Comment by Xylakant | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Xylakant | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm not going to convince you otherwise, but I can try:

* I think prosecuting tax evasion is one reason. It's hotel tax actually and not income tax, but tax evasion is tax evasion. However, I don't see why AirBnB host should play by different rules than a b&b-style guest house.

* Same applies for zoning restrictions. We can debate if the current restrictions are sensible or not, but that's the playground and the rules and we all play by the same rules.

* Hotels are cesspools. Yes, some are. Even chain hotels are. I don't know about NY hotels but I've seen quite a few and they range from "great in all regards" to "glad I'm far away". All in all most hove been acceptable. B&B rentals are on the same scale. At least with hotels there's a place I can report violations to.

I fail to see any reason or moral right that AirBnB host should not have to register as a B&B place, not pay the applicable fees and not adhere to the applicable rules. They're totally free to do that and then advertise on AirBnB. However, the implied reason a lot of hosts don't do that is because their landlord won't allow them to sublet the apartment - but that's a totally different problem. I fail to see any moral right that your landlord has to allow sublets. It's also none of the states business.

There's a lot wrong with governments and corruption and often they're incompetent and played by interested parties, but I think it's wrong to always assume that as the primary cause for government action.

I fail to see any reason or moral right that AirBnB host should not have to register as a B&B place,

Maybe some should, those that actually run "B&B" type outfits, but a lot of airbnb places are not like that, rather it's an individual renting out his own apartment (or a room therein) just to make ends meet. I doubt any such person will go through the process of registering as something which he/she is not.

The question of landlords/subleasing rights is an interesting one. Even as a libertarian I harbor doubts about complicated rental contracts (of any sort, including for example e-books).

If you call it the "business" of the State to enforce contracts, clearly the State has a valid interest in restricting what those contracts can consist of. For example, a contract which suborns murder or slavery should obviously not be enforced by the State.

It's a valid libertarian position to say when you rent something to someone, you transfer ownership for a period of time, and ownership gives one the right to do as they please with the property. When it comes time to return said property, should it be returned damaged, then the original owner can claim damage of property. Nowadays, rental contracts are obscenely weighted in the landlords favor .. including wording that controls your personal life (must notify the landlord if anyone is staying overnight etc). It's usually just not the landlords business, and actually quite creepy if you ask me.

> Maybe some should, those that actually run "B&B" type outfits, but a lot of airbnb places are not like that, rather it's an individual renting out his own apartment (or a room therein) just to make ends meet. I doubt any such person will go through the process of registering as something which he/she is not.

IMHO a person renting out a part of their living space for short term stays, be it a room or multiple rooms, falls in the same category as a B&B place - whatever you call that category doesn't matter. The motivations they do that for don't matter. The rules and restrictions actually do depend on the number of guests you take in and so should be registration process. But if the registration process is the major obstacle, then why doesn't AirBnB work with the authorities to make that easier for small scale subletting.

The contracts between the landlord and the person renting the apartment are just that: a contract both parties willingly agreed to. The state does not enforce the contract in any way, but provides the legal framework and acts as an arbiter of sorts. It also needs to enforce any arbitration since the state holds the monopoly on physical force. It also restricts the type of contracts that are allowed - no murder contracts obviously :)

I also think that the landlord should be able to restrict certain usages of his property - he does have a vested interest in keeping the value of his property high in the long term, which goes beyond a single rental term. So he might have an interest in the no short-term subletting clause because the other people living in the apartment complained, exposing him to the risk of a fine. OTOH I totally agree the within reasonable bounds, the person renting the flat should be free to use it as she/he sees fit.

The problem w/your "the law is the law" argument is that it makes laws unenforceable. Society changes, and the statutory laws & regulations take time to change with it. This problem forms the basis of Common Law tradition (which hold in the US), where individual Courts may interpret the law and set Precedent in light of their view of Society's best interests.

Under this system, it is hoped that authorities will also consider what is best for society, not just the letter of the law, as not doing so would risk wasting resources. For example, you won't see prosecutors enforcing Sodomy laws, because they know such actions won't hold up in Court. Unfortunately, the balance has recently been tilted towards "law is the law" thinking.

The reason for this is that the cost to those being prosecuted is so high it constitutes a punishment in and of itself. Since the prosecutors as individuals are not on the hook for the costs of investigating, bringing and defending charges, their only incentives are their own political and career ambitions.

I believe it is one of the great political and legal challenges of our time to reverse this trend, perhaps you think otherwise.

I'm all in favor or changing laws - but here the case is more difficult than a law that obviously has been overtaken by reality:

* One issue here is widespread tax evasion. There's no way we can have a debate about tax evasion by just stating "that law should be changed, I'm not paying those taxes." And AirBnB was clearly aware of that issue, yet they chose not to do anything about it. Their FAQ even state that you have to comply with local rules and restrictions and now those that didn't have a problem.

* It's not like AirBnB is having this problem only in New York or in the USA - the same debate has sprung up in Paris, Munich, Hamburg and Berlin, indicating that the problem is more widespread and not a problem with common law.

* Registering as some kind of "I'm renting out rooms to short-term visitors" might or might not be a good thing for society. It certainly ties in with the above point - anyone registered would have to pay. However, this is a city regulation, it's not part of the common law system. The city could change the regulation if the majority deemed it appropriate though. Until then, this is not "opt-out" without consequences. You can either comply or bear the consequences if you want to challenge the law in court. Otherwise I could just argue that any regulation is not in the best interest for society and opt out. I, as an individual don't get to make that decision.

> The reason for this is that the cost to those being prosecuted is so high it constitutes a punishment in and of itself.

But that's not the issue at stake here. This is certainly a massive problem of the american law enforcement. I don't know how to solve that though, but that issue is reaching much further than AirBnBs feud with the New York GA. See patent trolls etc. that all leverage that property of the system to their interest.

> I believe it is one of the great political and legal challenges of our time to reverse this trend, perhaps you think otherwise.

I totally agree here, but I don't think that "ignoring any law I personally deem unjust or senseless" is the way to go.

You're right: All these restrictions and taxes should be abolished for both AirBnB and Hotels. Problem solved.

One solution to the problem. If that's the best one is debatable, but in any case it's fair. Go lobby for that.

Thanks for adding sensible points to this debate. Your responses seem to always be both respectful and informative.

As a resident of one of the most visited city in the world, I am very happy about these taxes paid by tourists (in the end) that allow me to enjoy lower taxes.

As a New Yorker, I would be quite upset if taxes on visitor housing was eliminated. We spend a lot of money each year maintaining our city for our residents and guests alike. We invest in infrastructure to handle millions of people coming in and out each day, we spend millions cleaning streets and subways, we fund local arts programs and museums that you enjoy when you come to visit us, and much more. I hope you come to New York often, and enjoy our wonderful city, and I hope you contribute to the cost of maintaining that city so that it continues to be awesome for a long time to come.

If people don't know, NYC has "City tax", which is an income tax in addition to State income taxes and helps fund services in the city.

As a fellow New Yorker, I would be upset of taxes on visitor housing were eliminated.

The governments gotta get it's money somehow, and I'd rather them tax visitor housing and the housing would pass those costs down to the tourists than for taxes for everyday New Yorkers be raised.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com