Over at True North Reports, the author of the piece I fisked yesterday wasn’t excited about the response he received. Some folks had questions or comments that he felt needed to be clarified. A tariff, a tax, a former president.
The idea he is defending is a “tariff” on lift tickets paid by out-of-state tourists at Vermont ski resorts. The added fee would go directly toward “buying” additional lift tickets that Vermonters could use on a first-come-first-serve basis. Sort of like a give a penny take a penny dish at the counter of the local store, except the give is mandatory, and the take is limited to people who show up early and probably have the equipment (there’s no equipment rental welfare proposal yet).
So, here’s his defense from TNR.
I’d like to address some comments here:
1. The Mermel campaign is in favor of cutting taxes and easing regulations to reduce their overall burden on business.2. think of this as a tariff. Our former president used tariffs because we were being taken to the cleaners by other countries. Vermont is being muscled out of its own heritage by out of staters and publicly traded/massive corporations that got there… by you guessed it, regulatory capture/government. I don’t see a little protectionism as socialist.
3. the demand for our skiing is basically inelastic. Moreover, you are going to feel the same taxes in every state in New England. if you think a ten percent tax on lift tickets will drive people hundreds of miles out of the way you have a common sense problem. It will barely be noticed.
Common sense tells us that any government-enforced levy is a tax. A tariff is a tax. It used to be the only tax.
As for “our former president,” what’s the matter, can’t say Trump? Yes, President Trump used tariffs on goods coming into the country. It was meant to make domestic products more competitive and encourage more US manufacturing, creating jobs and economic growth. A tourist tax may not mean much to some tourists (57% majority of skiers are male and earn 75-100K a year). Still, it will matter to everyone who makes less and ski somewhere else to save a few bucks (not to mention avoiding all the other taxes Vermont likes to levy (maybe we could call those taxes tariffs, and people won’t mind as much).
And tariffs, taxes, fees, fines, and levies discourage use. They often exist to lower interest or price people out of something entirely.
And how (if I may ask) will I feel the same taxes across New England when the “tariff” we’re talking about is for lift tickets purchased in Vermont? That makes no sense. Are you suggesting that US Senator Myers Mermel (if elected) wants to levy a ten percent tariff on some ski resorts everywhere? That’s the only way everyone in New England would feel the same pinch.
And even that makes no sense. I read Mermel’s pitch on his website.
The policy priority is called Vermonters Ski and Snowboard for free.
To make skiing and snowboarding equitable, I will introduce something akin to an additional hospitality transfer tax upon all lift tickets sold to out-of-staters. Basically, out-of-staters will pay for Vermonters to ski or snow board for free. For every ticket sold to an out-of-stater, the resort will credit 1/10 of the price to a free lift ticket for Vermonters at that resort.
So, for instance if a resort sells 1500 lift tickets in one day, then 150 free tickets will be available the very next day for Vermont citizens, first come first served. It is estimated that there are 4.5 million skier days/ lift tickets sold per season.
Assuming 75% of the tickets are for out-of-state skiers and boarders, this would produce 337,500 free lift tickets for Vermonters over the full season. Given a season of 120 days this would produce 2,812 free tickets every day for Vermonters spread across every mountain across the State. The program would pass the cost on to out-of- state skiers.
This additional cost to out-of-staters, being just $6-20 per ticket at a time when tickets, meals and lodging for weekends cost the out-of-staters thousands would have little effect on out-of-state attendance. If an out-of-state person skis through an annual pass then their ski days would be assessed pro-rata until their breakeven days and would track their attendance, still generating 1/10 of a free Vermont ticket every time an out-of-state person skis.
So wealth redistribution and lift-ticket welfare is a feature of his ‘new kind of Conservative?’ That’s Myer’s line, not mine.
And sure, that sum is inconsequential to many, but this is still a tax no matter what you call it, and the rules about taxes apply no matter how small, especially in an economy where every dollar counts. They result in less of something, not more.
But Vermont will be Vermont, and while I’m not a fan of this idea, I’m sure a US Senator Myers Mermel would be a far better choice than any Democrat from the Green Mountain State. But let’s not pretend there’s anything conservative about placing “tariffs” on your tourists so you can redistribute the wealth.
Or that a State full of Democrats won’t find some way to mess it up. Or that a US Senator (if elected) can get legislation passed at the State Level without the local Dems’ involvement, meddling, and subterfuge.
Or that the existence of the hospitality fee won’t divert those tourists to places where the fee does not exist.
