Topic: Cities that ban airbnb
Anonymous A started this discussion 2 years ago #115,764
lmao
funnier though are the number of idiots that just take up what i'd assume are the hotel lobby's talking points as their own 🙃
funnier though are the number of idiots that just take up what i'd assume are the hotel lobby's talking points as their own 🙃
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 22 minutes later[^] [v] #1,278,894
Imagine the hotel lobby's point of view. These AirBnBs keep showing up, they're taking all your guests and they don't pay local taxes that you are subject to, all while being subsidized by the taxes that you have to pay!(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 15 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,899
@previous (B)
what's crazy to me is the type of argument you see on reddit. singular, not plural, because i don't think reddit is capable of supporting more than one viewpoint.
won't someone think of us residents? think of the residents. who cares about people visiting the city. i don't care that my city's economy is heavily based in tourism. i don't like turists. anyone that books an illegal rental should get out. fuck the illegals. .... oh wait
what's crazy to me is the type of argument you see on reddit. singular, not plural, because i don't think reddit is capable of supporting more than one viewpoint.
won't someone think of us residents? think of the residents. who cares about people visiting the city. i don't care that my city's economy is heavily based in tourism. i don't like turists. anyone that books an illegal rental should get out. fuck the illegals. .... oh wait
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,902
also i've paid plenty of taxes in the many many times i've had the displeasure of using airbnb
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,906
@previous (A)
Which taxes? AirBnB follows the Uber model of "enter market, get permission later". AirBnB doesn't start collecting those taxes until the locale threatens to take action. You probably paid sales tax.
Which taxes? AirBnB follows the Uber model of "enter market, get permission later". AirBnB doesn't start collecting those taxes until the locale threatens to take action. You probably paid sales tax.
(Edited 59 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 49 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,911
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 51 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,912
@previous (A)
Ok, then read the post again except for the last sentence. There are state and local sales taxes by the way, you didn't necessarily pay a lodging tax just because your app said 'local taxes'
Ok, then read the post again except for the last sentence. There are state and local sales taxes by the way, you didn't necessarily pay a lodging tax just because your app said 'local taxes'
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,913
@previous (B)
fine. we can all agree they should be held to follow local tax law.
its still retarded to ban them
fine. we can all agree they should be held to follow local tax law.
its still retarded to ban them
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,914
@1,278,912 (B)
> There are state and local sales taxes by the way, you didn't necessarily pay a lodging tax just because your app said 'local taxes'
i believe it was a lodging tax. i believe i've also additionally been charged some type of sales tax.
this is all besides the point though. just enforce existing law. don't ban an entire industry because one company isn't following basic tax law, if thats even so to begin with. its stupid to even argue about this because i know these laws werent even proposed under the guise of tax law. the argument i've seen to justify them is even more stupid than that
> There are state and local sales taxes by the way, you didn't necessarily pay a lodging tax just because your app said 'local taxes'
i believe it was a lodging tax. i believe i've also additionally been charged some type of sales tax.
this is all besides the point though. just enforce existing law. don't ban an entire industry because one company isn't following basic tax law, if thats even so to begin with. its stupid to even argue about this because i know these laws werent even proposed under the guise of tax law. the argument i've seen to justify them is even more stupid than that
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,923
@1,278,894 (B)
How does that justify banning AirBnB?
Make them pay taxes, the same way those cities force food delivery apps to pay taxes.
Banning them outright only serves the old lodging businesses that can't adapt.
How does that justify banning AirBnB?
Make them pay taxes, the same way those cities force food delivery apps to pay taxes.
Banning them outright only serves the old lodging businesses that can't adapt.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 9 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,022
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 3 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,038
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 51 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,039
@previous (D)
the idea of a "housing crisis" is also dumb and is always the intended result of restrictive zoning laws that prevent higher density housing or new development or both. people fail to acknowledge this and instead propose more thoughtless intervention to fix interventions that fix interventions...
like rent control, for example. its a subsidy for employers. no need to pay low-skill employees a living wage when the city will cover the difference. some workers will even refuse jobs that pay more because their housing subsidies will be revoked. its difficult to imagine a more effective way to create a caste system in modern times
the idea of a "housing crisis" is also dumb and is always the intended result of restrictive zoning laws that prevent higher density housing or new development or both. people fail to acknowledge this and instead propose more thoughtless intervention to fix interventions that fix interventions...
like rent control, for example. its a subsidy for employers. no need to pay low-skill employees a living wage when the city will cover the difference. some workers will even refuse jobs that pay more because their housing subsidies will be revoked. its difficult to imagine a more effective way to create a caste system in modern times
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,067
@previous (A)
Rent control is not a subsidy, the city does not pay anything, it's a regulation that restricts how much landlords can charge tenants.
It's a subsidy to the tenants who are already in a place, and don't want to move. Landlords end up paying the costs because they lose out on more rent.
Employers would benefit from a larger supply of labor, and they would benefit from employees who could move easily to where the jobs are.
Rent control is not a subsidy, the city does not pay anything, it's a regulation that restricts how much landlords can charge tenants.
It's a subsidy to the tenants who are already in a place, and don't want to move. Landlords end up paying the costs because they lose out on more rent.
Employers would benefit from a larger supply of labor, and they would benefit from employees who could move easily to where the jobs are.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 18 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,072
@previous (C)
you're right it's not a direct subsidy. it is another topic altogether, these two measures are also brought in together so i wasnt being careful when i said that.
> , it's a regulation that restricts how much landlords can charge tenants.
from what i've seen, anything that isn't controlled ends up inflated to counter-act it, making the division between the lower and middle class larger.
sometimes depending on the exact controls this comes out as a region of low-rent apartments surrounded by much much higher rent apartments. aka a ghetto
other times this comes out as people who cant ever move and are locked into their apartment because every new lease theyd sign theyd never be able to afford. no pressure to pay these people well. no pressure to treat them well because they lack social or even physical mobiility
you're right it's not a direct subsidy. it is another topic altogether, these two measures are also brought in together so i wasnt being careful when i said that.
> , it's a regulation that restricts how much landlords can charge tenants.
from what i've seen, anything that isn't controlled ends up inflated to counter-act it, making the division between the lower and middle class larger.
sometimes depending on the exact controls this comes out as a region of low-rent apartments surrounded by much much higher rent apartments. aka a ghetto
other times this comes out as people who cant ever move and are locked into their apartment because every new lease theyd sign theyd never be able to afford. no pressure to pay these people well. no pressure to treat them well because they lack social or even physical mobiility
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 58 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,073
@1,279,067 (C)
> Employers would benefit from a larger supply of labor, and they would benefit from employees who could move easily to where the jobs are.
they never will move if they can't afford to live there. so employers would have to pay more or shut down. not hard to know what happens next
> Employers would benefit from a larger supply of labor, and they would benefit from employees who could move easily to where the jobs are.
they never will move if they can't afford to live there. so employers would have to pay more or shut down. not hard to know what happens next