Breckenridge to tax lift tickets
By Associated Press
BRECKENRIDGE, Colo. — Breckenridge voters have approved Colorado’s first local tax on ski lift tickets.
The city asked voters to approve a 4.5 percent sales tax on single-day and multiday Breckenridge Ski Resort tickets.
It’s expected to generate $3.5 million a year for transit and parking improvements in the resort town.
The tax will be collected by Vail Resorts, which operates the Breckenridge resort. Vail Resorts originally opposed the tax but relented when season passes, multi-resort lift-tickets and summer activities were excluded.
What a concept!
So, as usual, they approved a tax that will be levied primarily on people who didn’t get a say in the matter. Taxation without representation seems to be the mode of the day. Tax those other people, not us!
Dog can you understand what you read? Here is the second line of the article cut and pasted for your enlightenment, “The city asked voters to approve a 4.5 percent sales tax on single-day and multiday Breckenridge Ski Resort tickets.”.
You can’t have more representation than the city voting on a tax. You’re fully represented at that point.
I’m sure you’re fighting for the rights of people who don’t live in that municipality, yet want a say in how they run it.
So Dog should we also alleviate any local taxes a tourist may pay when purchasing groceries or t-shirts in a municipality they don’t vote in? Should we exclude second homeowners who vote in another municipality from paying property taxes?
That’s a substantial amount of money that if implemented at Tahoe could go a long way to help fund the services that tourists require: public safety, ambulance, public transportation, road maintenance, snow removal, Search & Rescue, litter cleanup and so on.
Dogzilla sticking her nose where it dosent belong, again…
Steve you are right.
But heavenly ISNT IN THE CITY !
It is in the county though.
Steve Buttling, what about the Gondola? Isn’t that in the city?
Bigger when heavenly village was built Heavenly resort got a waiver on lift ticket sales. Otherwise they were not going to build the gondola. So taxing lift tickets is a no go unless the county wants to start doing it.
What really interesting to me as that most locals like Steve(not Butting) dont know that tourist pay far more taxes than services they use. They pay more that 18 million(when you include RE taxes on properties that are mostly used by tourist) out of ou 30 million city budget.
Heavenly bluffed and the city folded. They would have still built the gondola, the land was free.
Lou you are 100% correct.
Dog skiers are a big part of the show during the winter. I do wish that the town got funds fro lift sales.
I think we have the tip of the iceberg here..
Of course the trickle down economic benefits that Hvly generates are enormous, but those businesses benefitting from Hvly pay taxes to the city.
My point is that the city supports Hvly by plowing access roads etc, but receives no taxes from Hvly business.the city could simply expand city limits and encompass a huge business and generate badly needed $ to help with the city’s depleted coffers.
The city was able to do this to bring the airport within city limits
Excuse some of my typos here.
Kiwi.
Steve, in order to do that (I may be wrong) you have to get the approval of a majority of the landowners affected. In the case of the airport, the land owner was the county and they really wanted to unload it. How about we just have the county pay for half of the maintaince and plowing on that road. I would think that the city line goes through the middle of that road.
Relo, it’s not landowners, it’s residents. That’s why the renting majority in this town keeps foisting property tax increases on the landowners; Most of the landowners don’t actually have a vote on local issues because their legal residences are elsewhere. The few local voters who actually own their property are barely scraping by, but they keep getting zapped with higher taxes by people with no skin in the game.
That’s why so many have to leave. Your town is left to the very rich, the ski bums, and the subsidized. Doesn’t make for much of a community when you price the middle class out with taxes.
Dog your inference that renters don’t absorb some of those property taxes, albeit inderectly, is either a flat out lie or pure unadulterated ignorance on your part. When the minimum wage gets raised don’t consumers absorb a portion of that? What’s the difference? I as a renter am a consumer, am I not? My landlord is basically a service provider that, if they are smart, factor ALL expenses into the price of rent. If they don’t, that’s their bad, is it not?
dog, in this case it would have to be the land owners who would have to agree since there are no other voters at the ski resort to vote to annex.
Bigs, I never said renters are not affected. They are. But your average voter doesn’t take future rent increases into account when voting to increase other people’s taxes. Most voters and renters aren’t that analytical.
Short sightedness rules the day.
Relo- I don’t know what road you’re talking about but concerning Heavenly it’d work out great if they got a bill every time law enforcement, fire truck or an ambulance went up there. They could also get their roads plowed at noon-thirty like the rest of the county. Fat Chance. SwEEEEEt deal! And about tourists paying more taxes than they use in services- when was the last time you traveled and paid taxes based on what services you used there? Nonsensical reasoning.
Isee, im talking about Saddle rd.
It is pretty obvoius that you havent taken a look at where the citys general fund mony comes from. One third comes from RE taxes, one third TOT and one third sales taxes. 60% of sales taxes are paid by tourist based upon numbers from the city. At least a half(maybe more) of the RE property taxes come from Hotels, Vacation rentals and stores(which are mostly supported by tourist)
So yes a majority of city services are paid by tourist, not locals.