6 ms·

I don’t live in the states, but I think it is weird that hotels are allowed to advertise rates before VAT, unlike basically any other business. And it just see

I don’t live in the states, but I think it is weird that hotels are allowed to advertise rates before VAT, unlike basically any other business. And it just seems like a common thing globally that hotel and event tickets are allowed to advertise wrong prices. Why do they tend to get a free pass?

lokar 3y ago
IMO part of it is anti-gov libertarians who want any tax to be as painful and annoying as possible.
- Eumenes 3y ago
  This is an interesting take ... libertarians are responsible for hotels not including VAT in their totals? Hmm
  - lokar 3y ago
    Certainly US republicans want to make people angry about taxes
    - Eumenes 3y ago
      Parent comment was talking about VAT taxes in the EU and you're harping on libertarians and republicans in the US? Strange
      - lokar 3y ago
        I generally assume when people say VAT in a general context they also mean sales tax (and the reverse)
      - balls187 3y ago
        I read the original comment as it didn’t make sense that prices in the US aren’t inclusive of taxes. It’s less about harping on political ideologies and instead provided rationale as to why US prices aren’t transparent. The commenter who brought up Sales tax variations is partially correct, and the lack of political will to adopt a progressive consumption tax is also partially to blame.
    - mozman 3y ago
      Everyone should be angry about taxes. We work our ass off and. so much of it is eaten up by taxes.
      - lokar 3y ago
        Exactly
      - balls187 3y ago
        I agree tangentially with the sentiment—specifically in the US, we should be judicious about how our money is taken and used. Not because we work our asses off, rather because it’s our duty as electorates (not to mention general good practice to watch your finances).
        Retric 3y ago
        Spending is the issue, complaining about taxes in isolation is just silly. The focus on taxes is just a smoke screen so you don’t need to offend anyone by suggesting you actually cut spending on say national defense, GPS, weather forecasting, etc etc. If you actually want lower taxes propose specific spending cuts. Let’s get rid of police and prisons and then see what happens, or no how about…
      - losteric 3y ago
        The recent surge of inflation is in the double digits, exceeding most state taxes while solely funneling money to the rich.
      - Retric 3y ago
        Taxes and the governments they support are still a huge net benefit. You can quibble about kinds of spending but then you’re going to offend someone who wants that spending thus the silly focus on taxes. Can’t cut police because people want that, can’t remove GPS, can’t cut veterans benefits, can’t… But hey leaching off other people is a time honored tradition.
    - batch12 3y ago
      I think both can be good. We should know how much of a purchase is tax. We should also know upfront. I also think it's okay to question if a tax rate is appropriate and if the money already being taken for tax purposes is being spent well.
- calmoo 3y ago
  A much, much simpler explanation is that not including taxes in an items price increases the likelyhood of a consumer buying the product. Once a consumer goes to pay for a product, either online at checkout or at the cashier, they're much less likely to back down from a purchase.
  - alisson_dover 3y ago
    This is a conspiracy level explanation. Do you really think middle aged Americans are surprised by taxes every time they buy groceries? "Oh, darn, the total cost is unexpectedly higher, how could I forget about the sales tax... that I see on every check every day for 50 years."
    - profile53 3y ago
      I mean it is inconsistent and there is really no way for an average American to know how much they will pay in tax at the grocery store. A prepared sandwich has tax, but sandwich ingredients do not. Depending on which side of the county line the store you’re shopping at is, a bottle of soda could have tax or be tax free. Sunny D might have tax while concentrated orange juice does not. Etc.
theluketaylor 3y ago
Prices are done without taxes in the US and Canada due to the anti-tax lobby. The theory goes if people have to see the figure they are taxed each transaction they will more loudly complain about the rates and more strongly resist raising the rate. In practice all it does it make it annoying to figure out what something costs.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- geitir 3y ago
  It’s not a theory, it’s so you are informed. The tax you see up front is a tax on you the consumer, not the business entity
- weberer 3y ago
  In practice it works. Sales tax averages around 5% in US states, and over 20% in Europe. When I lived in the states, everybody knew what their local sales tax rate was off the top of their head, and most knew the last time it was raised. Here in northern Europe, nobody really knows. Out of sight, out of mind.
gtowey 3y ago
Because for the last 50 years or so there has been a vast effort to erode the regulatory power of our government. From the FDA and EPA, to the education system and more -- these institutions have either been captured by industry or starved for funding. The result is that business can do pretty much any ani-consumer thing they want and there is nobody to stop them.
- nradov 3y ago
  Much of the federal government's regulatory authority shouldn't exist in the first place, and stems from an overly broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Hopefully we will see Supreme Court decisions which overturn those precedents and eviscerate the power of most federal agencies. Most issues should be left to the several states, or if federal authority is really needed on certain issues then let's pass narrowly targeted Constitutional amendments to that effect.
  - gtowey 3y ago
    So when companies are dumping so much hazardous pollutants into local water so that the river catches fire[1], who's responsibility is it to deal with that? https://case.edu/ech/articles/c/cuyahoga-river-fire https://case.edu/ech/articles/c/cuyahoga-river-fire
    - nradov 3y ago
      If the problem is contained within one state then the state government can deal with it. If there are significant levels of pollutants flowing downstream to another state then that would be a federal issue under even a very narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
      - gtowey 3y ago
        So most major waterways affect and are affected by interstate issues, especially when you take into account watersheds that feed into them. And anything you put into the air by definition is going to be impossible to contain within just one state. And the ocean is by definition an interstate issue by default. So maybe we need some kind of federal agency to, you know, protect the environment. And since 90% of these issues affect the nation as a whole, and this agency would have the most data, maybe it could, like, set some rules for everyone to follow so we have consistency. That way you don't have to figure out 50 different sets of rules to do business in this country. And 50 states wouldn't have to spend all their money just to re-learn the same lessons independently. And then we are right back at the issue that strong federal regulation is the only efficient and effective way to run things.
crazygringo 3y ago
I don't know what you mean. The US doesn't have VAT, it has sales tax, which varies geographically by a great deal -- even between neighboring cities. And advertised prices in the US virtually never include sales tax (in large part due to that variation). Hotels and ticket brokers aren't getting any kind of free pass, they're advertising prices in the same way as everywhere else like grocery stores or Amazon -- at least as far as sales tax is involved. Literally the only locations I've ever encountered that include sales tax in the price are a tiny minority of coffee shops (often cash-only) and budget pizza places (often the dollar-slice ones), which is to avoid having to deal with coins. (The article is about other fees though, which is a different subject from sales tax.)
- wpietri 3y ago
  As an American who has lived abroad a fair bit, I can confirm that the American approach seems deranged if you're used to prices that match what you will pay.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    I mean, it certainly does seem that way. But the problem is that right now a supermarket chain can advertise in the newspaper that chicken breasts are $4.99/lb at all of its nearby locations. If sales tax were included, you couldn't advertise prices at all, because they might be different at each store! How could Apple advertise the price of a MacBook, when sales tax is 0% in New Hampshire, but 8.875% in New York City, but 4.5% in Yonkers just north of NYC? That's a price variation of around $100–200.
    - thmsths 3y ago
      Fair point on the advertising. Perhaps a good compromise would be to mandate displaying the price with the taxes included in store/on the website so what you see is what you get when you checkout with no bad surprises.
    - cto_of_antifa 3y ago
      [dead]
balls187 3y ago
They get away with it by using fine print that discloses additional charges. If you think how we handle sales tax is odd, just wait until you see a medical bill from the US!
solatic 3y ago
for a non-American answer: in countries with VAT, tourists are not required to pay VAT, although domestic citizens are. The hotel will often service both foreigners and domestic citizens, so it charges a rate without VAT to tourists and a rate with VAT to domestic citizens. Unlike most businesses where most of their clientele are domestic citizens, hotels are special in that most of their clientele are foreigners, thus hotels are permitted to advertise a rate without VAT.

lokar 3y ago

IMO part of it is anti-gov libertarians who want any tax to be as painful and annoying as possible.

Eumenes 3y ago
This is an interesting take ... libertarians are responsible for hotels not including VAT in their totals? Hmm
- lokar 3y ago
  Certainly US republicans want to make people angry about taxes
  - Eumenes 3y ago
    Parent comment was talking about VAT taxes in the EU and you're harping on libertarians and republicans in the US? Strange
    - lokar 3y ago
      I generally assume when people say VAT in a general context they also mean sales tax (and the reverse)
    - balls187 3y ago
      I read the original comment as it didn’t make sense that prices in the US aren’t inclusive of taxes. It’s less about harping on political ideologies and instead provided rationale as to why US prices aren’t transparent. The commenter who brought up Sales tax variations is partially correct, and the lack of political will to adopt a progressive consumption tax is also partially to blame.
  - mozman 3y ago
    Everyone should be angry about taxes. We work our ass off and. so much of it is eaten up by taxes.
    - lokar 3y ago
      Exactly
    - balls187 3y ago
      I agree tangentially with the sentiment—specifically in the US, we should be judicious about how our money is taken and used. Not because we work our asses off, rather because it’s our duty as electorates (not to mention general good practice to watch your finances).
      - Retric 3y ago
        Spending is the issue, complaining about taxes in isolation is just silly. The focus on taxes is just a smoke screen so you don’t need to offend anyone by suggesting you actually cut spending on say national defense, GPS, weather forecasting, etc etc. If you actually want lower taxes propose specific spending cuts. Let’s get rid of police and prisons and then see what happens, or no how about…
    - losteric 3y ago
      The recent surge of inflation is in the double digits, exceeding most state taxes while solely funneling money to the rich.
    - Retric 3y ago
      Taxes and the governments they support are still a huge net benefit. You can quibble about kinds of spending but then you’re going to offend someone who wants that spending thus the silly focus on taxes. Can’t cut police because people want that, can’t remove GPS, can’t cut veterans benefits, can’t… But hey leaching off other people is a time honored tradition.
  - batch12 3y ago
    I think both can be good. We should know how much of a purchase is tax. We should also know upfront. I also think it's okay to question if a tax rate is appropriate and if the money already being taken for tax purposes is being spent well.
calmoo 3y ago
A much, much simpler explanation is that not including taxes in an items price increases the likelyhood of a consumer buying the product. Once a consumer goes to pay for a product, either online at checkout or at the cashier, they're much less likely to back down from a purchase.
- alisson_dover 3y ago
  This is a conspiracy level explanation. Do you really think middle aged Americans are surprised by taxes every time they buy groceries? "Oh, darn, the total cost is unexpectedly higher, how could I forget about the sales tax... that I see on every check every day for 50 years."
  - profile53 3y ago
    I mean it is inconsistent and there is really no way for an average American to know how much they will pay in tax at the grocery store. A prepared sandwich has tax, but sandwich ingredients do not. Depending on which side of the county line the store you’re shopping at is, a bottle of soda could have tax or be tax free. Sunny D might have tax while concentrated orange juice does not. Etc.

theluketaylor 3y ago

Prices are done without taxes in the US and Canada due to the anti-tax lobby. The theory goes if people have to see the figure they are taxed each transaction they will more loudly complain about the rates and more strongly resist raising the rate. In practice all it does it make it annoying to figure out what something costs.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
geitir 3y ago
It’s not a theory, it’s so you are informed. The tax you see up front is a tax on you the consumer, not the business entity
weberer 3y ago
In practice it works. Sales tax averages around 5% in US states, and over 20% in Europe. When I lived in the states, everybody knew what their local sales tax rate was off the top of their head, and most knew the last time it was raised. Here in northern Europe, nobody really knows. Out of sight, out of mind.

gtowey 3y ago

Because for the last 50 years or so there has been a vast effort to erode the regulatory power of our government. From the FDA and EPA, to the education system and more -- these institutions have either been captured by industry or starved for funding. The result is that business can do pretty much any ani-consumer thing they want and there is nobody to stop them.

nradov 3y ago
Much of the federal government's regulatory authority shouldn't exist in the first place, and stems from an overly broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Hopefully we will see Supreme Court decisions which overturn those precedents and eviscerate the power of most federal agencies. Most issues should be left to the several states, or if federal authority is really needed on certain issues then let's pass narrowly targeted Constitutional amendments to that effect.
- gtowey 3y ago
  So when companies are dumping so much hazardous pollutants into local water so that the river catches fire[1], who's responsibility is it to deal with that? https://case.edu/ech/articles/c/cuyahoga-river-fire https://case.edu/ech/articles/c/cuyahoga-river-fire
  - nradov 3y ago
    If the problem is contained within one state then the state government can deal with it. If there are significant levels of pollutants flowing downstream to another state then that would be a federal issue under even a very narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
    - gtowey 3y ago
      So most major waterways affect and are affected by interstate issues, especially when you take into account watersheds that feed into them. And anything you put into the air by definition is going to be impossible to contain within just one state. And the ocean is by definition an interstate issue by default. So maybe we need some kind of federal agency to, you know, protect the environment. And since 90% of these issues affect the nation as a whole, and this agency would have the most data, maybe it could, like, set some rules for everyone to follow so we have consistency. That way you don't have to figure out 50 different sets of rules to do business in this country. And 50 states wouldn't have to spend all their money just to re-learn the same lessons independently. And then we are right back at the issue that strong federal regulation is the only efficient and effective way to run things.

crazygringo 3y ago

I don't know what you mean. The US doesn't have VAT, it has sales tax, which varies geographically by a great deal -- even between neighboring cities. And advertised prices in the US virtually never include sales tax (in large part due to that variation). Hotels and ticket brokers aren't getting any kind of free pass, they're advertising prices in the same way as everywhere else like grocery stores or Amazon -- at least as far as sales tax is involved. Literally the only locations I've ever encountered that include sales tax in the price are a tiny minority of coffee shops (often cash-only) and budget pizza places (often the dollar-slice ones), which is to avoid having to deal with coins. (The article is about other fees though, which is a different subject from sales tax.)

wpietri 3y ago
As an American who has lived abroad a fair bit, I can confirm that the American approach seems deranged if you're used to prices that match what you will pay.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  I mean, it certainly does seem that way. But the problem is that right now a supermarket chain can advertise in the newspaper that chicken breasts are $4.99/lb at all of its nearby locations. If sales tax were included, you couldn't advertise prices at all, because they might be different at each store! How could Apple advertise the price of a MacBook, when sales tax is 0% in New Hampshire, but 8.875% in New York City, but 4.5% in Yonkers just north of NYC? That's a price variation of around $100–200.
  - thmsths 3y ago
    Fair point on the advertising. Perhaps a good compromise would be to mandate displaying the price with the taxes included in store/on the website so what you see is what you get when you checkout with no bad surprises.
  - cto_of_antifa 3y ago
    [dead]

balls187 3y ago

They get away with it by using fine print that discloses additional charges. If you think how we handle sales tax is odd, just wait until you see a medical bill from the US!

solatic 3y ago

for a non-American answer: in countries with VAT, tourists are not required to pay VAT, although domestic citizens are. The hotel will often service both foreigners and domestic citizens, so it charges a rate without VAT to tourists and a rate with VAT to domestic citizens. Unlike most businesses where most of their clientele are domestic citizens, hotels are special in that most of their clientele are foreigners, thus hotels are permitted to advertise a rate without VAT.