[FeloniousHam]

Ah yes, the greedy sleazeballs. If you knew that the total cost of the meal would be the same, say $20 for the meal, does it to you matter if: 1) you pay $20 "no tip" and the owner pays non-tip minimum wage, or b) you pay $16.50 for the food and $3.50 separately to the server in the form of a tip ?

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

The problem is that the customer does not know the cost of the meal; they typically rely on the business owner to be upfront about that. Tipping is guilt-motivated drip pricing. The only thing the commenter got wrong is that the restaurateur has to prime the customer with some cost so they can voluntarily add a percentage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drip_pricing

[geodel]

> If you knew that the total cost of the meal would be the same,..

Huh, why should I know this at all. I read the prices online or in restaurant when I enter in. I will assume that as my cost of food.

[xp84]

> If you knew that the total cost of the meal

That's the crux of it. All surcharges are scams designed to trick the customer into thinking the meal is priced lower than it is. Sales tax not built into menu prices is a scam that the government is at fault for allowing. All other surcharges including the socially-obligatory tip and the scummy "health care surcharges" common in California, are scams that the restaurant is choosing to do. All of these are insulting.

It's no different than telling women I'm 6' and then when they meet me revealing that's only when I'm wearing cowboy boots and a big hat.

[FeloniousHam]

I don't like tipping (in most cases) either, but who is greedy here? The owner, who is following social norms and separating the optional service charge from the cost of the food, or the server dependent on the tip for their wage?