Greed knows no bounds.

[Drago]

What are the authorities doing with all the tax income that the tourist industry generated in the first place? That should be paying for infrastructure improvements. Taxing tourists twice is morally indefensible - it's not the fault of the tourists that the government spends their taxation on rubbish elsewhere.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

What are the authorities doing with all the tax income that the tourist industry generated in the first place? That should be paying for infrastructure improvements. Taxing tourists twice is morally indefensible - it's not the fault of the tourists that the government spends their taxation on rubbish elsewhere.

Of every tourist pound spent in businesses in a local authority area, how much of that finds it way back to the LA for public expenditure after costs, profit, etc?

Diogenes presented a figure for Edinburgh: £1,320,000,000, which looks like a lot of money. But what's meant by 'generated'? What's left in terms of tax once the various businesses where that money was spent (airports, hotels, taxis, bus tours, hotels, shops, trains) have taken out their wages, rent, rates, costs, materials, profits?

Tourists generated £1,320,000,000 for Edinburgh in 2015 alone, more than all the money paid by locals in council tax and business rates combined. Perhaps the locals should pay more for services they use all year round rather than tourists only there for a few days.

Is that really a fair comparison? Was that £1,320,000,000 entirely passed to Edinburgh Council to spend on the area's services and amenities?

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

Of every tourist pound spent in businesses in a local authority area, how much of that finds it way back to the LA for public expenditure after costs, profit, etc?

Diogenes presented a figure for Edinburgh: £1,320,000,000, which looks like a lot of money. But what's meant by 'generated'? What's left in terms of tax once the various businesses where that money was spent (airports, hotels, taxis, bus tours, hotels, shops, trains) have taken out their wages, rent, rates, costs, materials, profits?




Is that really a fair comparison? Was that £1,320,000,000 entirely passed to Edinburgh Council to spend on the area's services and amenities?

It's a huge income stream which the council taps into via business rates, parking charges, taxi licences, admission to council attractions etc.

All the things people say are needed for tourists - litter bins, street lights, educated locals, an attractive city are all things that Edinburgh residents would be entitled to expect anyway.

The more tourist specific things like tourist information are largely funded by the fees charged to the STB members - hotels, b&b, shops etc.

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

I rather suspect that the large amounts of money councils take from tourism go into one pot which is used for everything. Because they've spent this in other areas and they want more money, they have a choice of raising council tax and rates or tourist tax. Tourists don't vote so they're an easy target.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

It's a huge income stream which the council taps into

That's still all rather vague, isn't it? I'd be interested in seeing what small percentage of that money actually reaches council coffers. I don't expect it'll be very much.

 

[Andy in Germany]

It's a huge income stream which the council taps into via business rates, parking charges, taxi licences, admission to council attractions etc.

The things you are describing don't come free though. Businesses need infrastructure, and Taxis need roads. More taxis need more roads and just taxi licences don't cover this. Parking charges are astonishingly low (if there are any) because if they are raised there's a hue and cry, and council attractions have to be maintained.

I'm not discounting your point, but the taxes and charges are to cover costs of maintenance and administration.

All the things people say are needed for tourists - litter bins, street lights, educated locals, an attractive city are all things that Edinburgh residents would be entitled to expect anyway.

You need a lot more litter bins for six million visitors to York than 100000 residents, also sewers, roads, ambulances... unless there's something I don't know about the residents of York. Attractive cities need maintaining: the numbers of visitors to places like Edinburgh and York are huge, so you have to have the infrastructure to take the volume of traffic, and most of that infrastructure has to be maintained year round, but the income stream is only half a year, if that. I suspect the alternative solution soon will be for some tourist sights to try and restrict the numbers of visitors.

 

[Andy in Germany]

I wonder if part of this is a different cultural approach to local towns and taxation generally. My impression in the UK is that most people see a council authority as a necessary evil to keep the lights on and empty the bins so everyone else can get on with life, preferably as cheaply as possible, whereas in Germany they are seen more in a management role, and the town is seen as a sort of business. The job of the local authority then, is to invest in the town and manage development.

For example, we have an annual land tax here which goes to the local authority (Tax offices are a lot more local too, usually for the county or even district), and they're based on the value of a building the land a building is built on. This is calculated partly by things like local transport connections allow a council to increase the land tax. This means local councils can invest in local transport, knowing they will get the money back in the long run in higher land taxes, which is why we have a tram locally and other towns have bought the local railway.

Also a lot of expenditure is seen as investment too, in the case of the local railway the local authority will insist that the trains are maintained locally too, and pay for this in the contract with the railway company, which means skilled people are employed locally, which increases the tax income... you get the idea.

In this context a tourist tax makes sense: there needs to be investment to get more tourists, so there needs to be money for the investment, the tourists are using the infrastructure, so if they pay a bit towards it, the local government has a fund to invest to make things more attractive like extra cycleways, new bridges, bigger railway stations (so people come by train and not by road, which saves money and keeps it flowing in the local economy) or restoring buildings, or startup finance for more B&B's et c.

I notice frequent positive comments about cycleways in Germany, well this is (partly) how they are paid for, because local governments have realised that cyclists are a great money earner, and bike routes cost less to maintain than roads, so encouraging cycling is a good return on investment.

In short, German local governments have got the skill of being boring down to a fine art, keeping things working and slowly improving them, but I think people's attitudes are different as well, because they see the advantages.

 

[tom73]

One big issue is many just don't know or understand the true cost of providing services or maintaining them. We have too many council members who are empire builders holding out for the next round of votes. For many years we've had a culture of we can't provide it so no one can. Only know as money is getting less have they been forced to look at the bigger picture and work with the many group, local service users , letting local business owners get on with promoting and improving the little things that make town and city centres worth a visit via the setting up of BID's. As cut's continue councils will have to move to a more of an over seeing role coordinating services maintaining the bigger things and running statutory services. Moving big ticket cost items to trusts such as libraries and museums gives them freedom to do the job and access funding that only they can get. Who runs it and owns it don't matter as long as it improves and provides but it's always seen as a last resort for many councillors with death my a 1000 cut's and blame others is seen as best all round.

Much of what make life better is not the big things but little things and services that are nice to have but are not viable when managed and ran from the top. The little things don't make for press releases or get votes. Only the big ticket projects do that or that's how they think anyway. Council officers have little say really but to carry out the wishers of elected members. The only time we have any real freedom just to get on an do the job is during Purdah. A time of bless all round. In the end services cost and attitudes are mostly it's up to someone else to pay for it together with wanting them but not valuing them makes for a public service built on shifting sand. Yes cuts have been hard and some services are gone and others are just holding on but public services are partnership and if to keep the big things going we have to pay for others as long as it's not wasted then we have it to pay.

 

[nickyboy]

Municipal infrastructure isn't cheap. Roads, airports, sewage systems, litter bins, road cleaning etc etc

Tourists benefit from these things. In cities with large numbers of tourists the costs of these shouldn't be borne by residents exclusively

The only question is the mechanism by which the tourist pays. You could do something complex whereby the businesses benefitting from the tourists had a surcharge on their business rates. But that sounds like an administrative nightmare. So a direct tax on the tourists makes complete sense. Otherwise all residents have to pay for all the municipal infrastructure, regardless of whether they are benefitting from the tourists or not

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

But again, that looks upon tourists as a burden not a benefit. The fact is tourism brings jobs, investment and cold hard cash to cities. Cities which realise the social good this can bring - lower unemployment and accompanying better health for example - would invest to get the returns tourism brings.

All of the things tourists require - roads, airports, sewage systems, litter bins, road cleaning etc are things that residents benefit from all year round.

I get the point where we're talking about places like Venice where the sheer numbers of tourists pouring off cruise ships swamp the finite attractions in a small area and actually negatively impact upon locals and visitor alike. In this case a tax helps limit numbers and that's fair enough. It's arguable that some tourist taxes are intended to have the same result - Barcelona and the Balearics for example, where there is a great deal of resentment from locals towards tourists.

 

[nickyboy]

But again, that looks upon tourists as a burden not a benefit. The fact is tourism brings jobs, investment and cold hard cash to cities. Cities which realise the social good this can bring - lower unemployment and accompanying better health for example - would invest to get the returns tourism brings.

All of the things tourists require - roads, airports, sewage systems, litter bins, road cleaning etc are things that residents benefit from all year round.

I get the point where we're talking about places like Venice where the sheer numbers of tourists pouring off cruise ships swamp the finite attractions in a small area and actually negatively impact upon locals and visitor alike. In this case a tax helps limit numbers and that's fair enough. It's arguable that some tourist taxes are intended to have the same result - Barcelona and the Balearics for example, where there is a great deal of resentment from locals towards tourists.

Nobody's saying that having a lot of tourists isn't a benefit to a city. The issue is that to provide infrastructure to support them costs money.

Should that cost be borne by all the residents (in the form of local taxation), all the businesses (in the form of business rates) or by those benefitting from the enhanced infrastructure...the tourists themselves?

So it's indirect or direct taxation. I've always preferred direct where possible

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

Nobody's saying that having a lot of tourists isn't a benefit to a city. The issue is that to provide infrastructure to support them costs money.

Should that cost be borne by all the residents (in the form of local taxation), all the businesses (in the form of business rates) or by those benefitting from the enhanced infrastructure...the tourists themselves?

So it's indirect or direct taxation. I've always preferred direct where possible

Should that apply to cyclists?

 

[nickyboy]

Should that apply to cyclists?

Were there a mechanism to equitably charge this, bearing in mind the benefits in cycling generally (such as reduced car usage which reduces infrastructure costs elsewhere) then I don't see why not.

 

[postman]

I wonder how these cities will cope with the day tripper.Let's take York and it's race days.or few days.So you decide to stay in a hotel,you pay extra,because you are using York's facilities,and maybe their sewage works.a day tripper does not pay,because they don't use toilets or drop litter.But they use York's transport system so denying the locals their own bus services.So how come one visitor pays and one visitor who might cause more mayhem does not pay.So you are forcing one to pay a fee/tax but not the other,and i would say the day visitor to a race meeting will be more of a problem.

 

[Andy in Germany]

I wonder how these cities will cope with the day tripper.Let's take York and it's race days.or few days.So you decide to stay in a hotel,you pay extra,because you are using York's facilities,and maybe their sewage works.a day tripper does not pay,because they don't use toilets or drop litter.But they use York's transport system so denying the locals their own bus services.So how come one visitor pays and one visitor who might cause more mayhem does not pay.So you are forcing one to pay a fee/tax but not the other,and i would say the day visitor to a race meeting will be more of a problem.

Surely that applies to General taxation anyway, or to health insurance? The main contributors aren't always the people who cost the most.

From memory the York Races have buses laid on, because the route is off the normal bus routes. Who pays for this is another matter...