5 ms·

I traveled extensively for work for years — around 100 nights/year, on average. So, I’ve stayed at a lot of hotels. “Resort” and “amenity” fees were occasiona

I traveled extensively for work for years — around 100 nights/year, on average. So, I’ve stayed at a lot of hotels. “Resort” and “amenity” fees were occasional annoyances, but the number 1 purveyor of junk fees in hospitality is local government. There were nearly always 1 - 3 junk taxes in addition to normal sales tax added on to the bill as a way to extort money from a group of people who have no franchise to contest the predatory taxes. I’ll not hold my breath waiting for the government to do anything about that.

psd1 3y ago
The outrage isn't from the fee - it's from the hiding of it, which is deceptive. If your point is "tax bad", fair enough - but, off topic. If your point is that the tax is a junk fee, please let us know how the government prevents vendors from disclosing the tax at the time of booking.
- marcus0x62 3y ago
  Your outrage may be exclusively from the hiding of various fees, but please don’t assume that extends to everyone. My point is not that all taxes are bad. I never said anything remotely like that. My point is also not that the taxes in question are junk fees because they are typically hidden until checkout time. They are junk fees because: * the taxes are discriminatory in nature - they are only levied against hotel customers, nearly all of whom are not residents of the jurisdiction in question and who have no meaningful recourse to have the fees changed. and * the taxes are disproportionate to the local government services that out of town hotel guests might plausibly use. In other words, they provide no value. These taxes are just a stealthy and dishonest way of lowering taxes for the local citizens at the expense of out of town guests.
  - psd1 3y ago
    I have no dispute with your views, but it's tangential to TFA. "The" outrage is not mine - it's the very point of TFA.
    - marcus0x62 3y ago
      I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on that. I think it is very relevant that while the article called out specific private actors advocating for these fees, and specifically described privately-assessed fees at hotels, it completely missed that the government is the ultimate source of some of the most pervasive junk fees in the hospitality industry.
  - belltaco 3y ago
    > the taxes are discriminatory in nature - they are only levied against hotel customers, nearly all of whom are not residents of the jurisdiction in question and who have no meaningful recourse to have the fees changed It could also be said that hotels are the ones being taxed(it lowers demand and how much they can charge customers) and they are profitable businesses just like car dealerships and (can) have a lot of lobbyists that influence local governments. > the taxes are disproportionate to the local government services that out of town hotel guests might plausibly use. In other words, they provide no value Hotel guests profit a lot from good roads, police, regulations, fire departments etc. etc. If your point is that out of state residents are taxed unreasonably, then the I-95 tolls in the small part of the highway that goes through Delaware is a better example. Junk fees are generally referring to fees that are only shown at the very last point of purchashing, right before payment after you have already invested a lot of time picking your choices based on the lower cost it showed earlier. It makes comparison shopping harder. There's no reason why initial advertised prices couldn't include taxes, except the hotel's greed to make it look more attractive and then claim 'look, the govt also charges fees, ignore the ones we have tacked on'.
    - marcus0x62 3y ago
      > It could also be said that hotels are the ones being taxed(it lowers demand and how much they can charge customers) and they are profitable businesses just like car dealerships and (can) have a lot of lobbyists that influence local governments. Funny, every time I've stayed at a hotel, they charged me those taxes. Trying to say the hotels are being taxed is semantics. > Hotel guests profit a lot from good roads, police, regulations, fire departments etc. etc. In my experience, not to the extent of the additional taxes. The additional taxes frequently add up to 10% above and beyond the base sales tax rate for every single guest, for every single room night. > If your point is that out of state residents are taxed unreasonably, then the I-95 tolls in the small part of the highway that goes through Delaware is a better example. I'm sure someone else could come up with an even more egregious example. I don't think that obviates my example, particularly when the source article specifically discussed fees at hotels. > Junk fees are generally referring to fees that are only shown at the very last point of purchashing, right before payment after you have already invested a lot of time picking your choices based on the lower cost it showed earlier. .... That's what these are ... > There's no reason why initial advertised prices couldn't include taxes, except the hotel's greed to make it look more attractive and then claim 'look, the govt also charges fees, ignore the ones we have tacked on'. Any of these fees can and should be disclosed ahead of time. I don't see why you think it is unreasonable to discuss whether or not these fees should even be charged in the first place, though, or point out that it isn't always big, bad businesses that are the source of all of these fees.
ghaff 3y ago
Yeah. Resort fees exist especially at, well, resorts or at places like Vegas casinos that I guess think they qualify as resorts. (And they're often less than transparent when you book.) But, as you say, it's not something I routinely encounter at most Marriotts etc., much less random independent hotels. What you do see are the junk taxes as you put it. In NYC, there was a tax for the Javits expansion renovation even for hotels at the opposite side of the city and for years before I think the project was even approved.
- whycome 3y ago
  What is a resort fee? Why does a resort get an exception to add on a fee?
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Nothing special about "resorts." It is/was a fee that (mostly) certain types of hotels felt they could tack onto the basic rate to cover things like pool access, WiFi, maybe a drink coupon, and various other things that one would have assumed were included or will likely not use (10% discount at spa). Less common elsewhere although, as sibling comment noted, it can happen even at a perfectly average business hotel if they think they can get away with it. While certainly annoying, I don't really mind unless it's not transparent when booking even if it does mean they're trying to be sneaky.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 3y ago
  I get charged a $25 nightly mandatory amenity fee at the Hyatt in SF. They are obviously a huge multinational conglomerate. It supposedly covers $10 in credits (one time, not per day, even though you pay the fee per day) at the overpriced convenience store at the bottom of the hotel as well as discounts and vouchers to bike rentals I will never use and museums I will never go to. It is not possible to opt out of this fee, which is also not advertised in the nightly room rate.
ajkjk 3y ago
I would just call those taxes. Although I very much agree that they should be included in the posted price. Maybe this will induce that to get fixed also.
- marcus0x62 3y ago
  I don’t think that bundling them in the posted price is the right solution. I think external fees, like taxes, should have to be disclosed separately, but prior to purchase. If they are included in the room rate, it looks like the hotel is just charging more, and these fees are fundamentally different than the normal junk fees some hotels try to charge for. Something like: Room rate - $224/night Taxes - $42.86/night Total - $266.86/night (note: these are real numbers from a recent stay in metro Atlanta. They are charging a tax rate of almost 20% in an area where sales tax is normally around 9%.)

psd1 3y ago

The outrage isn't from the fee - it's from the hiding of it, which is deceptive. If your point is "tax bad", fair enough - but, off topic. If your point is that the tax is a junk fee, please let us know how the government prevents vendors from disclosing the tax at the time of booking.

marcus0x62 3y ago
Your outrage may be exclusively from the hiding of various fees, but please don’t assume that extends to everyone. My point is not that all taxes are bad. I never said anything remotely like that. My point is also not that the taxes in question are junk fees because they are typically hidden until checkout time. They are junk fees because: * the taxes are discriminatory in nature - they are only levied against hotel customers, nearly all of whom are not residents of the jurisdiction in question and who have no meaningful recourse to have the fees changed. and * the taxes are disproportionate to the local government services that out of town hotel guests might plausibly use. In other words, they provide no value. These taxes are just a stealthy and dishonest way of lowering taxes for the local citizens at the expense of out of town guests.
- psd1 3y ago
  I have no dispute with your views, but it's tangential to TFA. "The" outrage is not mine - it's the very point of TFA.
  - marcus0x62 3y ago
    I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on that. I think it is very relevant that while the article called out specific private actors advocating for these fees, and specifically described privately-assessed fees at hotels, it completely missed that the government is the ultimate source of some of the most pervasive junk fees in the hospitality industry.
- belltaco 3y ago
  > the taxes are discriminatory in nature - they are only levied against hotel customers, nearly all of whom are not residents of the jurisdiction in question and who have no meaningful recourse to have the fees changed It could also be said that hotels are the ones being taxed(it lowers demand and how much they can charge customers) and they are profitable businesses just like car dealerships and (can) have a lot of lobbyists that influence local governments. > the taxes are disproportionate to the local government services that out of town hotel guests might plausibly use. In other words, they provide no value Hotel guests profit a lot from good roads, police, regulations, fire departments etc. etc. If your point is that out of state residents are taxed unreasonably, then the I-95 tolls in the small part of the highway that goes through Delaware is a better example. Junk fees are generally referring to fees that are only shown at the very last point of purchashing, right before payment after you have already invested a lot of time picking your choices based on the lower cost it showed earlier. It makes comparison shopping harder. There's no reason why initial advertised prices couldn't include taxes, except the hotel's greed to make it look more attractive and then claim 'look, the govt also charges fees, ignore the ones we have tacked on'.
  - marcus0x62 3y ago
    > It could also be said that hotels are the ones being taxed(it lowers demand and how much they can charge customers) and they are profitable businesses just like car dealerships and (can) have a lot of lobbyists that influence local governments. Funny, every time I've stayed at a hotel, they charged me those taxes. Trying to say the hotels are being taxed is semantics. > Hotel guests profit a lot from good roads, police, regulations, fire departments etc. etc. In my experience, not to the extent of the additional taxes. The additional taxes frequently add up to 10% above and beyond the base sales tax rate for every single guest, for every single room night. > If your point is that out of state residents are taxed unreasonably, then the I-95 tolls in the small part of the highway that goes through Delaware is a better example. I'm sure someone else could come up with an even more egregious example. I don't think that obviates my example, particularly when the source article specifically discussed fees at hotels. > Junk fees are generally referring to fees that are only shown at the very last point of purchashing, right before payment after you have already invested a lot of time picking your choices based on the lower cost it showed earlier. .... That's what these are ... > There's no reason why initial advertised prices couldn't include taxes, except the hotel's greed to make it look more attractive and then claim 'look, the govt also charges fees, ignore the ones we have tacked on'. Any of these fees can and should be disclosed ahead of time. I don't see why you think it is unreasonable to discuss whether or not these fees should even be charged in the first place, though, or point out that it isn't always big, bad businesses that are the source of all of these fees.

ghaff 3y ago

Yeah. Resort fees exist especially at, well, resorts or at places like Vegas casinos that I guess think they qualify as resorts. (And they're often less than transparent when you book.) But, as you say, it's not something I routinely encounter at most Marriotts etc., much less random independent hotels. What you do see are the junk taxes as you put it. In NYC, there was a tax for the Javits expansion renovation even for hotels at the opposite side of the city and for years before I think the project was even approved.

whycome 3y ago
What is a resort fee? Why does a resort get an exception to add on a fee?
- ghaff 3y ago
  Nothing special about "resorts." It is/was a fee that (mostly) certain types of hotels felt they could tack onto the basic rate to cover things like pool access, WiFi, maybe a drink coupon, and various other things that one would have assumed were included or will likely not use (10% discount at spa). Less common elsewhere although, as sibling comment noted, it can happen even at a perfectly average business hotel if they think they can get away with it. While certainly annoying, I don't really mind unless it's not transparent when booking even if it does mean they're trying to be sneaky.
SOLAR_FIELDS 3y ago
I get charged a $25 nightly mandatory amenity fee at the Hyatt in SF. They are obviously a huge multinational conglomerate. It supposedly covers $10 in credits (one time, not per day, even though you pay the fee per day) at the overpriced convenience store at the bottom of the hotel as well as discounts and vouchers to bike rentals I will never use and museums I will never go to. It is not possible to opt out of this fee, which is also not advertised in the nightly room rate.

ajkjk 3y ago

I would just call those taxes. Although I very much agree that they should be included in the posted price. Maybe this will induce that to get fixed also.

marcus0x62 3y ago
I don’t think that bundling them in the posted price is the right solution. I think external fees, like taxes, should have to be disclosed separately, but prior to purchase. If they are included in the room rate, it looks like the hotel is just charging more, and these fees are fundamentally different than the normal junk fees some hotels try to charge for. Something like: Room rate - $224/night Taxes - $42.86/night Total - $266.86/night (note: these are real numbers from a recent stay in metro Atlanta. They are charging a tax rate of almost 20% in an area where sales tax is normally around 9%.)