undefined | Better HN

0 pointsEdHominem9y ago0 comments

> Hotel taxes support infrastructure and city services.

So restaurants that don't charge the extra foreigner-tax are destroying the city infrastructure? Or are their regular taxes expected to cover it?

Why not with hotels? Why can't they simply be assessed the real cost of supporting their usage?

If there was a cost associated with hosting an out-of-town guest, why is it a percentage of the room rate? Of course, the answer is "because it can be." Takers gotta take.

> Hotel taxes [also support ...] things like proper safety and fire regulations in hotels ensure that guests know where fire exits are, that fire extinguishers are available and operational, that smoke detectors are present in the proper locations and functioning, etc.

No. The room rates support that. The hotel doesn't keep the taxes so none of the taxes go to helping make the hotel safer.

> AirBnB offers none of those things.

Neither do a newspaper's classified ads.

Whose laws should they support? The guests? The hosts? The country the servers are in?

Should the newspaper have a similar burden? If I sell a car should they have to inspect the car first to make sure I'm not trying to pass off a lemon?

0 comments

JohnTHaller9y ago

Hotel taxes go to support things like inspections that ensure things like exit signs, fire extinguishers, smoke detectors, CO detectors, secondary exits, etc are all up to code on a regular basis.

EdHominemOP9y ago

Which should be paid for by the hotels and reflected in the room rates, not hidden in tax.

I'm also sure it doesn't cost $45 per room night to inspect a hotel room in SF, so the tax is out of proportion. Which is expected because the people it impacts don't have representation to change it.

And to the degree they can avoid it, it is only by the broad brush of avoiding the city entirely which has negative effects on merchants in business which don't unload their costs onto others.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse