walkhighlands

This forum is for general discussion about walking and scrambling... If writing a report or sharing your experiences from a route, please use the other boards.

Visitor Tax

Re: Visitor Tax

Postby jupe1407 » Sat Oct 13, 2018 3:28 pm

Sunset tripper wrote:The services in Scotland are getting worse by the day. Highland council is trying to remove all the public toilets from the north west.
With all the money coming into the economy from the NC500 plus the extra visitors surely toilets should be provided which after all is a basic human right. The Scottish government and the highland council should stop spending vast amounts of money on crap and provide the basics. :?


The lack of toilet provision is a strange one and needs revisited.

The NC500 isn't quite the moneymaker for small villages/businesses one might expect. We holiday in the NW for 2 weeks every year and from the odd chat to local shop owners etc, many of them would happily see the concept binned tomorrow. I suspect the only places that truly make money off or are campervan hire companies and supermarkets.
User avatar
jupe1407
Mountain Walker
 
Posts: 1501
Munros:269   Corbetts:52
Fionas:12   
Sub 2000:7   
Islands:6
Joined: May 15, 2012
Location: Forfar

Re: Visitor Tax

Postby Paul Webster » Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:54 pm

Rockhopper's chart is right for general VAT, but almost all other EU countries - 25 out of the 27 - have a special reduced rate of VAT that applies to tourism. It averages just 11% across the EU on hotel accommodation for instance; 25 out of 27 also have special lower rates on eating out etc. This means we do already have much higher taxes on tourism than the rest of the EU (whilst we have lower income taxes etc.).
Source:
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/tourism/business-portal/financing-your-business/tourism-related-taxes-across-eu_en

One problem is that VAT all goes to central government, so the tax money raised locally through it doesn't get to be spent locally, breaking the link between the increasing revenue raised through tourism and the need for facilities.

We do also have an existing mechanism for local council's to raise taxes on local businesses - business rates. I'm not convinced we need another tax that duplicates this purpose with all the extra admin costs involved (25% of the money raised).

At least business rates are based on ratable value and so are a bit less regressive than the flat rate 'poll-tax style' tourist tax that is being proposed - should a guest in the top luxury suite at the Balmoral or Gleneagles really pay the same fixed amount as a person in a budget hostel? Surely we be a bit more progressive with tax than that - even famously-regressive VAT at least is proportionate to money spent (as are business rates less directly)?

There's little agreement on what the proposed tourist tax will be spent on - with no promise to spend it on visitor facilities. One reason the idea is relatively popular is because most people think it's a tax they won't pay themselves, but imagine it will be spent on something they would like (without knowing where it will actually go).
User avatar
Paul Webster
Site Admin
Mountain Walker
 
Posts: 5826
Munros:282   Corbetts:222
Fionas:71   Donalds:45+17
Sub 2000:121   Hewitts:133
Wainwrights:135   Islands:92
Joined: Jan 6, 2007
Location: Highland
Walk wish-list

Re: Visitor Tax

Postby rockhopper » Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:07 pm

Thanks for the clarification. Interview makes sense now.
Paul Webster wrote:One reason the idea is relatively popular is because most people think it's a tax they won't pay themselves, but imagine it will be spent on something they would like (without knowing where it will actually go).
:lol: :lol: so true 8)
User avatar
rockhopper
 
Posts: 7446
Munros:282   Corbetts:222
Fionas:136   Donalds:89+20
Sub 2000:16   Hewitts:2
Wainwrights:3   Islands:20
Joined: May 31, 2009
Location: Glasgow

Re: Visitor Tax

Postby Arthurs Eat » Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:33 pm

Living in Edinburgh I regularly see the stress local infrastructure is under. I used to live just off the High Street (Royal Mile for those not from Edinburgh). There is a clear need to address infrastructure issues and given the nature of the central area of Edinburgh, being a world heritage site, this will be very expensive and costly to maintain. I for one, do not mind paying a bit extra when I visit places that are stressed by visitors. The only issue I have is I would like to see the money being spent on maintaining visitor infrastructure which usually means better facilities for local too. That said up to £9 to park at Succoth? I would be looking for damn good toilets at least!
User avatar
Arthurs Eat
Munro compleatist
 
Posts: 639
Munros:234   Corbetts:29
Fionas:14   Donalds:31
Sub 2000:23   Hewitts:35
Wainwrights:32   Islands:16
Joined: Aug 1, 2011
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Visitor Tax

Postby NickyRannoch » Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:32 pm

Paul Webster wrote:Rockhopper's chart is right for general VAT, but almost all other EU countries - 25 out of the 27 - have a special reduced rate of VAT that applies to tourism. It averages just 11% across the EU on hotel accommodation for instance; 25 out of 27 also have special lower rates on eating out etc. This means we do already have much higher taxes on tourism than the rest of the EU (whilst we have lower income taxes etc.).
Source:
<span class="skimlinks-unlinked">https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/tourism/business-portal/financing-your-business/tourism-related-taxes-across-eu_en</span>

One problem is that VAT all goes to central government, so the tax money raised locally through it doesn't get to be spent locally, breaking the link between the increasing revenue raised through tourism and the need for facilities.

We do also have an existing mechanism for local council's to raise taxes on local businesses - business rates. I'm not convinced we need another tax that duplicates this purpose with all the extra admin costs involved (25% of the money raised).

At least business rates are based on ratable value and so are a bit less regressive than the flat rate 'poll-tax style' tourist tax that is being proposed - should a guest in the top luxury suite at the Balmoral or Gleneagles really pay the same fixed amount as a person in a budget hostel? Surely we be a bit more progressive with tax than that - even famously-regressive VAT at least is proportionate to money spent (as are business rates less directly)?

There's little agreement on what the proposed tourist tax will be spent on - with no promise to spend it on visitor facilities. One reason the idea is relatively popular is because most people think it's a tax they won't pay themselves, but imagine it will be spent on something they would like (without knowing where it will actually go).


I think your last paragraph hits the nail on the head. The devil is in the detail.

I'm fully in favour of any tax that is spent on local infrastructure. If that can be offset again existing tax fantastic, but in the current climate I doubt it.

I know councils can vary business rates but it's such a minor change. I don't know the breakdown of business rates v council tax but council tax + business rates = less than 10% of council budget in my local authority. So, at a 50/50 split (I know it's not that) a 10% increase in business rates, that could cripple businesses, would only raise 0.5% of an LA budget (disclaimer maths not my strong point). This would then have to be allocated across schools, social services, children's social work etc across Highland for example meaning a negligible improvement to infrastructure services in Skye.

A tourist tax should be about raising income for infrastructure in the local area but I appreciate should is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

Also. I refer people to Foodbanks and money advice services every day in the day job. People who literally have zero money for food, rent, gas, electric and maybe even owe money to unsavoury characters in the community too.

So its fair to say my sympathy for people who can afford walking gear, petrol, food and drink and accommodation being asked to stump up literally a few quid is minimal. I do appreciate the question of where that money goes and how that is achieved is massively important though.

I would argue your point that it is a flat tax. In Europe it is 5% of your stay so 20 quid a night in a hostel is £1 and £200 a night in Gleneagles is £10.

In the interests of full disclosure I'm an SNP office bearer and will admit we, along with all other parties except the Greens, have been terrible at decentralising power and money in Scotland.
User avatar
NickyRannoch
Mountain Walker
 
Posts: 1739
Munros:224   Corbetts:3
Fionas:4   Donalds:1
Sub 2000:9   
Islands:17
Joined: Aug 21, 2009
Location: Carse of Gowrie, Perthshire

Re: Visitor Tax

Postby NickyRannoch » Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:40 pm

PS the charge at Arrochar is a ****.
User avatar
NickyRannoch
Mountain Walker
 
Posts: 1739
Munros:224   Corbetts:3
Fionas:4   Donalds:1
Sub 2000:9   
Islands:17
Joined: Aug 21, 2009
Location: Carse of Gowrie, Perthshire

Re: Visitor Tax

Postby ScotFinn65 » Sun Oct 14, 2018 3:35 pm

Just go down the main street in Fort William. Visitor tax is already being charged directly by the shops.

If the end price to tourists does not increase and the tax is "absorbed" along the supply chain, then no issues.

On the other hand, if it is passed directly to the consumer, then be prepared to lose visitors.

It is already cheaper for visitors to Europe to choose 30 cheaper countries than Scotland.

Don't be greedy! The money will come through volume and not price, simply due to our stunning country.
User avatar
ScotFinn65
Hill Bagger
 
Posts: 233
Munros:119   Corbetts:2
Sub 2000:2   
Islands:3
Joined: Oct 10, 2017
Location: Lempäälä - Finland
Walk wish-list

Re: Visitor Tax

Postby Sunset tripper » Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:45 pm

jupe1407 wrote:The lack of toilet provision is a strange one and needs revisited.

The NC500 isn't quite the moneymaker for small villages/businesses one might expect. We holiday in the NW for 2 weeks every year and from the odd chat to local shop owners etc, many of them would happily see the concept binned tomorrow. I suspect the only places that truly make money off or are campervan hire companies and supermarkets.


Fair comment Jupe I'm in the north west regularly several times a year and what you say is true regarding some local businesses and locals in general see the NC 500 as clogging up their roads and it's of little benefit to them. I reckon places like Sango Sands do quite well out of it and a lot of cash must be spent on fuel en route also. It brings more people into places like Ullapool and it must be good business for the campsite, bars and restaurants there also. All these visitors are spending a lot of money and paying a lot of VAT and fuel taxes. What it needs is someone to realise this and divert some of the money back into the local services which are getting stretched by the increase in visitors. :?

The toilet fiasco is totally ridiculous and surely someone in the Scottish government should be having a word with Highland Council and telling them that proper sanitation is essential. With the increased visitors coming from the NC500 the only consideration should be about improving the sanitation and providing those visitors who are pumping money into the economy with decent toilet facilities. :(
User avatar
Sunset tripper
 
Posts: 2965
Joined: Nov 3, 2013
Location: Inverness

Re: Visitor Tax

Postby Sunset tripper » Mon Oct 15, 2018 11:37 pm

NickyRannoch wrote:
A tourist tax should be about raising income for infrastructure in the local area but I appreciate should is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

Also. I refer people to Foodbanks and money advice services every day in the day job. People who literally have zero money for food, rent, gas, electric and maybe even owe money to unsavoury characters in the community too.

So its fair to say my sympathy for people who can afford walking gear, petrol, food and drink and accommodation being asked to stump up literally a few quid is minimal. I do appreciate the question of where that money goes and how that is achieved is massively important though.

I would argue your point that it is a flat tax. In Europe it is 5% of your stay so 20 quid a night in a hostel is £1 and £200 a night in Gleneagles is £10.



Surely a tourist tax has nothing to do with food banks or the problems with poverty in Scotland.

You mentioned Gleneagles but £200+ per night is being charged by some 3 star hotels in Inverness in the height of the tourist season. To add an extra £10 per night to this in a tourist tax is just adding to the experience of being ripped off whether people can afford it or not.
If Scotland was going to add a 5% tourist tax that's fine but reduce the VAT to 15% because as mentioned already we are already heavily taxing the tourist already. :(

I see where your coming from regarding the tax going direct to local services rather than going to Edinburgh or London for distribution but It seems totally unfair to expect the 20% still to be paid and adding an extra 5% on top :shock:
User avatar
Sunset tripper
 
Posts: 2965
Joined: Nov 3, 2013
Location: Inverness

Re: Visitor Tax

Postby al78 » Tue Oct 16, 2018 8:34 am

NickyRannoch wrote:So its fair to say my sympathy for people who can afford walking gear, petrol, food and drink and accommodation being asked to stump up literally a few quid is minimal.


By that argument, we should slap a £20 charge on all car parks. After all, if someone can afford thousands of pounds for a car and hundreds to thousands per year to keep it on the road, paying another £20 on top is minimal. How far do you want to go with that philosophy? Do you think the UK is not expensive enough?
User avatar
al78
Walker
 
Posts: 1409
Munros:32   Corbetts:9
Donalds:1
Joined: Feb 1, 2018

Re: Visitor Tax

Postby Sack the Juggler » Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:31 am

meh, cannot see it happening for loads of reasons, some of which have been highlighted here.

With regards to any tax, the main reason it was implemented is soon forgotten and the tax is used to fund other projects, so I doubt it will be used to improve the local amenities, which will further be eroded by visitors which will no doubt lead to a tax being called for to build a wall around the city to stop visitors using those amenities, etc, etc, etc,.

And who is using the local amenities? Do visitors staying in hotels go out to use the public toilets? or do they use the hotel toilets, or the pub toilets? Or is it campers who pop down to use the local amenities to have a dump and fill up their water bottle? Would the campers also have to pay for visitors tax, and if so how would it be collected?

Also, if you look at the first item in the list of benefits: "it would.... be a tax on visitors and not on businesses". The additional cost of these taxes means less people use the services (as they are more expensive) so the businesses will effectively pay the tax as they are losing income.

These taxes only work where the demand is inelastic, and the tourism industry is unfortunately market driven, so it might mean less business for the mid to high end hotels and that will drive total taxes down anyway.

Also its not just tourists that use hotels, its conferences, events (weddings!), business meetings. Instead of paying extra for the benefit of bringing clients / suppliers to their businesses in Scotland, they might just move their businesses over the border (or at least consider this factor when setting up a business).

But why stop at a tourism tax, why not have a wildlife tax (a tax on the number of birds or animals you see), and sun tax (a tax on the number of sunny days in the month), a bathing tax (for when you go skinny dipping in Loch Lomond), or a deep fried Mars Bar tax to fund the additional NHS costs of treating those who eat them? Ok, some of those were a little tongue in cheek (... is there a tax for that too?) but charging tourists a tax for the pleasure of coming to spend money in a community seems to be a self defeating objective.
Sack the Juggler
Ambler
 
Posts: 377
Joined: Aug 8, 2018

Re: Visitor Tax

Postby Giant Stoneater » Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:42 am

Don't forget the Scottish government brought in minimum alcohol pricing where none of the extra money raised goes towards the Health Service,instead it is profit for the establishments that sell it,so you can see why people are wary of any extra taxes being raised and no services being provided.
Giant Stoneater
Scrambler
 
Posts: 916
Joined: Aug 2, 2014

Re: Visitor Tax

Postby Sack the Juggler » Tue Oct 16, 2018 12:56 pm

Sack the Juggler
Ambler
 
Posts: 377
Joined: Aug 8, 2018

Re: Visitor Tax

Postby yokehead » Tue Oct 16, 2018 1:42 pm

An interesting subject. I am surprised it hasn't had many more replies, so far only a few more than 'so what's in your thermos'! :)

This is a slippery slope, the thin end of the wedge. Yet another back-door tax and easy target just like the outrageous hiking of parking charges, also covered in this forum.

Sack the Juggler wrote:But why stop at a tourism tax, why not have a wildlife tax (a tax on the number of birds or animals you see), and sun tax (a tax on the number of sunny days in the month), a bathing tax (for when you go skinny dipping in Loch Lomond), or a deep fried Mars Bar tax to fund the additional NHS costs of treating those who eat them? Ok, some of those were a little tongue in cheek (... is there a tax for that too?) but charging tourists a tax for the pleasure of coming to spend money in a community seems to be a self defeating objective.

Quite so.

When I visit Scotland I spend money in local communities on accommodation, food, fuel etc. (but I will do much to avoid a ripoff parking charge out of principle! :) ). So I am adding to the wealth of that community and, it could be said, contributing to the very existence of that community in some cases where tourism is a key element of income. The same goes for tourism in many parts of the UK.

Some of my spend is collected in various taxes, and indeed should be properly allocated to the areas I visit. That is the job of politicians and councillors to achieve, part of why we elected them.

But instead, it is easier to apply another blanket tax, with the usual waffle that the tax will be used in the area for which it has been named, in this case tourism and the associated local infrastructure impacted. Rest assured that if this is introduced it will simply be used largely in general public sector expenditure. Take vehicle duty and fuel duty - only 30% of that income is spent on roads, whilst our roads crumble. It is a massive fudge to say that taxes are not allocated correctly geographically therefore there is the need to raise more tax.

I have read the COSLA document, a nice shiny thing proposing the 'Transient Visitor Tax', to me a demeaning title which sounds like some sort of disease. :shock: Under 'benefits' it states 'The financial pressures faced by the public sector over successive years has placed significant pressure on supporting Scotland’s infrastructure including tourism'. The 'including tourism' bit appears to be a convenient add-on to the real reason behind the proposal.

Clearly, as visitor numbers increase there is the need to provide supporting infrastructure of all kinds, and surely there are business opportunities in doing this. All of which leads to higher tax revenue which as I've said should be channelled properly to those places.

Finally, and on another subject that hasn't had an airing on WH for a while, the COSLA document shows 'scenery and landscape' as by far the primary reason for tourist visits to Scotland (with 'climate and weather' being last on the list :lol: ). I wonder what impact windfarms are having on tourism? I for one won't be visiting areas dominated by these, but the way it's going could it be that soon there will be no place in Scotland where a windfarm won't be visible? :( As for silly little hydro schemes and their associated motorway tracks, well..... Scotland, what have you done?
User avatar
yokehead
 
Posts: 702
Munros:73   Corbetts:9
Fionas:1   
Hewitts:118
Wainwrights:23   
Joined: Nov 13, 2008

Re: Visitor Tax

Postby jupe1407 » Tue Oct 16, 2018 6:11 pm

Without wishing to be accused of witchcraft, I have absolutely no issue with wind energy/windfarms, they are a not-completely-ideal answer to a question which really has no right answer. Obviously siting should be within reason, but I'm unsure what folk would suggest as an alternative. In fact I'd be quite curious.

Nuclear? - Which remote area do we scar with a massive power station and how do we deal with the waste?
Turbines at sea? - Surely just moving the "problem" elsewhere. Although anything that has an imbecile like Donald Trump in a frothing litigious mess has to be good.

I've walked plenty of hills with views of windfarms and they certainly haven't ruined my day.

As for hydro schemes, I recall a fairly lively discussion on here about the scheme at Heights on Kinlochewe, for example. Admittedly they look horrendous in the early stages of construction, however I don't feel as a brief visitor to an area I have any right to be dictating to actual residents of that area whether they should or shouldn't have access to cheaper energy because it might have spoiled my view for half an hour. They do "blend in" fairly quickly. After all, I can't remember any walk reports referring to the horrors of established hydro schemes on hills like Fionn Bheinn, Sgiath Chuil/Meall Glas etc. They simply become part of a route in such cases. Can you imagine what WalkHighlands would have been like had it been around during the construction of the Cruachan Dam? :lol:

Also just remembered we were talking about a Tourist Tax. Oops.
User avatar
jupe1407
Mountain Walker
 
Posts: 1501
Munros:269   Corbetts:52
Fionas:12   
Sub 2000:7   
Islands:6
Joined: May 15, 2012
Location: Forfar

PreviousNext



Can you help support Walkhighlands?


Our forum is free from adverts - your generosity keeps it running.
Can you help support Walkhighlands and this community by donating by direct debit?



Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests