Tourism leaders say end of hotel tax revenue would damage Miami-Dade's economy
I see firsthand that tourism goes beyond my doors and extends into our community. It isn't just a part of Miami-Dade's economy; it's essential to our livelihood. That's why House Bill 1221 and House Bill 7033 are so concerning.
The proposed legislation would reallocate Tourism Development Taxes (TDT) — paid by visitors and designated to fund tourism marketing and other industry programs — toward legislation that could shift funding away from advertising to non-tourism uses.
That not only means less visibility for Greater Miami and Miami Beach on the global stage — ceding visitors to other destinations who will be happy to welcome them — but less funding for institutions and programs across Miami-Dade's 34 municipalities that celebrate local cultures. The bill is currently in the senate.
We must remain top-of-mind in promoting our destination and protecting the communities that make our destination unique.
When visitor numbers drop, the fallout hits real people: the taxi driver, concierge, elevator mechanic, tour guide and shop owner. No TDT means a direct threat to the 200,000 people employed because of the industry.
No TDT also means a possible lessening of quality of life for all Miami-Dade residents because a robust tourism industry creates tax revenues that help pay for improvements in education, public safety, transportation and other community services that residents would otherwise have to pay for.
And no TDT means a possible hit to everyone's finances. Miami-Dade visitors pay more than $1.1 billion in sales taxes annually, which translates into more than $2,200 in annual savings for each household.
Simply, Tourist Development Taxes, or bed taxes, are a benefit, not a burden, to Miami-Dade residents.
The TDT is one of the reasons Florida doesn't have a state income tax. Visitors pay their way and it's a tax mechanism that works, creating jobs and real economic impact.
And the alternative if the TDT is reallocated?
It would become a property tax break, applied as a credit against Miami-Dade County's property tax roll; the projected property tax savings per resident would only amount to approximately $60.
Compared to the fact that every dollar invested in tourism marketing yields $63 of economic impact and $3.24 of additional tax revenue, which goes to funding resident services, the answer is clear.
HB 1221 and HB 7033 threaten one of our most powerful economic drivers.
I urge lawmakers to protect Tourism Development Taxes. Let's not hurt locals and jeopardize an industry for an experiment with minimal upside. Tourism helps us today and will help our economy remain resilient in the future. The TDT is tourism's fuel, so why stop putting gas in the engine now?
Julissa Kepner is board chair at the Greater Miami Convention & Visitors Bureau.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Intel (INTC) Gets $21 PT as Analysts Weigh Trump Administration Stake Talks
Intel Corporation (NASDAQ:INTC) is one of the . On August 15, Bernstein SocGen Group analyst Stacy Rasgon reiterated a Market Perform rating on the stock with a $21.00 price target. The rating affirmation follows news from Bloomberg that the Trump administration is discussing taking up a stake in Intel. The reported talks stemmed from Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan's meeting with Trump earlier in the week, with the proposed funding intended to speed up Intel's Ohio efforts. Bernstein believes that the hope trade on Intel is back, but investors will have to wait around and see whether 'Trump Can Make Intel Great Again'. A portrait of a financial analyst, intently reviewing a graph of an index of equity securities on their laptop. 'Yesterday just before the close, Bloomberg reported that the Trump administration was discussing taking a stake in Intel . The article suggested the plans stemmed from Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan's meeting with Trump earlier this week , with funding supposedly to help shore up Intel's Ohio efforts (currently paused). Bloomberg also indicated that no decisions have been made yet, and that talks could end with no agreement. Both Intel and the administration have at this point supposedly declined comment. Overall though the hope trade on Intel is probably back (for now) as investors wait to see if Trump can Make Intel Great Again (though there is, as always, huge uncertainty around anything this administration does, and we are still not hugely tempted to get involved…). We rate Intel Market-Perform, $21 PT.' Intel Corporation (NASDAQ:INTC) designs and sells computing hardware, semiconductor products, and AI-driven solutions for various industries. While we acknowledge the potential of INTC as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: and Disclosure: None. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why yearslong bear market slumps may be a thing of the past
Long, drawn-out bear markets could be history due to supply and demand dynamics in the stock market. That's according to Hank Smith, the director and head of investment strategy at Haverford Trust. The declining number of public firms and the rising number of share buybacks fuel this dynamic. Probably no other term strikes the kind of fear into investors that "bear market" does. The phrase invokes imagery of the 2008 financial crisis, the dot-com bust in 2000, and the 1929 crash leading into the Great Depression. In all of those cases, wealth evaporated in months and wasn't rebuilt for years. But is there really that much to fear anymore when it comes to bear markets, or declines of at least 20%? Sure, no one likes a significant market pullback, but if you stay invested, there's evidence that they may not be all that painful — and that the long, drawn-out, yearslong ruts in the market may be a thing of the past. That's according to Hank Smith, the director and head of investment strategy at Haverford Trust, which manages and consults on $15.3 billion of assets. In a recent interview with Business Insider, Smith laid out the main reason bear markets might be more short-lived going forward: A significant imbalance in the supply of shares on the market and demand for them. A few decades ago, the number of publicly listed firms in the US was over 7,000, he said. Now it's under 4,000. This number has also been shrinking relative to the US population. There are about 13 publicly listed companies per million people today, compared to 30 companies in 1996. At the same time, there is a record amount of cash — $7 trillion in money market funds — on the sidelines, he said. What's more, stock buybacks have been generally on the rise, lowering the supply of stocks available for investors to buy. In the first quarter of this year, there were $55.3 billion in stock buybacks. In the first quarter of 2019, by comparison, that number was $12.8 billion. In the first quarter of 2000, there were $7.9 billion. When there are fewer stocks available to be traded, prices tend to be more volatile. "There's been a real reduction in many companies of their shares outstanding," Smith said. "I think that's a big reason why you don't get these elongated periods of two to three years to recover from a bear market." He added: "It really is the result of supply and demand. I don't think it's much more complicated than that." Rick Rieder, the chief investment officer of global fixed income at BlackRock, said last week that this is the "best investing environment ever" partly due to this dynamic. "Technicals in equities are crazy," Rieder said in an interview with CNBC. "The demand versus supply is pretty extraordinary. " Alex Morris, the chief investment officer at F/M Investments, also recently discussed supply and demand dynamics with Business Insider. Despite a laundry list of risks to stocks — including the impact of tariffs and high valuations — the insatiable demand from investors for stocks likely means the market will continue marching higher, he said. "There's a lot of dollars floating around and they need to go somewhere," he said. "They're going to the equity market." While the sample size is small, there are a couple of pieces of evidence supporting Smith's theory, he said: the 2020 and 2022 market crashes, when the market fell 35% and 25%, respectively. In each instance, the market regained fresh all-time highs in a year or less. Of course, there were other factors at play, like unprecedented fiscal and monetary support in 2020 and the release of OpenAI's ChatGPT chatbot in late 2022. "This isn't like bear markets a generation or two ago that sometimes it took years to get back to the highwater mark," Smith said. "These bear markets are followed by very, very swift, powerful bull moves." Read the original article on Business Insider Sign in to access your portfolio
Washington Post
6 days ago
- Washington Post
Even before Alaska summit, Putin is redrawing global order to his liking
Even before talks begin, President Vladimir Putin's meeting with President Donald Trump at a U.S. military base in Alaska on Friday is advancing the Russian's goal of redrawing the global security order, as the two men revive a great-power system in which a few big countries call the shots. Putin set the scene last week after meeting Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff, when he ruled out meeting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky until certain conditions were met — conditions that he said remained 'far off.' Trump agreed and dismissed Zelensky's attendance, even as the future of his nation — and its 40 million citizens — hangs in the balance. Zelensky had been in many meetings in 3½ years — since the start of Russia's invasion — Trump said Monday, and 'nothing happened. I mean, do you want somebody that's been doing this for 3½ years?' A tête-à-tête summit, on U.S. soil, was not Putin's only important win. He also diverted, for now, Trump's threat of tough economic sanctions against Russian oil and deflected Trump's calls for a ceasefire. On Monday, Trump was back to blaming Zelensky for the war — echoing Putin — although Trump seemed more conciliatory in a videoconference with Zelensky and European leaders Wednesday. The Alaska meeting's optics reinforce Putin's long-held goal of rebuilding Russia as one of a handful of major global powers with rightful spheres of influence, and it delivers on his short-term tactical objective of a one-on-one meeting to woo and manipulate Trump. A former senior Kremlin official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomacy, called the Alaska summit 'a golden opportunity' for Putin, adding: 'And of course a visit to the U.S. is a massive victory.' Another person with close ties to the Kremlin, said the summit was 'a real chance to put an end to this' and that the meeting had been designed to 'soothe the Russian elites, for whom this war is a disgrace, and want everything to get back to normal.' Former senior Russian diplomat Boris Bondarev, who resigned over the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, said Putin had offered so little that it was difficult to see why Trump agreed to meet. He said it appeared to be a Kremlin ploy to divert Trump from sanctions, just as Putin diverted Trump's call for a ceasefire in May by proposing peace talks in Istanbul that delivered nothing. While Trump has lately criticized Putin's attacks on Ukrainian cities, he has not imposed sanctions or any other pressure on Russia beyond rhetoric. Trump told reporters on Wednesday there would be 'very severe' consequences if Putin continued the war after the Alaska meeting, although he has made similar threats before without following up. 'It's a bad idea for Trump to host this meeting,' Bondarev said, questioning the purpose and benefit. 'First he said, 'I want to meet with Vladimir and we will make a deal somehow.'' But then, he added, Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the meeting was to find out what Putin wants, when 'it's totally visible what the other side wants.' Putin has long made clear that he is demanding that Ukraine surrender four resource-rich regions and recognize Russia's 2014 illegal invasion and annexation of Crimea. Putin also wants Ukraine barred from NATO membership and its military constrained to the point it would have little use. Rubio said Tuesday that meeting Putin was 'not a concession' but a 'feel-out meeting.' 'A meeting is what you do to kind of figure out and make your decision,' Rubio contended, adding an echo of Trump's assertion that the chances of success would be clear early on. Meetings between U.S. and Russian presidents — leaders of the nations with the world's largest nuclear arsenals — are normally exquisitely choreographed, highly negotiated events, in which concrete 'deliverables' are agreed upon well in advance and nothing is left to chance. Putin's attacks on Zelensky's legitimacy as recently as Aug. 1, and his depictions of Ukraine as a corrupt and artificial state, firmly place the Ukrainian on a lower plane, worthy of a meeting only when he accepts Russia's terms. 'Putin would like to present it to Trump like this: that with you, Donald, we know how things are done, and all these people from Europe and this Zelensky boy, this nasty boy, shouldn't be involved,' Bondarev said. 'They don't know what to do. They don't know what they want. We know what we want, so let's agree. Maybe Trump can be flattered like this.' Trump, perhaps unwittingly, reinforces the narrative. At a news conference Monday, he seemed to portray two tough men working out a deal together, dismissing Zelensky's input and claiming that European leaders 'very much rely on me. If it wasn't for me, this thing would never get solved until the last person breathing is dead.' Trump expressed strong dissatisfaction with Zelensky, whom he seemed to blame for the fighting: 'I get along with Zelensky, but I disagree with what he's done — very, very severely disagree. This is a war that should have never happened,' he said. He complained about Zelensky citing the barriers in Ukraine's constitution to changing borders. 'He's got approval to go into war, kill everybody, but he needs approval to do a land swap,' Trump said. Trump, however, did not mention that Russia quick wrote the invaded and illegally annexed Ukrainian regions into its constitution in a bid to prevent their return. Boasting that Putin told him how 'tough' he was, Trump called Russia 'tough' too, and he described Putin's invasion as a reflection of the Russian character. 'It's a warring nation,' Trump said. 'That's what they do. They fight a lot of wars.' Zelensky, he warned, had to accept 'some land swapping' that would be 'for the good of Ukraine' but also 'some bad stuff for both.' Roderich Kiesewetter, a member of the German parliament from Chancellor Friedrich Merz's center-right Christian Democratic Union, said the exclusion of Europe and Ukraine from the meeting in Alaska meant the end of the West, in the sense of a collective alliance of the United States, European Union nations and NATO allies. ''The West' as an emotional or ethical term — it's over,' Kiesewetter said. 'That's my main concern.' His other fear, he added, is the fate of Ukrainians. Putin has other opportunities in Alaska, with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov stating Tuesday that a key Moscow objective is to 'normalize' relations with the U.S., a reference to the Kremlin's goal of ending sanctions, restoring direct flights and enabling U.S.-Russia business deals. Russia also wants to deflect blame onto Ukraine for Trump's failure so far to end the war, according to analysts, in the hope that the Trump administration could halt intelligence support to Ukraine just as it has slowed weapons deliveries. With recent Russian battlefield advances, Putin is confident that victory is with reach, according to Russian analysts, and he is disinclined to compromise, despite huge Russian casualties. The Center for Strategic and International Studies estimates that the number of Russians killed or wounded will reach 1 million over the summer. But the former senior Kremlin official said that Putin no longer cares about the human cost of the war, calling him 'very thick-skinned.' 'He is like a turtle,' the former official said. 'This does not touch him anymore.' War fatigue appears to be setting in on all sides. The official said most people within the Kremlin oppose the war but are afraid to tell Putin. 'Everyone is scared of Putin. People do not want to talk about compromising because they all need to show that they are patriots,' he said. As for the summit, the former official said: 'I have low expectations. … They will either have to give an ultimatum to Ukraine, or walk away with very little achieved.' Siobhán O'Grady in Kyiv contributed to this report
