30 ms·

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 th

by 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.

by psd1 3y ago

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.