I returned from a business trip to california. My hotel bill puzzled me-it has the CA occupancy tax (10%), but then a weird little tax tacked on-a 1% tax on the occupancy tax. In my case, this amounted to a few cents.
My question: is this legal? (Placing a state tax upon another tax)? Seems like sneaky way to raise taxes without having a legislative vote.
It might have been a county tax add-on to the State tax.
Various governmental bodies seem to like to use hotels as a place to put additional taxes, likely because many of those who wind up paying said tax aren’t residents.
What in the world makes you think the surtax was imposed without a legislative vote? Some taxing body somewhere authorized it, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary we have to assume they acted within the power granted to them by California law.
Are you sure it was a tax on a tax? It’s not unusual for a hotel bill to have a state tax and a local tax but the local tax is charged on the room rate just like the state tax.
Taxes on taxes ya we have a lot of them.
Which locality was it?
Do you have a lot of examples?
It’s a common tactic used to gain passage of bond issues for useless stuff like new stadiums. They tell the voters that they will get the stadium for free because it will be paid for by tourists who stay in hotels and rent cars. Of course, its all a bunch of BS. Some private team owner gets fancy-schmantzy new stadium while the schools and city services fall further into the crapper.
I have one…that bugs me to this day for some reason.
When I was getting an underground sprinkler system put in, the contractor said I needed a license from the county.
I show up at the courthouse and inquire about it. Turns out it is a tax of $35. To be clear, this is a tax because the county does nothing, guarantees nothing, I get NO benefit whatsoever…just have to pay $35.
I take out a $20 bill and 3 fivers.
The lady says that will be $37.28.
??
I thought you said $35?
Well…there’s sales tax.
Sales tax…on a tax?!
It’s not a tax, she says…it is a service.
If it is a service, then what service am I getting?
stutter…silence…stutter…silence.
That will be $37.28…
Fine…and I pay it. Still bugs the crap out of me.
Yeesh! That is extreme! I remember long ago I had an uncle who was living in England. He said they had to pay a “hose tax” if they had a hose. Assumed water use, I guess. I would say your sprinkler tax might possibly be on similar grounds. And the service tax? Why, granting you your license is a service!
Ridiculous. It’s a racket, of course. Like everything else.
It’s my understanding that the state (California in this case) charges sales tax on a gallon of gasoline after the State and Fed Gas taxes are added in. I’m willing to be corrected if this is not the case.
Taxes on this, taxes on that, a tax on your coat, and a tax on your hat. A tax on the taxi, and a tax on that tax. You can be outraged if it amuses you to be outraged, but it all comes down to the same thing. The government does things for us, and it needs money to pay for those things. What does it matter what they call it?
I have no problem with a tax on taxes. Those taxes are there to pay for something and something you benifit from in theory.
Furthermore, I think being able to deduct local taxes from income before you pay federal taxes on it is a crock as well.
Lets take two people.
One lives in income tax low/ free crappy state A. Not much local tax, but by the same token, they don’t really get any “freebies” service wise.
Another lives in socialist utopia state B. High taxes/income tax out the butt. However, all kinds of “freebies” like great roads, basic medical, public pools everywhere, a cop a fireman and an ambulance on every corner. Great schools.
Person A doesnt pay for shit, but doesnt get shit either.
Person B pays out the wazzoo, but gets a bunch too.
So, if person B gets to deduct their local taxes from their income before they pay federal taxes on it, what that basically means is that person A is subsidizing person B’s benefits.
IMO anyway.
What general constitutional provision would it violate? I’m not asking for a legal brief here, just an idea.
If you get too cold, they’ll tax the heat.
Are you talking about California? Yes, we have about the highest State taxes which we do get to deduct from our Fed taxes (if we itemize). On the other hand, our State only gets back like 75 cents for every dollar we put in. States like WV get way more back than the put into the system (thank you Sen. Byrd.) Therefore, we’re not being subsidized for shit. I’ll do it your way when we get back what we put in.
What YOU get back in federal taxes is a seperate issue.
If you get less back from “unfair distribution” thats a whole nother kettle of worms, which I could get behind you in those regards.
But theft here to make up from theft there doesnt make either theft right.
Very true but I wanted to point out that you weren’t presenting the full picture of things.
Gas. add the highway taxes. then sales tax on the total. there have been others but ssorry I am comming up blank.