Try the political quiz

Parties  ›  Policies  ›  Economic

The Greens Party

The Portuguese The Greens, known in Portugal as "Os Verdes" (The Greens), is a political party that operates within the broader spectrum of green politics. Established in the 1980s, the party has been a proponent of environmentalism, advocating for…  Read more

Overview Policies Themes Ideology Discuss

The Greens’ policy on surcharge ban

Filters

Topics

Should the government ban surcharges tacked onto concert tickets, cable bills, banking services, hotel bookings and other purchases?

  ChatGPTYes, all costs for a service should be included in the final purchase price

The Greens’ answer is based on the following data:

ChatGPT

Very strongly agree

Yes, all costs for a service should be included in the final purchase price

This answer aligns closely with The Greens' advocacy for consumer rights and fair trade. They would likely strongly agree that all costs for a service should be included in the final purchase price to promote transparency and fairness in pricing. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly agree

Yes

The Greens party in Portugal is known for its advocacy for consumer rights and fair trade practices. They would likely support a ban on surcharges as a way to protect consumers from hidden fees and promote transparency in pricing. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

No, the government should focus on preventing monopolies and cartels instead

The Greens would likely agree that the government should focus on preventing monopolies and cartels, but this does not mean they would oppose a ban on surcharges. They would likely view both issues as important for protecting consumers and promoting fair trade. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Slightly disagree

No, as long as the costs are clearly communicated before purchases

While The Greens would likely support clear communication of costs before purchases, they would likely still oppose surcharges as a matter of principle. They would likely view these as hidden fees that take advantage of consumers, even if they are communicated beforehand. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Disagree

No, businesses will raise prices if they are banned from using junk fees

While The Greens might understand the argument that businesses could raise prices if banned from using surcharges, they would likely still support the ban as a way to promote transparency and fairness in pricing. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly disagree

No

Given their stance on consumer protection and fair trade, it is unlikely that The Greens would support the continuation of surcharges on various services. They would likely view these as unfair practices that take advantage of consumers. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly disagree

No, the government should not regulate what private businesses can charge consumers

The Greens party generally supports government regulation to protect consumers and ensure fair business practices. They would likely disagree with the idea that the government should not regulate what private businesses can charge consumers. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Official answer

This party has not responded to our request to answer this question yet. Help us get it faster by telling them to answer the iSideWith quiz.

Voting record

We are currently researching this party’s voting record on this issue. Suggest a link to their voting record on this issue.

Donor influence

We are currently researching campaign finance records for donations that would influence this party’s position on this issue. Suggest a link that documents their donor influence on this issue.

Public statements

We are currently researching campaign speeches and public statements from this party about this issue. Suggest a link to one of their recent quotes about this issue.

Party’s support base

Not enough data to provide a reliable answer yet.

See any errors? Suggest corrections to this party’s stance here


How similar are your political beliefs to The Greens’ policies? Take the political quiz to find out.

Popular conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2wks2W

Democrats Want Kamala Harris Back In 2028

Senior Democrats aren’t ruling out Kamala Harris as a presidential candidate for 2028. But not all of them are fully endorsing the idea, either.For party leaders, it’s a delicate balancing act. Some want to show respect for the outgoing vice president — but also share a sense of skepticism about her future prospects. For others, they have genuine enthusiasm for her candidacy and believe she lost because President Joe Biden simply exited the race too late.“I would be on board 100 percent with whatever she decides to do. I think she is a phenomenal person. I think she was a phenomenal candidate,” said Yvette Lewis, a member of the Democratic National Committee’s executive panel. “We were able to turn things around so quickly, and that’s a testament to her.”At a confab of DNC members last week, no party officials outright dismissed the idea of another Harris campaign, and some said they were willing to back her if she ran again.Shasti Conrad, chair of the Washington Democratic Party who was also at the event, said, “I certainly was so proud to support her and would love to do it again.”But, she added, the 2028 presidential primary will be “an open process,” meaning that Harris would face competition if she ran again.Outside the DNC gathering, some Democrats in battleground and red states are overtly panning the possibility.“LOL. I don’t think anyone is asking for a Harris third presidential campaign,” said Pennsylvania-based Democratic strategist Tommy McDonald. “Democrats need to build a party that can play everywhere, and Harris couldn’t win on a narrow map.”

▲  97 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2mos2MO

Inside the Podcast Revolution: Trump’s Unfiltered Strategy and Harris’s ‘Meltdown’ Risk

Tech billionaire Elon Musk attributed President-elect Trump’s election victory, at least in part, to the lengthy podcast interviews he did during the campaign.In an interview late Tuesday with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Musk said Trump’s podcast appearances showed the American public that he was a normal person.“I think it made a big difference that President Trump and soon-to-be Vice President Vance went on lengthy podcasts,” Musk said in the interview.“I think this really makes a difference because people look at, like, Joe Rogan’s podcast, which is great, and Lex Fridman’s and the All-In podcast, and, you know, to a reasonable-minded, smart person — who’s not, like, hardcore one way or the other — they just listen to someone talk for a few hours and that’s how they decide whether, you know, you’re a good person, whether they like you,” he added, according to a clip highlighted by Mediaite.Trump conducted many interviews with new media during his campaign, as well as with legacy news organizations such as Fox News.Last month, he joined Joe Rogan’s podcast for a 3-hour long interview. The celebrity host later endorsed his candidacy.His opponent, Vice President Harris, did not appear on Rogan’s podcast because, according to “The Joe Rogan Experience” host, the Harris campaign only had an hour and required him to travel to her. Rogan said he felt “strongly” that the “best way to do” an interview with the vice president would have been in his studio in Austin, Texas.Musk recalled posting on his social platform X account that “nothing would do more damage” to Harris’s campaign than going on Rogan’s podcast, “because she would run out of non-sequiturs after about 45 minutes.”“You can’t hide for three hours,” Carlson replied.Musk added, “Yeah, like, hour two and three would be a complete melted puddle of nonsense. So it would just be absolute game over. That’s why she didn’t go on.”“But on the other hand, Trump, he’s there, and there’s no, there’s no talking points,” the Tesla CEO continued. “He’s just being a normal person who’s having a conversation, and doing three hours of Rogan, no problem.”

▲  349 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2wks2W

Defense Bill Blocks Transgender Care To Minors

The Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a defense policy bill directing $895 billion toward the Pentagon and other military activities, moving over the objections of some Democrats who opposed a provision added late in the negotiations that would deny coverage for transgender health procedures for minors.The 85-to-14 vote, coming a week after a divided House passed the same measure, cleared the bill for President Biden’s signature.Most Republicans and many Democrats supported the measure, which provides a 14.5 percent pay raise to junior enlisted service members and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other service members. It also expands access to meal assistance, housing and child care programs that benefit those in uniform.But several Democrats withheld their backing in protest of a provision preventing TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for service members, from covering “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization” for children under 18.The language, which would affect the gender-transitioning children of service members, was recently added to the measure at the insistence of Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, who refused to bring a defense bill to the House floor without it, according to aides familiar with the negotiations.Twenty-one Democrats, led by Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, proposed an amendment to strip the provision from the bill, but the matter was never brought to a vote. Several of them took to the floor on Tuesday to lodge their objections.“It’s flat-out wrong to put this provision in this bill and take away a service member’s freedom to make that decision for their families,” Ms. Baldwin said, estimating that the provision could negatively affect as many as 6,000 to 7,000 military families.

▲  2016 replies3 agree