back to article Wow, Barcelona really has a problem with tech disruptors. Watch out Airbnb

Fresh from sending the Uber question* to the European Court of Justice, it appears the city of Barcelona is now spoiling for a fight with another tech disruptor – this time lodgings lister Airbnb. Earlier this week, Airbnb announced it would be collecting tourist tax on behalf of its users in Paris from 1 October, and it …

  1. Pen-y-gors

    What is a tourist?

    Interesting question: is the tourist tax and the tourism register strictly for 'tourists' (holidaymakers?) or is it actually for 'anyone from out of town'. If the former then does offering a bed to someone in town on business make you liable to be on the tourism register? Or how about someone from the outskirts who wants a bed in the city centre after a hard night out?

    Simple rules can be sooooo complicated!

    1. ElReg!comments!Pierre

      Re: What is a tourist? (NOT a tourist tax)

      Interesting question, but irrelevant here. What I think the article calls a "tourist tax", at least in Paris, is the so called "inhabitant tax" that every person living in France pays to the loacal authority; you pay it yearly for the housing where you are domiciliated for tax purpose, and you pay it daily in hotels, campsites etc. It's supposed to cover water treatment, garbage collection, etc...

      That's for Paris, I don't know about Barcelona, but I suspect the very same (with the addition of the fact that Barcelona doesn't want more tourists apparently; they should start giving them the same service as in Paris, that should help!)

      1. Dr_N

        Re: What is a tourist? (NOT a tourist tax)

        "Interesting question, but irrelevant here. What I think the article calls a "tourist tax", at least in Paris, is the so called "inhabitant tax" that every person living in France pays to the loacal authority"

        No, it's actually the taxe de séjour. To be paid by "vacanciers" but business travellers also get caught in the net.

        Explained in French here:

        http://vosdroits.service-public.fr/particuliers/F2048.xhtml

        1. ElReg!comments!Pierre

          Re: What is a tourist? (NOT a tourist tax)

          Mmmmmyes. Taxe de séjour is how the inhabitant tax is sometimes labelled. Right. Yet you seem to infer that i'm wrong somehow.

          1. Dr_N

            Re: What is a tourist? (NOT a tourist tax)

            "Yet you seem to infer that i'm wrong somehow."

            There's no need for the downvote just 'cause you don't like being wrong. You implied that the taxe de sejour is equivalent to the taxe d'habitation to cover:

            "water treatment, garbage collection, etc..."

            But water treatment is paid for through a water bill with a water company and garbage collection is paid for via the taxe foncier. (A property tax.) This taxe de sejour, at up to €4/night is way, way above that. So it's a tourist tax. Not an inhabitants' tax.

            1. ElReg!comments!Pierre
              Thumb Down

              Re: What is a tourist? (NOT a tourist tax)

              > But water treatment is paid for through a water bill with a water company

              Not in most places, no. It's usually down to the local council.

              > garbage collection is paid for via the taxe foncier.

              That's taxe foncière, and again it's not the case, as the taxe foncière is indexed on the value of the property, not the number of inhabitants. It is also paid by the landlord, not the inhabitants.

              > This taxe de sejour, at up to €4/night is way, way above that. So it's a tourist tax. Not an inhabitants' tax.

              And yet an inhabitant tax it is. It's not in any way restricted to tourists, by the way. It exists all over the country and is levied on anyone who spends the night in a (registered) temporary accomodation (campsite, hotel, etc) because by staying there you generate garbage and used water and whatnot, which needs to be dealed with ; you also use the general public accomodations. The actual amount is set by the council, so it varies from place to place

      2. big_D Silver badge

        Re: What is a tourist? (NOT a tourist tax)

        A lot of towns, especially spa towns and health resorts have a similar tax in Germany. If you rent a property of stay in a hotel room, you have to pay the tax.

        We rented a holiday bungalow in Harz a couple of years ago and you had to go to the council offices and pay for your stay when you arrived.

    2. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Re: What is a tourist?

      Well actually you're not far wrong, it's letting a room privately to someone. If you do that you must be on the tourist register and you must meet minimum standards which basically don't allow you to let a room privately in a flat to someone, you've got to set your flat up as a pension.

      And you can't get on the tourist register now anyway because the new mayoress says there is too much tourism. But instead of restricting by zone she's knocked it on the head completely while a study is carried out.

    3. Quip

      Re: What is a tourist?

      Indeed.

      If it is a matter of raising revenue for city services, then that should be covered 'rates'/council tax or whatever the local equivalent. You can even have a special rate for hotels etc if you want to discourage/encourage tourism.

      If it is a matter of licensing: because you want to set standards or discourage anti-social usage etc then I see no problem with requiring permits nor with charging a reasonable fee for them. But then such permits should be readily available to all who meet the criteria.

      It is very much like the Uber issue, just what are you trying to do: control quality, raise tax revenue,or rig the market?

      1. big_D Silver badge

        Re: What is a tourist?

        @Quip

        If it is a matter of raising revenue for city services, then that should be covered 'rates'/council tax or whatever the local equivalent. You can even have a special rate for hotels etc if you want to discourage/encourage tourism.

        They do have a special rate, they pay a bit less as a basic rate, but then for every guest they pay a subsidy (0,65€ a night). That means if you have 100 rooms (we'll say singles to keep the math easy), they pay the council 65€ a night when all of the rooms are let, but if only 10 rooms are let, then they only pay 6.50€ a night.

        If is the same for a normal household, I assume it is similar to here in Germany, where you pay for every registered person. So if you let out a spare room, you would either have to register that spare room as "occupied" for the year, or you pay the guest tax for each night you have a guest, to cover the costs local services.

        Obviously, if you have family or friends coming to stay for a few days, they are exempt, but if you are commercially letting a room or bed or couch, then you have to pay the tax.

        It is very much like the Uber issue, just what are you trying to do: control quality, raise tax revenue,or rig the market?

        I would say it is the same as the Uber issue, they are currently operating illegally and they need to get their house in order. Although in this case, the Mayor seems to be deliberately putting additional obstacles in their way - maybe as a way of getting them to come to the table and do things legally...

        I think there is a big difference between being disruptive and breaking the law. If the law is in the way of you doing business, then you either need to change your business model to comply with the law or you need to get the law changed. Just ignoring the law and carrying on as you wish is just wrong.

    4. The Man Who Fell To Earth Silver badge
      Unhappy

      Barcelona

      Barcelona needs to understand that the Sharecropper Economy that the likes of Uber & Airbnb represent is the future. A dystopian future, but the future nonetheless.

    5. jonathanb Silver badge

      Re: What is a tourist?

      In the UK, it is a rental for a period of less than 6 months, in this case VAT has to be charged for the first 30 days of any rental.

      Someone from the suburbs who wants a city centre flat for 1 night would almost certainly be a tourist in Barcelona.

  2. msknight

    Dur?

    Blocking access to a web site? What the hell good is that going to do them when the customers are actually from out of town? Place the advert, forget about it, reap the rewards as your competitors locally have problems getting their own apartments on the service.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Dur?

      Well if you can't advertise your apartment and you have to travel out of the town just to check your recent bookings etc then it becomes a PITA.

      Of course you could use the e-mails for bookings and use a VPN so it would be limited use however new suppliers to the service would not readily get access to the site.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Dur?

        Hmm, I use a VPN on every device I own 24/7. There's zero sense these days to behave any other way given device network promiscuity and networks injecting unrequested content into the connection. Malvertising anyone?

        It does have the occasional downside, usually shopping but I did have to train my bank. [Amazon believes I domicile in the US and UK, Newegg in US, UK, Netherlands and Switzerland. Minor nuisance.] Still worth it.

  3. naive

    Governments effectively seek to outlaw direct transactions between citizens

    Now people have the technical means to connect, enabling them to precisely match supply and demand without middlemen, governments basically take steps to outlaw direct transactions between citizens. Since middlemen act as unpaid tax collectors for governments, tooling enabling direct transactions between citizens is a threat to the business model of governments.

    And of course, governments do not adapt, but as standard Pavlov reaction try to forbid the innovation threatening their business model. More innovations will end up in European courts, delaying innovation for half a generation.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Governments effectively seek to outlaw direct transactions between citizens

      Yes, if those 'direct transaction' means to bypass sensible rules (i.e. safety and hygienic ones) and not pay taxes, I guess governments, aka other citizens who obey rules and pay taxes, have very good reasons to give them a deeper look....

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Governments effectively seek to outlaw direct transactions between citizens

        "... if those 'direct transaction' means to bypass sensible rules "

        False. They seek it in _any case_. All of them and no "ifs" there.

        Bypassing taxing (and easily controlled) middlemen is not allowed. At all.

        "Sensible rules" most often make sense only for the single person who created them and more often than not, are just thinly veiled power trip for the ruler and/or money grab, a tax.

    2. The Man Who Fell To Earth Silver badge

      Re: Governments effectively seek to outlaw direct transactions between citizens

      Governments outlaw direct transactions between citizens all of the time. Murder for hire, prostitution (in most places), drug dealing are just a few examples of direct transactions between citizens most governments outlaw.

    3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Governments effectively seek to outlaw direct transactions between citizens

      "without middlemen,"

      What? AIrBnB is valued at $20b. If they aren't middlemen creaming off profit from "private" transactions, then what is your definition of a middleman?

      A private transaction by two people is IMV normal and helps grease the wheels of the economy. When the likes of Uber, AirBnB et al formalise, commercialise and make stonking big profits from it, then it's a commercial operation that needs regulation not least to protect the customers from thieving gits out to take advantage of the system.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Governments effectively seek to outlaw direct transactions between citizens

      Your statement is fundamentally correct, and raises something else important: as middlemen are increasingly cut out by technology, the old model of "taxing whatever sits still" can no longer be reliably enforced, hence the disruption. You can't always send the Kings men out to cut off a global alternative digital service provider. People now notice, and might even get pissed off.

      So Public/Private monopolies and other cozy, controlled distribution systems remain increasingly threatened by disruptive technologies. Notable past and present examples include: insurance, retail distribution, air travel, even health care (OTC and prescription medication, for example).

      When physical land, hotel rooms and automobiles were registered, inventoried and taxed in a uniform and enforceable matter for specific use, it was easy. You want to open a hotel, you fill out forms, get registered, etc. But when land, spare rooms and automobiles become fluid resources with "dual usage" the world becomes infinitely more complicated for the taxman. How can they tell when someone's private home or automobile is being "lent out" for private gain, without first being filtered through the tax colander? The answer is: they can't really, unless they are willing to increase their own costs with more burdensome legislation, intrusive surveillance and enforcement. Cue to more invasive government snooping, vested-interest lobbying and other activity. This expensively slows down innovation and creates even more overhead, usually in the name of the "public good".

      But it is a negative feedback loop because none of these well intention-ed activities are free of cost either. Whereas, the FIRST thing disruptive tech does is cut away the fat. Anything that adds fat just makes the disruptive solution look fitter.

      The buying public will increasingly view interventionist approaches as restrictive, anti-democratic and anti-economic as they resentfully assume the cost burdens governments and monopoly service providers have imposed on them while less expensive, more efficient options clearly exist. This is not a very good business model and will surely die. It's always better to lead by positive example.

      I am not fully convinced this is a 100% dystopian future, but I am convinced it is 100% inevitable. The disruptive tech genie won't go back in the bottle just because rubber stampers and some protected industries say "make it so". The genie might have to change a little in the process, but eventually we will all use the genie to grant our wishes. People will not nostalgically remember what it was like to cue up in a government permit office, they will start looking for ways to replace it.

      In sum, these are dangerous times. As someone once said, the worst thing a business can do is become fat, stupid and lazy. That rule still applies to the disrupted industries in question.

      So as the service users and consumers increasingly vote with their feet and keyboards, governments would do well to take note. They may be the next service that gets replaced!

  4. dave 93

    Easy money for Barcelona local authority

    Airbnb are very reluctant to share their user data with any authorities, for obvious reasons.

    A flat rate, per person, per night, fee levied by Airbnb and passed on to the authorities is the only workable approach for Barcelona, and any other authority that wants a slice of the action.

    Another example of multinational companies being above local laws, as Airbnb has a tiny physical presence in Spain, and the internet is border free for all practical purposes.

    Maybe the same approach could force Apple, Amazon, Facebook et al to levy a small fee on each transaction, that is passed on to national governments in exchange for a tax 'waiver' on corporate profits?

    1. Rikkeh

      Re: Easy money for Barcelona local authority

      That's VAT. You're talking about VAT.

  5. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. The Indomitable Gall

      Re: uncontrolled tourism

      " Yes, I can see how that would potentially be a huge problem for a country with such a booming economy right now. "

      You realise that one of the things that obliterated the Spanish economy in the economic crisis was that their economy relied excessively on tourism, right? When Brits and Germans stopped buying holiday homes, their GDP tanked. I would have thought this measure would fall quite sensibly under "learning from your mistakes".

      Moreover, there is a massive homelessness problem due to bank foreclosures and repossessions. The last thing Spain needs is inflationary pressures on accommodation when so many people are out of work. I know at least one person who is already renting a flat privately purely to sublet it as an airbnb business (this is in Valencia, not Barcelona, though) and that means one less flat available at normal rents for a family seeking permanent lodgings in the city.

  6. Stu Mac

    Spain, bringing you fascism since 1936.

  7. Alistair
    Windows

    oh dear god.

    AirBNB is in precisely the same space as Uber.

    a) for the "OMG get dah gov outta my transaction" crew - Uber uses roads, fuel and emergency services (yes dammit they do so have accidents) - which are typically provisioned or managed by gov. Just deciding not to pay for those services by using an internet service makes the rest of the citizens foot that bill. Pay up or don't play. -- on the same front, living in your apt is one thing, if you're going to host out of town "guests" you're adding to the load on water/electrical/traffic level - again, typically, consuming government services, if you're making money off these things, contribute to the goddamned pot so I'm not making your business profitable.

    b) In MANY jurisdictions one needs specialized insurance to cover liability in *both* cases - and from much of my reading there is no "requirement" that one prove that said coverages are in place when offering one's services on either. At least here in the North of 52 states, we've got 3 separate cases where Uber's supposed "$1 million liability coverage" has failed to be available - and all three are now lawsuits.

    c) "we only offer the connection, its not our fault" type of apps have no business being rated in the Billions - this is purely the fault of wallstreet types dreaming their pockets full. That bul***t needs to stop since the result is the TBTF bailout crap that we (taxpayers) have to engage in when the banks fall over after the poop hits the fan.

    (sorry, the screaming cynic in me got to the coffee first this morning)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      FAIL

      Re: oh dear god.

      The reason to short-circuit government is found in government using permitting, the tax system,, and regulatory compliance to prevent any competition with established businesses. Companies like Uber or Airbnb could radically improve these processes by literally doing a datadump of entrants (and exits) to streamline government operations. Government isn't interested (neither lines there comps or campaign contributions) and I have no idea what airbnb or Uber. The potential is there.

    2. Number6

      Re: oh dear god.

      But an Uber user does (hopefully) travel in a vehicle for which local road-related taxes have been paid, powered by fuel for which local fuel taxes have been paid, etc. I agree that Uber should have some form of umbrella liability insurance because a court somewhere one day is going to hold them jointly liable for an accident involving one of their drivers despite the protestations of their lawyers. Perhaps they could charge a lower fee to drivers who've provided proof of adequate insurance. AirBnB could do the same - lower rates for those people providing proof of third-party insurance.

      1. big_D Silver badge

        Re: oh dear god.

        @Number6

        No, Uber doesn't ensure that their drivers are legal in Germany. If fact most (if not all) of the drivers are driving with domestic insurance, which covers driving to and from a permanent place of work and driving for please. It explicitly prohibits plying for hire.

        To be able to ply for hire, whether that be hailing a cab at the side of the road, phone a central office or using an app, the drivers need a professional driving licence in order to be able to get commercial insurance for carrying paying passengers.

        If the drivers are caught, they will be fined and their insurance is void (in which case the insurance company will insist the vehicle is de-registered - and will send an agent to collect the registration plate in some cases), they will probably face a driving ban and points on their licence.

        If they are involved in an accident, then their insurance is automatically void and the driver will have to pay for all damages and injury claims out of his own pocket.

        So, Uber isn't disrupting, it is acting illegally. They either need to ensure their drivers have the relevant driving licence and insurance or they need to get out of the game.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: oh dear god.

      " Uber uses roads, fuel and emergency services"

      No, it does not. And a claim that it does, is a lie.

      Totally false logic here: Über is just a middleman and _car owners_ pay the same taxes as every other car owner does and _those_ pay the roads, fuel and emercency services.

      Über (as a company) is a totally virtual entity and doesn't use any of these at all.

      Why should they pay?

      (They should pay taxes like any other company but that's not the point here.)

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: oh dear god.

      " ...you're adding to the load on water/electrical/traffic level"

      False logic again: From city point of view it's totally irrelevant _who is living there_.

      Obviously it doesn't matter at all if it's the owner or someone out of town: One person is one person, only count matters.

      So it boils down to 'pay because we say so' and it's totally disconnected from any real world reasoning.

  8. Fraggle850

    The mayor's stated aim is a fair one

    IE to prevent foreign tech disruptors from '...spoil(ing) the city and make(ing) rents unaffordable for locals...'

    It is exactly this kind of market regulation that government should be at least trying to implement. They have to balance economic and social considerations. If the people of Barcelona have voted for this administration then one has to assume that the mayor is implementing this in accordance with the will of the majority. Given that locals have been protesting about unruly tourists destroying the character of parts of the city then I suspect this to be true.

    You can argue all you like about undue influence from, say, hoteliers and whinge about government getting in the way of free markets but it doesn't alter the facts. Just because the American system (and the US-inspired British system to a lesser extent) doesn't care about destroying the character of their cities through 'gentrification' of traditionally working class neighbourhoods doesn't mean that the rest of the world has to do likewise (in support of this I'd refer you to the recent San Francisco protests against tech co employees taking over the best parts of that city to the detriment of the existing population).

  9. raving angry loony

    Get it right.

    Uber, AirBnB, Lyft and others are not "tech disruptors". They are black marker facilitators whose only claim is that they're encouraging their employees to engage in unlicensed and uninsured black market activities while those same people take ALL the risks, all to make money for a few corporations.

    It's not "sharing culture". Sharing culture is about DISTRIBUTED decision and wealth. This is just another form of highly concentrated corporate decision making and profit making, while only distributing the risk onto others.

    They aren't inventing anything new. They're simply repeating an oft repeated pattern, one that caused many of the current rules to exist in the first place given the abuses the last time these activities went completely unregulated. They haven't invented the unlicensed cab, they're just using the internet to avoid prosecution. Much like many other black market facilitators. It's just the laws they're flouting aren't criminal laws, so they're getting away with it through a combination of insane marketing and just plain stupid dupes who are willing to take all the risks.

    It's corporatism at its finest. Corporations ignoring laws created by democratically elected representatives, just because it's highly profitable to do so. And folks are lapping it up, not realizing that they're cutting their own throats if the corporations manage trash the concept of "rule of law".

    1. Fraggle850

      Re: Get it right.

      Yes, the sooner we stop referring to these types of companies as the 'sharing' economy the better. If they were sharing they'd be cooperatives. They are attempts to use technology to get around the law to the benefit of their investors.

    2. The Indomitable Gall

      Re: Get it right.

      Exactly. The concept of couchsurfing is sharing, because you're... well... sharing. Paying for services isn't "sharing", it's "commerce". You pay for a room with AirBnB. It's commerce.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Get it right.

      " if the corporations manage trash the concept of "rule of law"."

      If?

      They own the rule makers already, totally. So any new law basically is created solely for making more money for the corporations and/or rule makers.

      At least in EU and US. From that point of view laws exist to steal money from private citizen, legally.

  10. jinx3y

    The statement "... threatening to block access to its website." seems to be a far more casue for concern then the entire financial aspect of this article. While I can with Fraggle850 with using tech to dodge the law (and paying your due), I can also agree with the sympathetic (to AirBnB) tone of the article, as well as other posts here.

    Having used AirBnB on a number of occasions, I do not think I would want my personal information divulged to someone seeking taxes and the responsibility of the tax should fall on the renter of said domicile. However, this may also have the effect of jacking up the prices all around...

    Tricky situation...nonetheless, starting to play the asia/middle east game with blocking specific access is like building a house of cards in a hurricane...

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @ (untitled)

    Calm down !

    "AirBNB is in precisely the same space as Uber.

    a) for the "OMG get dah gov outta my transaction" crew - Uber uses roads, fuel and emergency services (yes dammit they do so have accidents) - which are typically provisioned or managed by gov."

    Everyone pays for these services, quite a lot in fact. The question is "how" do they pay? Should the lorry driver (who beats up on road services far more than any Uber driver) pay more taxes? Actually he (or his company) usually does. In the sharing economy, we could objectively review all of these equations and replace them with better ones.

    How about automated algorithms that automatically tax all vehicles based on use, to the penny/km/mile? Then correlate that data with actual road maintenance and service costs, instead of trusting a maze of localized bureaucracies to keep it all working and above board.

    For example, how about seeking less corrupt, less pampered road building contract processes? Make them subject to universal public scrutiny and open, online bidding. I saw a roundabout near my house that cost 900,000 Euro to build. Does it really cost that much to build a roundabout? How would I know? But I bet I could do it for less.

    I see LOTS of room for disruption here. In fact, I'd say this is only the beginning.

    b) "In MANY jurisdictions one needs specialized insurance to cover liability in *both* cases - and from much of my reading there is no "requirement" that one prove that said coverages are in place when offering one's services on either."

    Insurance companies use actuarial tables to calculate premiums, much of the cost of premiums can be attributed to the astronomical legal costs that occur in areas without "no-fault" regimes and uninsured drivers and the massive profits enjoyed by insurance companies in a fairly protected market. In sum, everyone pays for a few bad drivers and horrendous incidents. Usually, everyone must buy some insurance by law. The firm owners make a good living off their legally mandated casino. Uber is tipping over the craps table.

    When I am elected dictator, I will insist we all subscribe to open-source, real-time, no-fault actuarial data from both meatbag-driven and driverless cars to calculate the real costs of insurance premiums with the stated intention of reducing them dramatically. These costs will be shared equally and managed with a reasonable profit for the cloud service that stores the data and computes the algorithms. Disrupt that.

    c) "we only offer the connection, its not our fault" type of apps have no business being rated in the Billions - this is purely the fault of wallstreet types dreaming their pockets full."

    I tend to agree with you here, sorry about your screaming cynic. But quite frankly, clear, transparent data and innovative solutions can help cut away much of the major-league abuses seen when big money unites with big government. It is the only way forward in my opinion.

    Uber's valuation pales in comparison to the disruptive losses managed by ADGs, Enrons, AT-Ts, Lehman Brothers and other fat-cat, waiting-to-explode, TBTF business models. UBer(s) are also providing people with jobs in an increasingly jobless economy, which in itself, is a pretty novel concept these days.

    In short, we NEED to look at new technology eco-systems and solutions for creating jobs and wealth, because too many of the old ones suck. Technology should be used to create jobs, not squeeze people out the door.

    1. Tuomas Hosia

      Re: @ (untitled)

      "How about automated algorithms that automatically tax all vehicles based on use, to the penny/km/mile?"

      We already have that, it's called fuel tax. And at least here in Europe it's not a penny but several pennies per km, related directly to fuel consumption.

      It also has the benefit of not having to track every car, all the time: Freedom of movement.

      Tracked movement isn't free, it's a prison sentence.

  12. Hairy Airey

    Not quite the same as Uber

    The big difference between a hotel stay and renting an apartment is that you don't get thrown out of your room for cleaning. Plus you get the use of a washing machine (which means you don't have to fly so much luggage out). You might even get internet usage everywhere rather than paying for it in your room (as many hotels do). What's not to like?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like