3 ms·
> I was refuting the OPs comment claimed they got fat off of purposeful negligence of the law which is a false claim. It's not a false claim. Look, in July 20
by rgbrenner 12y ago
> I was refuting the OPs comment claimed they got fat off of purposeful negligence of the law which is a false claim.
It's not a false claim. Look, in July 2011, they closed a funding round that valued them at $1B. Today, it's $10B. You're saying 90% of their value is irrelevant to this debate.
It's not irrelevant, and neither is what they've been doing for the past 2.5 years.
It's is absolutely true that they've gotten fat off of purposely violating the law.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/nicoleperlroth/2011/07/24/its-official-airbnb-joins-the-billion-dollar-valuation-club/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/nicoleperlroth/2011/07/24/its-of...
- dmix 12y agoEveryone here is claiming that the AirBnB is and was a hotel by definition of tax law... and this has always has been a fact. This is false. It has been very much up in the air. AirBnB operates globally in thousands of cities where they have no clear tax obligation. It still is in most places except SF. SF only made an official statement in 2012. Even in SF - at this moment - it still hasn't been revealed whether or not they have any obligation to pay backtaxes.... as would be the case if they did indeed blatantly break the law. Even the state hasn't fully confirmed the position on their past activity, yet you and the downvoting-because-I-disagree brigade knows better? I miss the old HN :( btw, your Forbes article only confirms my point that the lawmakers only cared about them after they got wealthy. They are slow moving and reactionary, period.