Edinburgh Tourist Tax

[MattBW]

Interesting article, Ive read a lot about the pressure that increased tourism has placed upon Scotland especially since the NC500 came into being.

Note that the plan is to make campsites exempt.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-47157011

 

[rod_vw]

Campsites and even some Aires are not exempt from local (tourist) tax in many parts of Europe.

 

[briwy]

Yes nightly tax everywhere in France. Tax de Sejour is set by the local council so varies from place to place.

 

[MarkVw2017]

I live in Wales, tourists everywhere in Summer months, makes getting to jobs much much harder due to traffic, cant go to our favourite places without it being packed or booked out, but i would never want them taxed. Without tourists, the welsh economy would suffer so we have to welcome them with open arms not put up an invisible barrier. Tourism is fantastic for local economies of villages, towns & cities. It just seems to be putting barriers up to something that actually helps a place prosper. People move to a place because of its beauty, being prosperous, exciting, vibrant and wealthy, but then councils and locals want to tax the people who come to a place because of it beauty and want some extra money. The fact tourists spend millions in villages, town and cities up and down the UK, is what makes most villages, cities and towns what they are today and will help them grow. A tourist tax is such a oxymoron. Create attractions that bring in tourists, put a tax up that will deter tourists. Sorry my rant is now over!

 

[Velma's Dad]

I do kind of get it, for a city like Edinburgh, even though the hotel (and AirBnB) owners will kick and scream. Visitors to a city consume local public services even if it's only policing, street cleaning, and so on which have to be paid for by residents through council tax - while central government funding to local authorities has been cut by 77% in the past three years.

Yes, individual businesses benefit from tourism and can then employ more people, so generate extra employment taxes, VAT etc for the Treasury - however many of those will be seasonal staff, often 'imported', so unlikely to be council tax payers. Meanwhile, local authority income from business rates isn't directly linked to those businesses' profits when visitor numbers go up, and businesses understandably scream blue murder when asked to pay higher business rates.

Quite a lot of cities on the continent levy a daily visitor tax (and Switzerland does it everywhere). Sometimes it's linked to a free pass for public transport, which seems a sensible scheme. The trick of course is to extract the tax revenue without seriously deterring tourism demand (the old goose plucking/squawking trick) but I'd bet that a moderate flat daily tax can be pretty effective at that.

 

[ArunAlec]

The 2 counter intuitive ones that make me smile are pubs with “no coaches” signs and restaurants charging a surcharge for groups.
Surely any business should be dragging people in off the street!

 

[ArunAlec]

Interesting article, Ive read a lot about the pressure that increased tourism has placed upon Scotland especially since the NC500 came into being.

Note that the plan is to make campsites exempt.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-47157011

There are couple of seaside “resorts” near me that might benefit from actually paying tourists to visit.

 

[Digger]

As Edinburgh also intends to tax workplace parking (thanks to the Scottish Gov) why should tourists not contribute to local services. I know we love freedom but we also like good essential services as oulined by Velma's Dad.

 

[Borris]

Clearly Councils are having to look at imaginative ways to raise revenue and the pressure to do so isn't only to do with cuts in funding.

Canterbury where I live is an obvious tourist magnet and being only a short distance from Dover we welcome very many visitors each year. However most of these are day trippers so a bed tax wouldn't be quite so lucrative. Never the less I don't really see a problem with this proposal so long as it's adopted accross the country.

One issue that doesn't help Canterbury is our disproportionally high student population. Canterbury is a small city with a modest population and yet we now have three universities with around 40,000 students currently I believe. Whilst this is a good thing for businesses in the city especially the many pubs, bars and cafes, many of these students will be living in the every increasing numbers of properties wholely devoted to student accommodation and therefore not liable for Council Tax. The City Council rightfully has to maintain the same level of services to all residents but is having to do so despite reduced Council Tax revenue.

So I personally would have no problem with taxing tourism a little.

 

[MarkVw2017]

The 2 counter intuitive ones that make me smile are pubs with “no coaches” signs and restaurants charging a surcharge for groups.
Surely any business should be dragging people in off the street!

Here here

 

[MarkVw2017]

As Edinburgh also intends to tax workplace parking (thanks to the Scottish Gov) why should tourists not contribute to local services. I know we love freedom but we also like good essential services as oulined by Velma's Dad.

I have to disagree. The fact they spend £1000s on food, parking, public transport & shopping already creates masses of jobs and small businesses to thrive, which in turn then pay business rates, income tax, vat and so much more to an local economy. It also brings people who want to invest and then other local companies also thrive who are not even in the tourism sector. Taxing tourists just seems so wrong when all they do is just spend money anyway. Let them visit places and have a nice time. Why give them a sour taste in their mouth as soon as they arrive. Welcome to Edinburgh, heres a tax bill!

 

[MarkVw2017]

An example why we really shoush embrace tourists and not put up barriers, When the tourist go. 'The winter months.' The hotel that did well in the summer and now the tourists have gone because its winter, so hotel owners then decide they want an extension for next year, its an exciting time, they have done well. They hire local architects, submit planning applications and building regs fees to councils, hire surveyors, builders, electrcians, plumbers, joiners, land scape gardeners, the local cafe feeds off the new trade etc etc and all this job creation from tourists who are not even there. The Tourists are then taxed so not so many tourists come this year. The hotel didn't do as well so it doesn't want an extension.

 

[Velma's Dad]

I think in a few years many European cities and other tourist-magnet regions, including some of ours, are going to have to think very carefully about how they manage mass tourism. I'm talking about from China and other parts of Asia - we've seen almost nothing yet of the inevitable desire of new middle classes there to want to travel and see the heritage and landscapes of Europe. And they will have plenty of money to spend, but the sheer numbers will be far beyond anything we've seen yet.

In Italy, Venice and Florence are already utterly swamped with visitors. Is that in the interests of the city's own residents? Well that has to be for them to decide but they seem to be saying no, it isn't. But there are only a few different ways to manage over-demand on a fixed resource: quotas or taxes are the main ones.

In Africa, some countries made what turned out to be bad decisions about tourism. Kenya took a laissez faire approach and just tried to pull in numbers. Much of the tourism money ended up in the pockets of big companies. Botswana took a different approach, and only allowed very upscale and limited tourism development. At its most extreme (and shifting continents), little Bhutan only allows you in if you have pre-approved plans to spend at least 250 dollars per day, with local businesses. So tourist volumes are low (preserving the extraordinary beauty and culture) while revenues are high.

 

[MarkVw2017]

In Italy, Venice and Florence are already utterly swamped with visitors. Is that in the interests of the city's own residents?
.

Good points, but history, culture and beauty should surely be available to eveyone. If people live in a tourist hotspot, the same peole then shouldnt compain about tourists, if they dont like tourists, they shouldn't live in a tourist hotspot.

I did a job near a school, somone owned a house and then started really complaining to me about the school traffic, actually got quite aggressive. Again, why buy a house by a school, and then complain about the school traffic. "Is it a new school" i asked, "no its been there 20 years" "how long have you lived here" "5 years"

 

[Velma's Dad]

Good points, but history, culture and beauty should surely be available to eveyone. If people live in a tourist hotspot, the same peole then shouldnt compain about tourists, if they dont like tourists, they shouldn't live in a tourist hotspot.

I did a job near a school, someone owned a house and then started really complaining to me about the school traffic, actually got quite aggressive. Again, why buy a house by a school, and then complain about the school traffic. "Is it a new school" i asked, "no its been there 20 years" "how long have you lived here" "5 years"

I understand your point and have a lot of sympathy with it. But I think it's something that's going to need to be debated in coming years, as mass international tourism accelerates.

I also agree that people who live in a beautiful place shouldn't automatically have a monopoly, and residents themselves often do wholesale damage.. eg most of Britain's uplands were comprehensively wrecked by sheep farming over the past couple of centuries - even though we now sometimes think those upland deserts are 'natural' (I expect someone will take exception to that, but I'm not trying to pick a fight with farmers who nowadays often care deeply about the environment)..

Ultimately though if we say that it's everyone's inalienable right to be able to enjoy visiting Skye (a recent example on this forum), then what happens when their views of the Cuillins get clogged with white motorhomes (or Calis ), or just by masses of people in orange anoraks? It's an example of the 'tragedy of the commons', the dilemma that where a resource has no ownership, and open access to all, inevitably it will eventually become consumed or degraded.

 

[MarkVw2017]

I understand your point and have a lot of sympathy with it. But I think it's something that's going to need to be debated in coming years, as mass international tourism accelerates.

I also agree that people who live in a beautiful place shouldn't automatically have a monopoly, and residents themselves often do wholesale damage.. eg most of Britain's uplands were comprehensively wrecked by sheep farming over the past couple of centuries - even though we now sometimes think those upland deserts are 'natural' (I expect someone will take exception to that, but I'm not trying to pick a fight with farmers who nowadays often care deeply about the environment)..

Ultimately though if we say that it's everyone's inalienable right to be able to enjoy visiting Skye (a recent example on this forum), then what happens when their views of the Cuillins get clogged with white motorhomes (or Calis ), or just by masses of people in orange anoraks? It's an example of the 'tragedy of the commons', the dilemma that where a resource has no ownership, and open access to all, inevitably it will eventually become consumed or degraded.

Just wish they didn't use the word tax. I know, "The Tourism and Local Protection Trust Fee" would sound much better than a tourist tax.

 

[Velma's Dad]

Just wish they didn't use the word tax. I know, "The Tourism and Local Protection Trust Fee" would sound much better than a tourist tax.

There's a future for you in politics...

 

[MarkVw2017]

There's a future for you in politics...

..or marketing ;-)

 

[BikerGran]

Good points, but history, culture and beauty should surely be available to eveyone. If people live in a tourist hotspot, the same peole then shouldnt compain about tourists, if they dont like tourists, they shouldn't live in a tourist hotspot.

I did a job near a school, somone owned a house and then started really complaining to me about the school traffic, actually got quite aggressive. Again, why buy a house by a school, and then complain about the school traffic. "Is it a new school" i asked, "no its been there 20 years" "how long have you lived here" "5 years"

I live in Dorset, quite near the coast, in an area with very little choice of roads so that in the summer we have to choose our times and directions if we want to go out. Yes we curse the 'grockles' (but not where they can hear) but we don't really grudge them their hours in the traffic jams - after all, we live here, we can enjoy this wonderful area in every season, not just summer, and most of the time we have it more or less to ourselves!

 

[briwy]

I live in Dorset, quite near the coast, in an area with very little choice of roads so that in the summer we have to choose our times and directions if we want to go out. Yes we curse the 'grockles' (but not where they can hear) but we don't really grudge them their hours in the traffic jams - after all, we live here, we can enjoy this wonderful area in every season, not just summer, and most of the time we have it more or less to ourselves!

Agreed, here the Peak District NP has 21million visits per year, second only to Mount Fuji. You just learn to live with it. Don't drive at the weekends, walk to the shops and realise that we too are tourists in someone else's backyard.