I agree and do support higher fees for foreigners, as well as significantly higher fines for those being disrespectful of regulations, wildlife, and the natural features. Higher fees overall are also warranted to tackle the deferred maintenance backlog. Furthermore the states of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho provide benefits to those tourists and therefore should receive some revenue from the fees. IMHO.
FIFY.
Revenue from the fees? Please explain.They already do
That does not indicate any revenues go to my state of Montana, where the oppressive income tax and property tax system is unfairly financially stressing residents to pay for infrastructure and other amenities which benefits tourists and other vistors who are headed to a couple of the most popular national parks.
No, but now you are intermixing federal vs state tax issues. You are completely misunderstanding my opinion and the issue. Montana residents pay federal taxes to support national parks, as well as the entrance fees ... just like all other visitors. I gladly pay those, but wish this state could benefit more. 'Not sure I can explain this to you anymore clearly.Are you under the impression Montana should not have to share in the financial liability of supporting our National Parks?!
Yikes
I didn’t say that it did.
Yes, many of us in Montana have been advocating for changes for years. Lodging taxes are a mere pittance. Resort taxes are great for those communities in close proximity to the park(s), but other cities like Bozeman and Kalispell have been turned down and are significantly impacted financially by tourists.
Yes. Treecarp...The infrastructure in Montana is paid for by prop tax, income tax, and licencing- gas tax i suppose too. There is no sales tax.
Read closer.
Theoretically, yes you are correct. Practically and politically ... it's a dumpster fire!
Dont know.
