Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Up to a third of Airbnb's price gap with hotels is due to tax treatment

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–127 of 127 posts

Re: Up to a third of Airbnb's price gap with hotels is due to tax treatment

#121

Post by eloff »

digitaltrees wrote: post #94
eloff wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slippery-slope fallacy. Revising regulation to strike a balance between no regulation and existing regulations to allow services like AirBnB and Uber does not have a causative link to creating a contract-for-hire market for killers...

I am pushing back against the slippery slope that all regulation is bad, or rather, that AirBnB should be allowed to ignore regulation. I am trying to demonstrate, that in principal, at least one regulation would be obviously appropriate. If we agree on that, then we can get into the process of evaluating which regulations are efficient, acceptable and balance the competing interests of maximizing utility, and promot…

I think few would take the position that all regulations are bad, or that Silicon Valley companies should be able to ignore regulations. However, regulations need to change with the times and the technology, and this is one case where they haven't caught up. The regulations are serving to protect special interests, defeating the natural efficiency of the free market. They also serve some use, in terms of safety standards, mandating accessibility for people with disabilities, etc. Clearly they need to be revised and improved, but I don't have a lot of confidence in the political environment in the US that they will bring sanity to the situation anytime soon.

Re: Up to a third of Airbnb's price gap with hotels is due to tax treatment

#122

Post by jeffdavis »

rayiner wrote: post #116
stale2002 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tourists are a net benefit for cities. If anything, they should pay LESS taxes, not more.

Almost everyone is a net benefit for cities. That doesn't mean they should escape taxes.

"Escape taxes" is a bit harsh. If the tourists are a net benefit, who cares if it's perfectly fair or not?

If you are really concerned about this inequity, you need to also consider the services that tourists don't use, such as schools, and most of the roads outside of tourist-trap areas.

Re: Up to a third of Airbnb's price gap with hotels is due to tax treatment

#123

Post by darpa_escapee »

Symmetry wrote: post #47
DanBC wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And customers love those services. Until they die in a fire in a building that doesn't follow fire code; or are seriously injured in a possibly uninsured Uber[1] car. [1] Uber provides insurance to US drivers. I don't think they provide it anywhere else.

The regulations that Uber is skirting are based on the problems caused by taxi drivers otherwise being anonymous. Since Uber can connect drivers to rides and handles payment the problems that plagued pre-regulation taxis aren't a concern in this case. We shouldn't reflexively assume that all regulation is bad, but we shouldn't reflexively assume that all regulation is good either. As with Chesterton's fence, always l…

Medallion systems limit the amount of traffic caused by taxis, so it isn't just limited to problems caused by drivers being anonymous.

Re: Up to a third of Airbnb's price gap with hotels is due to tax treatment

#124

Post by DasIch »

stale2002 wrote: post #109
DasIch wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is profitable but it certainly not competitive on pricing. Monopolies also tend to be profitable, competitiveness isn't even a concern there.

???? So are Uber's prices too low, because it is being subsidized by VC money, or are the prices too high, because it is a monopoly? You can't have it both ways. My argument is that their prices are just fine where they are now, and that there is no upcoming price hike, because the prices, in the USA, are profitable NOW.

I can have both because there is no relationship between profitability and competitive prices. Profitability doesn't imply competitive prices and competitive prices don't imply profitability.

That Uber happens to be profitable and offer competitive prices doesn't imply anything for their prices in the future.

Re: Up to a third of Airbnb's price gap with hotels is due to tax treatment

#125

Post by ec109685 »

wyager wrote: post #73
ec109685 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be helpful to cite some of the things you are arguing. What basis do you base your opinion that hotel protections are several orders of magnitude than the value?

Out of curiosity, what do you expect me to do here? Would you like me to research your regional tax code and break down exactly why hotels are more expensive? Have you ever stayed in a hotel? They'll usually at least break out the obvious things like occupancy taxes.

Just an example of your choice to show the multiple orders of magnitude that the regulation costs over your perceived value.

Re: Up to a third of Airbnb's price gap with hotels is due to tax treatment

#126

Post by Symmetry »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #84
Symmetry wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The regulations that Uber is skirting are based on the problems caused by taxi drivers otherwise being anonymous. Since Uber can connect drivers to rides and handles payment the problems that plagued pre-regulation taxis aren't a concern in this case. We shouldn't reflexively assume that all regulation is bad, but we shouldn't reflexively assume that all regulation is good either. As with Chesterton's fence, always l…

> taxi drivers otherwise being anonymous. Everywhere I take taxis the drivers have to display their name and id. Or did you mean something else by 'anonymous'?

They display those because of the medallion system, the system of regulations that Uber is ignoring.

Re: Up to a third of Airbnb's price gap with hotels is due to tax treatment

#127

Post by stale2002 »

darpa_escapee wrote: post #118
stale2002 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

???? So are Uber's prices too low, because it is being subsidized by VC money, or are the prices too high, because it is a monopoly? You can't have it both ways. My argument is that their prices are just fine where they are now, and that there is no upcoming price hike, because the prices, in the USA, are profitable NOW.

In my market, Uber undercuts the established taxi businesses. People clearly have a higher valuation for a taxi ride than what Uber is charging because they've been paying the higher price and are still paying it when they choose another business other than Uber to ride with. Once Uber has driven out the other options, thus the need for competitive pricing, why wouldn't they capture that lost value?

What I am saying is, Is that if Uber is profitable right now in the US, then this isn't "undercutting".

This is the fair, free market price. That's how normal competition works.

If they were significantly not profitable, then you can use the price dumping argument.

But since they ARE profitable, then this is the price that the free market will go towards.

Post reply on HN