[logicallee]

could you add in your analysis of airbnb or how it relates to what you've written - you've left it entirely out of your paragraph and I can't draw an immediate conclusion.

(Though maybe you were adding information about hotel taxation without any thoughts about airbnb or how it relates.)

[stale2002]

It is related to AirBnB because there is an argument that the tax is unfair to consumers to begin with.

It is designed to screw over foreigners.

[AJ007]

Tourists use a cities resources that the residents(former, current, and future) paid for. Would it be better they paid an income tax and received voting rights?

[rayiner]

Visitors use a ton of resources--they should pay for them. E.g. think about all the money that goes into security for Times Square.

[jeffdavis]

Most cities seem to love tourism, to the point that it's considered an industry and has its own advertising.

Tourists pay sales tax and indirectly pay other taxes through businesses that cater to tourists.

[digitaltrees]

You cant set sales tax at different rates for tourists, so you have to make up for this difference elsewhere if it is determined the sales tax contribution from tourism does not fully compensate for the costs.

[stale2002]

The tourists are a net benefit for cities. If anything, they should pay LESS taxes, not more.

[digitaltrees]

Cite? Seems like a very broad generalization.

I probably agree that tourists are a net benefit, but like any transaction, they receive a good (experience of visiting a city), and pay a cost (part of which is to the city and its citizens); seems fair.

That being said, not all cities like tourists. Ever tried to go to the beach in New York? They are all private, you have to be a member of a club with beach access. That definitely cuts down on day trip tourists. Some cities in Florida with beach access have added taxes and regulation to keep spring break tourists away. The cost of those tourists was too high.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/3/florida-sprin...

[rayiner]

Almost everyone is a net benefit for cities. That doesn't mean they should escape taxes.

[logicallee]

I really am interested in jdavis703's view.

I read jdavis703's comment very carefully and I don't agree that this is the argument that poster was making!

They wrote

>so if you want to go there you just have to pay the taxes. If they ever get high enough that hotels can't book rooms, the businesses should lobby the government to lower them.

That doesn't have any indignation (unlike your comment). So it's certainly not precisely what was meant. I don't want to put words in jdavis703's mouth, I want to hear how they say this relates to airbnb or what the policy change should be.

I read their comment as being basically acceptant of high taxes (" If they ever get high enough that hotels can't book rooms, the businesses should lobby the government to lower them.") -- but it does't go on to say "For the same reasons, airbnb should also be taxed at a very high rate, and should also lobby to lower said very high rates only if they can't fill rooms anymore." (not a quote)

In fact it could say, "high hotel taxes are good for the locals, who are the ones who make these decisions." (not a quote) It could be read that they think airbnb should also have the same high rates. (But perhaps the correct reading is the opposite, that both hotels and airbnb should not have any high taxes.)

Anyway I'd like to hear it from them :) I like their analysis in descriptive terms and I'd like to hear from them how it applies to airbnb or what should be done to both hotels and airbnb, in their opinion.