, but can incur <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-07-2022-0324">late fees for missed or late payments</a>. Falling behind on payment terms <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/andriacheng/2020/12/16/why-retailers-are-embracing-buy-now-pay-later-service-this-holiday-season/">can result in charges</a> that exceed <a href="https://stateline.org/2022/02/02/regulators-scrutinize-buy-now-pay-later-plans/">typical credit card interest rates</a>, causing more harm than interest payments. Low-income buy now, pay later users are <a href="https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/buy-now-pay-later-how-retails-hot-feature-hurts-lower-income-shoppers">particularly vulnerable</a> to <a href="https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/research-reports/consumer-use-of-buy-now-pay-later-insights-from-the-cfpb-making-ends-meet-survey/">using overdrafts to cover their buy now, pay later payments</a>. Third, people typically have just a few credit cards, making it easier to keep track of payments. Buy now, pay later users, on the other hand, usually engage with multiple buy now, pay later lenders through retailers. As a result, it’s difficult for them to keep track of all the buy now, pay later lenders and retailers they made purchases from. <h2>What are the Canadian governments doing?</h2> Canada classifies buy now, pay later as an unsecured instalment loan, which means lenders are subject to laws at the federal and provincial levels. Under federal law, there is an <a href="https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1711291/000171129122000011/curo-20211231.htm">annual interest rate cap of 60 per cent</a>. Provincial laws require buy now, pay later lenders to disclose the cost of credit and extend consumer protection rights to buy now, pay later shoppers. At the provincial level, <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/financial-consumer-agency/services/loans/buy-now-pay-later.html">specific laws come into play</a>. Manitoba, Alberta, Québec, and Ontario have passed laws that require lenders to be licensed before they offer these products and be subject to regulatory oversight. These laws regulate high-cost credit products that have annual rates of 32 per cent or higher. This means buy now, pay later services should fall under this category. However, I found no evidence of buy now, pay later lenders being licensed in Canada. This means either lenders are not aware they fall under these laws, or no one is enforcing them. This ambiguity over whether or not buy now, pay later lenders are subject to regulatory oversight could be a hindrance for banks like the <a href="https://financialpost.com/fp-finance/fintech/why-higher-interest-rates-threaten-the-buy-now-pay-later-bubble">Bank of Nova Scotia and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce</a>, as it deters them from entering the buy now, pay later market despite its profitability. <h2>Questions to ask before using buy now, pay later</h2> Before signing up for a buy now, pay later loan, shoppers should consider the following six questions. 1. Payment structure. How much of the invoice amount needs to be paid upfront? The norm is typically 25 per cent. What is the number of remaining instalments? The answer to this is usually four. Lastly, what is the frequency of instalments? The norm is biweekly. 2. Sensitive information. Does the lender require you to provide information about your chequing account? This is sensitive information to give away and puts you at risk of data breaches. Most buy now, pay later lenders withdraw instalment amounts from chequing accounts or debit cards, potentially exposing shoppers to greater risks than credit cards. 3. Interest charges Does the buy now, pay later lender charge interest on instalment payments? The norm is no. 4. Late fees How much is the late fee, when does it apply and what is the maximum amount of the late fee? Typically, late fees don’t exceed $8 or one-quarter of the invoice amount. Late fees usually kick in if your scheduled payment remains unpaid after 10 days. 5. Data responsibility. Who is responsible for your data? Whether it’s the retailer, the buy now, pay later lender or a company whose cloud storage the provider may be using, you should know. In general, the buy now, pay later lender holds this responsibility. 6. Licensing. Is the buy now, pay later lender licensed to sell the loan? Usually, the <a href="https://dfpi.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/337/2020/03/afterpay-settlement.pdf">answer to this question is no</a>. <h2>Buy now, pay later regulation</h2> Two sets of laws and regulations should be implemented to address some of these issues. The first set of regulations focuses on how buy now, pay later lenders interact with consumers. These lenders should clearly communicate <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4359956">all terms and conditions of their loans</a>, including late charges, interest charges and payment schedules, on their platforms to ensure shoppers are fully informed of their financial obligations. The Financial Conduct Authority in the United Kingdom recently issued guidelines allowing buy now, pay later lenders to <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/ca428bc8-65c3-49ed-8ba6-0d6f206098aa">terminate, suspend or restrict access to shopper accounts</a> for any reason without notice. Effective September 2024, New Zealand will require buy now, pay later lenders to <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-it-looks-like-debt-lets-treat-it-like-debt-buy-now-pay-later-schemes-need-firmer-regulation-in-nz-211820">check a shopper’s credit</a> before providing them a buy now, pay later loan. The second set of regulations defines the scope and boundaries of buy now, pay later lenders. On Dec. 9, 2022, California became the first American state to <a href="https://dfpi.ca.gov/2022/12/09/buy-now-pay-later-protect-yourself-before-you-check-out/">classify buy now, pay later as a loan</a>. Such classifications allowed California regulators to <a href="https://stateline.org/2022/02/02/regulators-scrutinize-buy-now-pay-later-plans/">question lenders about their transparency in disclosing the terms of their offerings</a>. The hope is that these laws and regulations will facilitate microlending and not impede the existence of buy now, pay later services, but rather make it safer and more secure for both lenders and users.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/215421/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/vivek-astvansh-1318943">Vivek Astvansh</a>, Associate Professor of Quantitative Marketing and Analytics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/mcgill-university-827">McGill University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/chandan-kumar-behera-1479139">Chandan Kumar Behera</a>, PhD Student in Marketing, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/indian-institute-of-management-lucknow-6023">Indian Institute of Management Lucknow</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-hidden-risks-of-buy-now-pay-later-what-shoppers-need-to-know-215421">original article</a>. </div>

Money & Banking

"What an honour": Kevin Costner pays tribute to fallen Yellowstone costar

Kevin Costner has paid tribute to his Yellowstone costar Dabney Coleman, who has passed away at the age of 92. Coleman, who played the role of John Dutton, Sr. in the Paramount drama, died on Thursday at his home in Santa Monica, according to his daughter Quincy Coleman, who broke the news in a statement to The Associated Press. She said he "took his last earthly breath peacefully and exquisitely." “My father crafted his time here on earth with a curious mind, a generous heart, and a soul on fire with passion, desire and humour that tickled the funny bone of humanity. As he lived, he moved through this final act of his life with elegance, excellence and mastery,” she said. Yellowstone shared the news on Instagram with the message, "We're saddened by the passing of the Dabney Coleman, a legendary actor and member of the Yellowstone family." Kevin Costner stars as John Dutton, the son of Dabney's character on the show, paid tribute to the late actor as he shared a powerful flashback scene from the season 2 finale to his Instagram. Along with a photo from the moving TV moment, Costner wrote, "One of the most heart wrenching scenes I've been a part of. What an honor to have gotten to work with Dabney Coleman. May he rest in peace." Fans left thoughtful comments about Dabney's performance as John Dutton, Sr. on the show, with one person writing, "Most touching scene of the whole show when he played that part! He will be greatly missed." Dabney earned his first acting credit in an episode of Naked City in 1961, before he went on to appear in countless TV spots over the course of his career, including The Donna Reed Show, I Dream of Jeannie, Columbo, Law & Order: SVU, Recess The Guardian, Boardwalk Empire, and Ray Donovan before landing his role on Yellowstone. Image credits: Instagram

Caring

Woman shares fury after unknowingly paying for her engagement ring

A new wife has shared her fury after she discovered her husband had been paying off her engagement ring from their joint bank account. The 28-year-old woman was overjoyed when her partner proposed to her with an $8,000 two-carat lab diamond ring, which he bought on a payment plan because he “didn’t have the funds available” when he bought it. The couple got married just three months later at the courthouse after they realised they could not afford a big, fancy wedding. After their big day, the new wife was shocked and annoyed when she discovered she had “unintentionally partially paid for two instalments”, which now makes her a “part owner of the ring”. “I found out after we married and merged our finances that he has been withdrawing funds from our joint account — we make roughly the same — to finance this ring,” the furious woman shared in a Reddit thread. “We have been having some arguments lately and he feels that the ring is a wedding expense and it’s only fair that I contribute towards it too, and that as a woman of this day I shouldn’t hesitate to be an equal partner.” She took particular issue with her husband for making her pay her share on what was supposed to be a gift from him. “I was just taken aback and honestly put off by the fact he is making me pay for a gift he gave to me. You don’t make the recipient of a gift pay for the damn gift,” she said. The woman said if she had known her husband was going to make her pay for the ring, she wouldn’t have agreed to “buy it”. “Mutual consent is essential when a couple is deciding to invest in an asset. Owning a house or a car jointly requires two ‘yeses’ and I wouldn’t certainly have said yes to jointly owning a ring he was supposed to give to me as a gift,” she explained. Although the woman admitted that she had asked her partner for a “nice” ring before he proposed, saying that she “deserved a quality piece symbolising our love”, she said she wished her partner talked to her about the big expense before signing her up for payments. “My then-fiancé knew about the expectation I had of him and was upfront about things from the get go,” she explained. “He could’ve discussed things with me and we could’ve seen if we were truly compatible like that. What I didn’t know was that he was plotting to ‘get even’ with me by taking out a payment plan and using our funds to finance it.” “I don’t mind splurging for him, but this whole situation has left a very bad taste in my mouth.” Now she’s demanding her husband return her engagement ring to the jewellery store because she refuses to pay for it. The Reddit post has racked up thousands of comments, with some people jumping to the woman’s defence. One person wrote, “I’d be livid if I found out I was diamond poor instead of house poor.” However, not everyone thought the wife’s actions were justified, with one person writing, “You’re married, there is no ‘my money’ and ‘his money’. Money he spends towards the debt for the ring is money that can’t be spent on other things for your lives together. You wanted an expensive ring, they aren’t free”. Image credits: Shutterstock

Money & Banking

Does hosting the Olympics, the World Cup or other major sports events really pay off?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ivan-savin-678930">Ivan Savin</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/escp-business-school-813">ESCP Business School</a> After a long battle, <a href="https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240213-paris-booksellers-stay-olympics-macron-bouquiniste-france">Paris’s beloved bouquinistes will be staying put</a> this summer. The decision, announced on 13 February by the French government, came after considerable public backlash to the police prefecture’s original plan to move part of the iconic Seine booksellers elsewhere for the inauguration of the Olympics Games on 26 July. Meanwhile, less than six months away from the event, Parisians continue to grumble over a <a href="https://www.ouest-france.fr/jeux-olympiques/cest-aberrant-ce-maire-vient-dapprendre-que-sa-ville-accueillera-les-jeux-de-paris-ab1fa968-cfd1-11ee-89c0-6cefac77e04a">lack of consultations</a> with locals, warnings of <a href="https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20231130-paris-vehicle-traffic-to-be-heavily-restricted-during-2024-olympic-games">gridlocked traffic</a>, closed metro stations, extensive video surveillance and other grievances. So for host countries, what was the point of the Olympics, again? In academia, the debate about the potential positive and negative effects of large-scale sporting events is ongoing. Although these events are often associated with substantial economic losses, the long-term benefits are the main argument in favour of hosting them. These include the development of material and soft infrastructure such as hotels, restaurants or parks. Big games can also help put the host region on the map as an attractive place for sports and cultural events, and inspire a better entrepreneurial climate. <h2>The pros and the cons of big sporting events?</h2> The cost of these benefits, as the Parisians have realised, is steep. Host countries appear to suffer from increased tax burdens, low returns on public investments, high construction costs, and onerous running cost of facilities after the event. Communities can also be blighted by noise, pollution, and damage to the environment, while increased criminal activity and potential conflicts between locals and visitors can take a toll on their quality of life. As a result, in the recent past several major cities, including Rome and Hamburg, <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/6-cities-that-rejected-the-olympics/a-46289852">withdrew their bids to host the games</a>. A common feature of the economics of large-scale sporting events is that our expectations of them are more optimistic than what we make of them once they have taken place. Typically, expenditure tends to tip over the original budget, while the revenue-side indicators (such as the number of visitors) are rarely achieved. When analysing the effect of hosting large-scale sporting events on tourist visits, it is important to take into consideration both the positive and negative components of the overall effect. While positive effects may be associated with visitors, negative effects may arise when “regular” tourists refuse to visit the location due to the event. This might be because of overloaded infrastructure, sharp increases in accommodation costs, and inconveniences associated with overcrowding or raucous or/and violent visitors. On top of that, reports of poverty or crime in the global media can actually undermine the location’s attractiveness. <h2>When big sporting events crowd out regular tourists</h2> In an <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1527002523120639">article published in the Journal of Sports Economics</a> with Igor Drapkin and Ilya Zverev, I assess the effects of hosting large-scale sporting events, such as Winter and Summer Olympics plus FIFA World Cups, on international tourist visits. We utilise a comprehensive dataset on flow of tourists covering the world’s largest destination and origin countries between 1995 and 2019. As a first step, we built an econometric model that effectively predicts the flow of tourists between any pair of countries in our data. Subsequently we compared the predicted tourist inflow in a hypothetical scenario where no large-scale sporting event would have taken place with the actual figures. If the actual figures exceed the predicted ones, we consider the event to have a net positive impact. Otherwise, we consider that it had a “crowding out” effect on “regular” tourists. While conducting this analysis, we distinguished between short-term (i.e., focusing just on the year of the event) and mid-term (year of the event plus three subsequent years). Our results show that the effects of large-scale sporting events vary a lot across host countries: The World Cup in Japan and South Korea 2002 and South Africa 2010 were associated with a distinct increase in tourist arrivals, whereas all other World Cups were either neutral or negative. Among the Summer Olympics, China in 2008 is the only case with a significant positive effect on tourist inflows. The effects of the other four events (Australia 2000, Greece 2004, Great Britain 2012, and Brazil 2016) were found to be negative in the short- and medium-term. As for the Winter Olympics, the only positive case is Russia in 2014. The remaining five events had a negative impact except the one-year neutral effect for Japan 1998. Following large-scale sporting events, host countries are therefore typically less visited by tourists. Out of the 18 hosting countries studied, 11 saw tourist numbers decline over four years, and three did not experience a significant change. <h2>The case for cautious optimism</h2> Our research indicates that the positive effect of hosting large-scale sporting events on tourist inflows is, at best, moderate. While many tourists are attracted by FIFA World Cups and Olympic games, the crowding-out effect of “regular” tourists is strong and often underestimated. This implies that tourists visiting for an event like the Olympics typically dissuade those who would have come for other reasons. Thus, efforts to attract new visitors should be accompanied by efforts to retain the already existing ones. Large-scale sporting events should be considered as part of a long-term policy for promoting a territory to tourists rather than a standalone solution. Revealingly, our results indicate that it is easier to get a net increase in tourist inflows in countries that are less frequent destinations for tourists – for example, those in Asia or Africa. By contrast, the United States and Europe, both of which are traditionally popular with tourists, have no single case of a net positive effect. Put differently, the large-scale sporting events in Asia and Africa helped promote their host countries as tourist destinations, making the case for the initial investment. In the US and Europe, however, those in the last few decades brought little return, at least in terms of tourist inflow.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/222118/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ivan-savin-678930">Ivan Savin</a>, Associate professor of quantitative analytics, research fellow at ICTA-UAB, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/escp-business-school-813">ESCP Business School</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/does-hosting-the-olympics-the-world-cup-or-other-major-sports-events-really-pay-off-222118">original article</a>.

Travel Tips

“So tacky”: Bride slammed for using GoFundMe to pay for wedding

A cash-strapped bride has been slammed for considering using GoFundMe to help pay for her wedding. Taking to a wedding page on Facebook, the bride explained that she and her partner had been saving as much money as possible for their wedding, but were struggling with their finances. “Our wedding is next year but I'm still so stressed that we won't be able to pay for the things that we need let alone actual decorations,” the bride began. Given the large expense of a wedding, the bride questioned if it was “tacky” to use GoFundMe, a crowd-funding website used for emergencies, to fund her big day. People were quick to chime in on the idea, with many people labelling it as “inappropriate” to use such a site for wedding expenses. The bride didn't share how much extra money she needs to fund the wedding, but many said she should continue to save rather than rely on others. “Have the wedding you can afford, or wait and save,” one said bluntly. “Personally I think it is [tacky]. If you want to have a wedding you should be funding it yourself. If you can't afford all the things you want, then I guess you have to decide if you would rather go without or postpone until it's in your budget,” another wrote. One woman said it's “insensitive” since GoFundMe pages are for emergencies only, such as medical situations. “If you can't afford to have the wedding you want you really have two choices - postpone until in a better position financially or scale back your plans to fit within your means,” she said. Image credits: Getty Images

Money & Banking

"Proud to pay more": The billionaires who want to pay more tax

Over 250 millionaires and billionaires have issued an <a href="https://proudtopaymore.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">open letter</a> to global leaders encouraging them to implement wealth taxes to combat the cost-of-living crisis. This comes just as a report by the Oxfam Charity revealed that the global wealth of billionaires have only grown in the last three years despite inflation. The open letter, signed by super-rich individuals from 17 countries, includes signatories like Abigail Disney, the grand-niece of Walt Disney, Succession actor Brian Cox, and American philanthropist and Rockefeller family heir Valerie Rockefeller. They said that they would be "proud to pay more taxes" in order to address the inequality. "Elected leaders must tax us, the super rich," the letter read. "This will not fundamentally alter our standard of living, nor deprive our children, nor harm our nations' economic growth. "But it will turn extreme and unproductive private wealth into an investment for our common democratic future." Austrian heir Marlene Engelhorn is also among the voices demanding that they pay more in taxes. "I've inherited a fortune and therefore power, without having done anything for it. And the state doesn't even want taxes on it," Engelhorn, who inherited millions from her family who founded chemical giant BASF, said. The letter was released just as global leaders gather in Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forum. Abigail Disney, whose net-worth is measured at more than $100 million, said that lawmakers need to come together to make a meaningful economic and social change. "There's too much at stake for us all to wait for the ultra rich to grow a conscience and voluntarily change their ways," she said. "For that reason, lawmakers must step in and tax extreme wealth, along with the variety of environmentally destructive habits of the world's richest." A recent <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/63fe48c7e864f3729e4f9287/t/6596bfb943707b56d11f1296/1704378297933/G20+Survey+of+those+with+More+than+%241+million+on+Attitudes+to+Extreme+Wealth+and+Taxing+the+Super+Rich.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">survey</a> of almost 2400 millionaires found that 74 per cent of them supported the introduction of a wealth tax to fund improved public services and deal with the cost-of-living crisis. The open letter also said that one-off donations and philanthropy "cannot redress the current colossal imbalance" of societal wealth. "We need our governments and our leaders to lead," the letter said. "The true measure of a society can be found, not just in how it treats its most vulnerable, but in what it asks of its wealthiest members." Images: Getty

Money & Banking

What are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ debts, and which should I pay off first?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/angel-zhong-1204643">Angel Zhong</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a> With the cost of living soaring and many struggling to get a pay rise, it’s not surprising people are using debt to navigate life’s financial twists and turns. Owing money can sometimes feel challenging, but not all debts should keep you awake at night. So which debts are good and which are bad? And in what order should you pay them off? As it all depends on your personal circumstances, all I can offer is general information and not financial advice. Ideally, you should seek guidance from an accredited financial adviser. But in the meantime, here are some ideas to consider. <h2>What is a ‘good debt’?</h2> Good debts can be strategic tools and help build a solid foundation for your future. They usually increase your net worth by helping you generate income or buy assets that increase in value. With good debts, you usually get back more than what you pay for. They usually have lower interest rates and longer repayment terms. But personal finance is dynamic, and the line between good and bad debt can be nuanced. If not managed properly, even good debts can cause problems. Some examples of “good debts” might include: Mortgages: A mortgage allows you to buy a house, which is an asset that generally increases in value over time. You may potentially get tax advantages, such as <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/forms-and-instructions/rental-properties-2023/other-tax-considerations">negative gearing</a>, through investment properties. However, it’s crucial not to overstretch yourself and turn a mortgage into a nightmare. As a rule of thumb, try avoid spending <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/select/mortgage-affordability/">more than 30% of your income</a> per year on your mortgage repayments. Student loans: Education is an investment in yourself. Used well, student loans (such as <a href="https://www.studyassist.gov.au/help-loans/hecs-help">HECS-HELP</a>) can be the ticket to a higher-paying job and better career opportunities. <h2>What is a ‘bad debt’?</h2> “Bad debts” undermine your financial stability and can hinder your financial progress. They usually come with high interest rates and short repayment terms, making them more challenging to pay off. They can lead to a vicious cycle of debt. Examples of bad debts include: Payday loans: A payday loan offers a quick fix for people in a financial tight spot. However, their steep interest rates, high fees and tight repayment terms often end up worsening a person’s financial problems. The interest and fee you may end up paying can get close to the loan amount itself. Credit card debt: Credit cards can be like quicksand for your finances. If you don’t pay off your purchase on time, you’ll be subject to an annual interest rate of around <a href="https://www.rba.gov.au/statistics/tables/">19.94%</a>. For a A$3,000 credit card debt, for example, that could mean paying nearly $600 annual interest. Carrying credit card debt from month to month can lead to a seemingly never-ending debt cycle. Personal loans: People usually take personal loans from a bank to pay for something special, such as a nice holiday or a car. They often come with higher interest rates, averaging around <a href="https://www.finder.com.au/personal-loans">10%</a>. Spending money that you don’t have can lead to prolonged financial headaches. Buy-now-pay-later services: Buy-now-pay-later services often provide interest-free instalment options for purchases. This can be tempting, but the account fees and late payment fees associated with buy-now-pay-later services can lead to a long-term financial hangover. The convenience and accessibility of buy-now-pay-later services can also make it easy to get further and further into debt. <h2>So in what order should I pay off my debts?</h2> There is no one right answer to this question, but here are three factors to consider. Prioritise high-interest debts: Start by confronting the debts with the highest interest rates. This typically includes credit card debt and personal loans. Paying off high-interest debts first can save you money and reduce your total debt faster. Negotiate interest rates or switch lenders: Don’t be shy. A simple call to your lender requesting a lower rate can make a significant difference. You may also take advantage of sign-on offers and refinancing your loan with a new lender. In the banking business, customers are not usually rewarded for their loyalty. Consider different repayment strategies: Choose a debt repayment strategy that aligns with your preferences. Some people get a psychological boost from paying off smaller debts first (this is often called the “<a href="https://www.wellsfargo.com/goals-credit/smarter-credit/manage-your-debt/snowball-vs-avalanche-paydown/#:%7E:text=The%20%22snowball%20method%2C%22%20simply,all%20accounts%20are%20paid%20off.">snowball method</a>”). Others focus on high-interest debts (often known as the “<a href="https://www.wellsfargo.com/goals-credit/smarter-credit/manage-your-debt/snowball-vs-avalanche-paydown/#:%7E:text=The%20%22snowball%20method%2C%22%20simply,all%20accounts%20are%20paid%20off.">avalanche method</a>”). Find what works for you. The most important thing is to have a plan and stick to it. Review the terms of each debt carefully. Certain loans offer flexibility in repayment schedules, while others may impose penalties for early settlement. Take note of these conditions as you develop your repayment plan. Debt can be a useful tool or a dangerous trap, depending on how you use it. By understanding the difference between good and bad debts, and by having a smart strategy for paying them off, you can take charge of your financial future.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/217779/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/angel-zhong-1204643">Angel Zhong</a>, Associate Professor of Finance, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-are-good-and-bad-debts-and-which-should-i-pay-off-first-217779">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

The debate: Should kids over 18 pay rent if they’re still living at home?

Parents have shared their thoughts on letting their children live at home rent free, as the age old debate of paying board stirred up some strong opinions. A <a href="https://honey.nine.com.au/money/should-children-over-the-age-of-18-pay-board-if-they-still-live-at-home-reader-poll-exclusive/77876711-2950-4bf3-bb30-716442a6fd74" target="_blank" rel="noopener">nine.com.au</a> reader survey asked the question: Should children over the age of 18 pay board if they still live at home? The responses were many and varied, as a whopping 72 percent of respondents said grown up kids should be contributing financially to the household. One person commented, "If children have employment, it's important that they clearly understand that life is not free and they need to budget, show accountability and responsibility." Another wrote, "If the children over 18 are working, then yes, they should contribute or give money to the parents to bank for them." Others said children shouldn't be expected to pay board, and would rather their kids save money for bigger financial commitments. "My parents did not charge me board even though I was working because they did not need the money and told me to save for my first car, which I did," one person shared. Another wrote their parenting tactic, writing, "I let my children not pay board. So they could save for a deposit on a house. They did and they all (3) have a house." Despite many people sharing their strong opinions on the matter, most respondents said it was not a black and white question, as many households have individual circumstances that affect their decision. "Depends on if they are working or not and what income the parents have. My son is 22 but unemployed due to health problem, we just pool our unemployment payment so it differs for each family situation, not a YES or No answer," one reader wrote. Another said it depends on their employment and study status, writing, "Yes if they're working almost full time, not if they're studying and just working part time to cover living expenses." The poll comes as Aussies have struggled with a rise in basic living costs, with <a href="https://www.finder.com.au/australian-household-spending-statistics" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ABS</a> data showing that Australian households spent a total of $1.2 trillion on what was classed as general living costs in 2022. This sum is close to $100 billion more than in 2021. The average household spent $130,353 in 2022, which is the equivalent of $2507 per week. This is a 20.4 per cent jump on the previous year. Image credits: Getty Images

Money & Banking

Queen Camilla pays tribute to Queen Elizabeth with a historic first

Queen Camilla has honoured her late mother-in-law with a special tribute at a royal engagement in London. King Charles and Queen Camilla attended a reception at Mansion House in London on Wednesday evening, where the monarch called for unity amid increasing tensions over the conflict in Israel. At the event, Queen Camilla donned Queen Elizabeth's favourite tiara for the first time in a subtle display of respect for the late monarch. Camilla chose the Girls of Great Britain and Ireland tiara for the event, which was worn by Queen Elizabeth regularly throughout her historic 70-year reign. The diamond headpiece was first seen on Elizabeth II in the first official photographs of the new monarch, taken on February 26th 1952, just 20 days after her accession to the throne. It was later worn during Her late Majesty's first visit to Australia in 1954, and became her most worn headpiece throughout her time as Queen. Queen Camilla paired the tiara with two other of the late Queen's beloved pieces of jewellery, the South African diamond necklace and bracelet. The Girls of Great Britain and Ireland tiara originally belonged to Queen Mary, who received it as a gift in 1893. It then came into Elizabeth II's collection in 1947 when Queen Mary gave it to her granddaughter as a wedding present. At the royal event, King Charles gave a speech as he called for peace in Israel and Palestine, referring to himself "as King and as a father and a grandfather" as he appealed for calm. He said, "I have often described the United Kingdom as a 'community of communities'; an island nation in which our shared values are the force which holds us together, reminding us that there is far, far more that unites us than divides us. Yet we are living in something of a watershed age." "Do we pause, instinctively and unerringly, before speaking or acting to ensure we are affording equal weight to both sides of the balance? Our society would be a kinder and gentler place for it." "Such understanding, both at home and overseas, is never more vital than at times of international turmoil and heart-breaking loss of life." Image credits: Getty Images

Beauty & Style

Ted Lasso star ordered to pay massive child support sum

Jason Sudeikis has been ordered to pay ex Olivia Wilde an enormous sum of child support, as a bitter two-year custody battle draws to a close. According to new court filings obtained by <a href="https://pagesix.com/2023/09/25/jason-sudeikis-and-olivia-wilde-settle-custody-battle-actor-to-pay-27500-per-month/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Page Six</a>, the Ted Lasso star has allegedly agreed to pay his ex $27,500 ($A42,800) per month in child support for their two kids, Otis, 9, and Daisy, 6. The hefty settlement has been based on Sudeikis' reported 2023 income of $10.5 million ($A16.3 million) and Wilde’s estimated income of $500,000 ($A778,000). “The parties agree that child support for the minor children in the amount of $27,500 per month is sufficient to maintain the needs of the minor children considering Jason’s station in life … is consistent with each child’s best interest, and application of the guideline would be unjust or inappropriate in this case,” the court papers reportedly state. The legal proceedings began two years ago, and took a dramatic turn in 2022 when Wilde, who was promoting her new movie Don't Worry Darling at the time, was served legal papers while on stage delivering a speech at CinemaCon. At the time, a source told <a href="https://pagesix.com/2022/04/29/olivia-wilde-mortified-after-being-served-with-legal-papers/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Page Six</a> that Wilde was mortified over the brazen act. “It seemed unthinkable to her, and it took a moment to set in, but as mortifying as it was, she did not want to give a reaction,” the insider explained. Since then, things have improved for the couple, as they were both seen putting on a united front at Otis' soccer game in LA. Wilde and Sudeikis started dating in November 2011 and got engaged in January 2013. They welcomed their two kids before separating in November 2020. Image credits: Getty Images

Legal

Beyond Barbie and Oppenheimer, how do cinemas make money? And do we pay too much for movie tickets?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-martin-682709">Peter Martin</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/crawford-school-of-public-policy-australian-national-university-3292">Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University</a> I’ve got two questions about blockbuster movies like Barbie and Oppenheimer. <ol> <li> Why aren’t the cinemas charging more for them, given they’re so popular? </li> <li> Why are they the same price, given Oppenheimer is an hour longer? </li> </ol> The opening weekend <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/culture/movies/how-australian-cinemas-and-audiences-handled-the-barbenheimer-juggernaut-20230724-p5dqso.html">for both films</a> saw an avalanche of Australians returning to the cinema. Extra staff had to be put on (although probably not enough) to manage queues, turn away pink-clad fans who couldn’t get in, and clean up mountains of popcorn trampled underfoot. An obvious solution to such a rush of demand is to push up prices. Airlines do it when they are getting low on seats. When more people want to get a ride share, Uber makes them pay with “<a href="https://www.uber.com/au/en/drive/driver-app/how-surge-works/">surge pricing</a>”. Even books are sold at different prices, depending on the demand, their length, their quality and how long they’ve been on the shelves. But not movie tickets, which are nearly always the same price, no matter the movie. Why? And how much has the cost of a trip to the movies risen over the past 20 years? <h2>Why not charge more for blockbusters?</h2> In suburban Melbourne, Hoyts is charging $24.50 for the two-hour Barbie – the same as it is charging for the three-hour Oppenheimer, even though it could fit in far fewer showings of Oppenheimer in a day. It’s also the same price as it is charging for much less popular movies, such as Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. It’s also how things are in the United States, where James Surowiecki, author of <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/175380/the-wisdom-of-crowds-by-james-surowiecki/">The Wisdom of Crowds</a> blames convention and says "it costs you as much to see a total dog that’s limping its way through its last week of release as it does to see a hugely popular film on opening night." Australian economists Nicolas de Roos of The University of Sydney and Jordi McKenzie of Macquarie University quote Surowiecki in their <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167718714000174">2014 study</a> of whether cinema operators could make more by cutting the price of older and less popular films and raising the price of blockbusters. By examining what happened to demand on <a href="https://www.eventcinemas.com.au/Promotions/HalfPriceTuesdays#cinemas=59">cheap Tuesdays</a>, and developing a model taking into account advertising, reviews and the weather, they discovered Australian cinemas could make a lot more by <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167718714000174">varying their prices</a> by the movie shown. We turn out to be highly price sensitive. So why don’t cinemas do that? <h2>‘There’s a queue, it must be good’</h2> It’s the sort of thing that puzzled <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/1992/becker/biographical/">Gary Becker</a>, an economic detective of sorts who won the Nobel Prize for Economics in the early 1990s. A few years earlier, he turned his attention to <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/2937660">restaurants</a> and why one particular seafood restaurant in Palo Alto, California, had long queues every night but didn’t raise its prices. Across the road was a restaurant that charged slightly more, sold food that was about as good, and was mostly empty. His conclusion, which he used a lot of maths to illustrate, was there are some goods for which a consumer’s demand depends on the demand of other consumers. Queues for restaurants (or in 2023, long queues and sold out sessions, as crowds were turned away from Barbie) are all signals other consumers want to get in. This would make queues especially valuable to the providers of such goods, even if the queues meant they didn’t get as much as they could from the customers who got in. The “buzz” such queues create produces a supply of future customers persuaded that what was on offer must be worth trying. Importantly, Becker’s maths showed that getting things right was fragile. It was much easier for a restaurant to go from being “in” to “out” than the other way around. Once a queue had created a buzz, it was wise not to mess with it. <h2>Cashing in from the snack bar</h2> There are other reasons for cinemas to charge a standard ticket price, rather than vary it movie by movie. One is that it is hard to tell ahead of time which movies are going to soar and which are going to bomb, even if you spend a fortune on advertising as the <a href="https://variety.com/2023/film/box-office/barbie-marketing-campaign-explained-warner-bros-1235677922/">makers of Barbie did</a>. In the words of an insider, “<a href="https://variety.com/2018/film/opinion/william-goldman-dies-appreciation-1203030781/">nobody knows anything</a>.” Another is the way cinemas make their money. They have to pay the distributor a share of what they get from ticket sales (typically <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167718714000174">35-40%</a>). But they don’t have to pay a share of what they make from high-margin snacks. This means it can make sense for some cinemas to charge less than what the market will bear – because they’ll sell more snacks – even if it means less money for the distributor. <h2>Rising prices, despite some falling costs</h2> But cinemas still charge a lot. From 2002 to 2022, Australian cinemas jacked up their average (not their highest) prices <a href="https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/fact-finders/cinema/industry-trends/box-office/ticket-prices">from $9.13 to $16.26</a> – an increase of 78%. In the same 20 year period, overall prices in Australia, as measured by the <a href="https://theconversation.com/whats-in-the-cpi-and-what-does-it-actually-measure-165162">consumer price index</a>, climbed 65% – less than the rise in movie ticket prices. <hr /> <iframe id="E2kxi" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/E2kxi/5/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> <hr /> A 2015 study found Australian cinemas charge more <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306227560_Counting_the_cost_the_impact_of_cinema_ticket_prices_in_Australia">than cinemas in the US</a>. Yet some of the cinemas’ costs have gone down. They used to have to employ projectionists to lace up and change reels of film. Digital delivery means much less handling. A now-dated <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/about-us/publications/developments-in-the-cinema-distribution-exhibition-industry">1990s report</a> to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission found the two majors, Hoyts and Greater Union/Village, charged near identical prices except where they were faced with competition from a nearby independent, in which case they discounted. Whether “<a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/The%20Cinema%20Industry.pdf">by design or circumstance</a>”, the two cinema chains rarely competed with each other, clustering their multiplexes in different geographical locations. <h2>Longer films no longer displace shorter films</h2> I think it might be the multiplex that answers my second question: why cinemas don’t charge more for movies that are longer (and movies are <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/culture/movies/bigger-than-ben-hur-why-movies-are-getting-longer-and-longer-20220322-p5a6ty.html">getting longer</a>). In the days of single screens, a cinema that showed a long movie might only fit in (say) four showings a day instead of six. So it would lose out unless it charged more. But these days, multiplexes show many, many films on many screens, some of them simultaneously, meaning long films needn’t displace short films. Although we have <a href="https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/fact-finders/cinema/industry-trends/screens-and-theatres">fewer cinema seats</a> than we had a decade ago (and at least until the advent of Barbie, we’ve been <a href="https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/fact-finders/cinema/industry-trends/screens-and-theatres">going less often</a>) we now have <a href="https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/fact-finders/cinema/industry-trends/screens-and-theatres">far more screens</a>. Long movies no longer stop the multiplexes from playing standard ones. And because cinemas like to keep things simple, you pay the same price, no matter which movie you chose. <img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/211121/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-martin-682709">Peter Martin</a>, Visiting Fellow, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/crawford-school-of-public-policy-australian-national-university-3292">Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/beyond-barbie-and-oppenheimer-how-do-cinemas-make-money-and-do-we-pay-too-much-for-movie-tickets-211121">original article</a>.

Movies

10 things you should never pay for on holidays

It’s funny how we spend so much time and energy budgeting our dream trip, but by the time we get over there we end up wasting a lot of it on unnecessary expenses. And in the end of the day, the more money that’s spent on these expenses, the less you can dedicate to your actual holiday. We’re going to look at 10 things you should never pay for on a holiday. Avoid these expenses and your next trip will be much richer (in more ways than one). 1. Unnecessary ATM withdrawal fees Many ATMs overseas charge you for the privilege of using them, as well as exorbitant international transaction fees. Travel money cards ensure you will only be paying the minimum withdrawal fees when accessing your money. 2. Excess luggage fees Avoiding these fees is as simple as reading the fine print. Before booking your flights, make sure you’re aware of circumstances that incur excess luggage fees and pack your bags lightly so if you do get a lot of souvenirs you won’t face the charges. 3. Wifi A stable, secure internet connection isn’t too hard to come by in 2016, and if you’re smart you don’t have to pay for it. If your accommodation does charge for wifi, simply pop into a McDonald’s or Starbucks that generally offer free wifi to customers. 4. Tacky souvenirs Unless you notice something that might be meaningful for someone close, tacky souvenirs are generally a waste of money (and will probably just get thrown out anyway). 5. Breakfast Breakfast is the most important meal of the day, but can be quite expensive depending on where you’re travelling. Try to book a hotel that offers a free breakfast buffet and save! 6. Calling home It’s no secret that making an international phone call can cost a mint, but if you’ve got a wifi connection and Skype there’s no reason you can’t touch base for free! 7. Walking tours Now this is a suggestion that’s a little controversial, but many cities offer free walking tours (often on a tip-based payment system) that are just as good as the paid ones. 8. Taxis While there are exceptions (emergencies and travelling in underdeveloped countries) it’s generally much cheaper to skip the taxi in favour of public transportation. 9. Counterfeit merchandise While the price is appealing, in the end of the day counterfeit merchandise really isn’t worth your while, and is generally produced by unsavoury means. 10. Food near tourist sites You’ll never see a bowl of pasta cost as much as the one that comes from the restaurant next to the Colosseum, so try and avoid eateries surrounding major sites. Have you every unnecessarily paid for any of these travel expenses? Do you have a trip on the cards, and if so where are you planning to go? Image credit: Shutterstock

International Travel

“How do you pay someone for 20 years?”: Folbigg’s big compensation question

Since her <a href="https://www.oversixty.co.nz/news/news/kathleen-folbigg-pardoned-after-20-years-behind-bars" target="_blank" rel="noopener">release from prison</a>, Kathleen Folbigg has been the centre of a media frenzy, with networks battling it out to secure an exclusive tell-all interview. Following a fierce bidding war, Seven Network has won the rights over Nine for the interview believed to have cost more than $400,000. A source from Seven said the exclusive interview will be aired on the Sunday evening current affairs show, 7News Spotlight. Others have proposed the deal has cost the network close to $1 million. The deal could see her on the list of select few Australians awarded seven-figure sums in light of their wrongful convictions, including Linda Chamberlain. Chamberlain’s lawyer Stuart Tipple said Folbigg needs to be declared innocent and be given compensation for her years in prison, noting she had a solid case. “The sad thing is all she can get is money, how do you pay someone for 20 years?” he said. “And also, I think we need to reflect on an injustice just doesn’t affect Kathleen. “I feel tonight very much for her husband and the father of those children and the injustice that just affects so many people, so many lives. “I feel very, very badly for him tonight and I just think of the whole process of just how harmful it is to them and to our society and our confidence in the whole judicial system.” Robyn Blewer, director of the Griffith University Innocence Project, noted two recent cases to illustrate how Folbigg could be compensated for her 7,300 days in jail. West Australian man Scott Austic received $1.3 million in May 2023 on top of an earlier payment of $250,000 after serving nearly 13 years for murdering his pregnant secret lover. He had sought $8.5 million after being acquitted on appeal in 2020. Both payments were ex gratis, unlike David Eastman’s award of $7 million in damages by the ACT Supreme Court in 2019. Eastman served almost 19 years over the 1989 shooting murder of federal police assistance commissioner Colin Winchester, where he was acquitted at a second trial. "The difference is it was in ACT which has a human rights act and under that, there is an entitlement for compensation under human rights," Dr Blewer told AAP. "Mr Eastman was then able to sue because there was a right to compensation. "The court assessed his damages in the same way they would a tort ... the court went through every time he was injured.” Like Austic, Chamberlain was awarded an ex grata or grace payment. She was awarded $1.3 million in 1992 which now equates to about $3 million. Folbigg will need specific legal advice about whether a civil claim is possible due to NSW lacking a human rights act like that of the ACT. Dr Blewer said she could become reliant on what the government was willing to pay. "Twenty years is a substantial amount of time lost," she said. "It might depend on the good grace of the NSW government." No further steps can be taken until Folbigg’s lawyers obtain the final report of former Chief Justice Tom Bathurst. An application to the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal to quash her convictions will likely follow. Image credit: Facebook / Instagram

Legal

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Entertainment

Property

Information

Keep up to date

Search

"Beyond devastated": One Direction pay tribute to Liam Payne

Harry Potter stars pay tribute to Dame Maggie Smith

How to revive your curls without paying salon prices

Pay-by-weight airfares are an ethical minefield. We asked travellers what they actually think

Why is it so hard to cancel subscriptions or end ‘free’ trials? Report shows how companies trap you into paying

How fear of missing out can lead to you paying more when buying a home

Why you should expect to pay more tourist taxes – even though the evidence for them is unclear

The hidden risks of buy now, pay later: What shoppers need to know

"What an honour": Kevin Costner pays tribute to fallen Yellowstone costar

Woman shares fury after unknowingly paying for her engagement ring

Does hosting the Olympics, the World Cup or other major sports events really pay off?

“So tacky”: Bride slammed for using GoFundMe to pay for wedding

"Proud to pay more": The billionaires who want to pay more tax

What are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ debts, and which should I pay off first?

The debate: Should kids over 18 pay rent if they’re still living at home?

Queen Camilla pays tribute to Queen Elizabeth with a historic first

Ted Lasso star ordered to pay massive child support sum

Beyond Barbie and Oppenheimer, how do cinemas make money? And do we pay too much for movie tickets?

10 things you should never pay for on holidays

“How do you pay someone for 20 years?”: Folbigg’s big compensation question