------------------------
I almost thought this was satire. It reads like a caricature of leftist talking points interspersed with inane assertions and logic-less expository. Read on:
------------------------
The Bozeman City Commission’s consideration of increasing the city bed tax by a dollar begs a question: Why stop there? (Yes, why? If a little tax increase is good, why not have a big one? In fact, why not simply increase the tax to 100%? Imagine the revenue THAT will raise!)
The commission voted this week to draft an ordinance raising the local tax on hotel rooms from $1 to $2 a night. Billings and Missoula charge $2, and Billings is considering raising the tax to $3. Apparently the $3 figure met resistance from Bozeman hotel and motel owners. (Funny, why don't the media in Billings and Missoula advocate that their cities be more like Bozeman?) But this resistance isn’t rational. (Yes, of course. It isn't rational to decline participating in picking the pockets of visitors. It isn't rational to oppose increasing the coffers of this city government which is hostile to businesses. It isn't rational to stand against the all the wonders that higher taxation brings us.)
The money raised is used to promote the area as a tourist destination. The $1 bed tax raised more than $450,000 last year. (Yes, yes, yes. The government SHOULD be involved in the advertising business. It has shown its competence in so many other endeavors. Hotel owners should be happy to fork over even more tax money because the city is helping them.)
This is a no-brainer. There is certainly a price point at which tourists will balk and make plans to vacation elsewhere. But an increase of $1 per room is not it, and neither would a bump of $2. And the increased revenue would produce even more tourist traffic. (A no-brainer. That is, the editorialists have not used their brains. Because only in the cloistered environment of a news room does it make sense to increase taxes on a business so that business can make more money. I'd really like to know what the Chronicle considers to be a too high level of taxes. $5, $10? $50?
Nowhere in the discussion is there any desire to ask a few simple questions, questions that any thinking adult should want to ask: Why does the city involve itself in the activities of these private businesses? Why does the city care that hotels should make more money? And why is the city the default choice to perform this function?
And especially, does the city care about the extra carbon emissions generated by all those extra visitors?)
In any case, the bed tax question raises a larger issue: Why doesn’t Bozeman have the authority to tax tourists on a wider range of purchases? (Having never seen a tax they didn't like, the obvious question that comes to their minds is why aren't even more things taxed? Ignoring the obvious function of taxes, to fund the necessary activities of government as the law prescribes, the editors of the Chronicle want the city even more involved in the activities of private business. Oh how they love their government!)
In the 1980s, state lawmakers authorized a resort sales tax in very narrowly defined communities that depended heavily on tourism. The institution of a 3 percent tax in West Yellowstone made possible infrastructure improvements that transformed the town’s appearance seemingly overnight. (Infrastructure made necessary by the increased traffic caused by promoting the town, perhaps?)
Since then legislators have widened resort tax authority incrementally to include other communities. And now resort taxes in Virginia City, Red Lodge, Big Sky, Whitefish, Seeley Lake and St. Regis have provided millions of dollars for public service improvements and tax relief for property owners. (Incredibly, the Chronicle is justifying this tax increase because of the burden of the onerous property tax. In the land of pink unicorns and rainbows can this only make sense.) The taxes are widely supported in those communities but, so far, the taxing authority only extends to communities with populations under 5,500. (Widely supported by mind-numbed leftists who have bought in to this idiotic tax.)
Opponents to expanding the resort tax fear that it will eventually morph into what is essentially a statewide sales tax – something some Montanans quake at the thought of.
This is irrational. (Yes, of course it is irrational. Because taxes NEVER spread, increase, or include more people than originally conceived. Government activities NEVER extend their reach. Government NEVER oppresses people.
Notice they claim it's irrational, but no explanation as to why it is irrational is offered.)
Montana hosted some 11 million visitors last year, and they spent about $3.6 billion, according to the state Department of Commerce. Those visitors wore out roads and used tax-funded public services just like we all do, and there’s no reason they shouldn’t help pay for those things. (I thought the Chronicle was justifying the tax because it brought more tourists. Now they are complaining about the fallout from the very thing they advocate. This here is the textbook example of irrationality.)
Lawmakers need to get past their anti-sales-tax zealotry and give cities the authority to cash in. (Um, yeah. Perhaps the Chronicle editorialists have not read the Montana Constitution:
Article VIII, Section 16: "The rate of a general statewide sales tax or use tax may not exceed 4%." So, unfortunately for them, that "anti-sales-tax zealotry" is even found in the state constitution.
And of course it's crucial that government "cash in" and soak as many people as possible. Hey, maybe we should stop them at the state border and shake them down for cash right on the spot! Better still, why not tax them before they even think about coming to the state, so that we can fatten government coffers without any extra damage at all to our infrastructure?
As long as government is getting as much money as they can possibly get, then nothing else matters.)
No comments:
Post a Comment