ForumGarden

further to oscars £1 a night brighton toursist tax post ....

MILLIONS of tourists may be asked to pay a tax to meet the extra costs to local authorities of providing visitor facilities.

Tourists could be asked to pay a special tax of about pounds 1 per night if they stay in English hotels under a plan to be examined by councils.

Any tax would be likely to be at the discretion of each local authority - though this might price some destinations out of the market if competing areas decided not to levy a tax.

Councils consider hotel tax on tourists: Visitors may be charged pounds 1 levy per night - UK - News - The Independent

this is just another council tax by the back door and the £1 per night fools no one as its just another way of watering down another stealth tax

which wont go on things like street cleaning and bins but probably pet projects like LGBTG awareness , travellers diversity or the immigrant assistance centre or even on expenses for council meetings or meetings of the above mentioned subjects and twinning visits.

meanwhile the family of 2 adults and 3 children who used to visit brighton every year since the children were small have now gone up the coast to nearby margate

where its cheaper and just as pleasant as brighton

AA grumpy;1471908 wrote: further to oscars £1 a night brighton toursist tax post ....

MILLIONS of tourists may be asked to pay a tax to meet the extra costs to local authorities of providing visitor facilities.

Tourists could be asked to pay a special tax of about pounds 1 per night if they stay in English hotels under a plan to be examined by councils.

Any tax would be likely to be at the discretion of each local authority - though this might price some destinations out of the market if competing areas decided not to levy a tax.

Councils consider hotel tax on tourists: Visitors may be charged pounds 1 levy per night - UK - News - The Independent

this is just another council tax by the back door and the £1 per night fools no one as its just another way of watering down another stealth tax

which wont go on things like street cleaning and bins but probably pet projects like LGBTG awareness , travellers diversity or the immigrant assistance centre or even on expenses for council meetings or meetings of the above mentioned subjects and twinning visits.

meanwhile the family of 2 adults and 3 children who used to visit brighton every year since the children were small have now gone up the coast to nearby margate

where its cheaper and just as pleasant as brighton
You could look at it from another angle. Every bit of revenue received by the council is a little less tax that the local residents have to foot the bill for - especially with the cuts in what subsidies the councils get from Central Government. Why should they have to pay, through their Council Taxes, for the services enjoyed by tourists when they get it for free?

For that matter, you could put it on a par with the Congestion Charge in London.

So, what's the average room rate per night in Brighton?

We see this in a lot of touristy regions in the States.

It usually amounts to a .7 to 1 % addition to the room rates.

Not overly taxing, most of the time.

One wonders how the taxing authority will know which visitors are tourists.

spot;1471914 wrote: One wonders how the taxing authority will know which visitors are tourists.
I doubt many permanent residents will be staying on a nightly basis in hotels.

FourPart;1471915 wrote: I doubt many permanent residents will be staying on a nightly basis in hotels.


That just leaves businesspersons and academics attending conferences, sales reps making an early start on their turf, anyone attending a remote christening, wedding or funeral - I could go on but you might start with those as representative of non-tourist hotel-dwellers.

spot;1471914 wrote: One wonders how the taxing authority will know which visitors are tourists.


Well, given that the article states "Tourists could be asked to pay a special tax of about pounds 1 per night if they stay in English hotels under a plan to be examined by councils." I assumed that the tax would be added to the hotel rate.

I suppose locals could request a "Non-tourist" exemption if they find they must stay in a hotel because of home repairs or such.

spot;1471919 wrote: That just leaves businesspersons and academics attending conferences, sales reps making an early start on their turf, anyone attending a remote christening, wedding or funeral - I could go on but you might start with those as representative of non-tourist hotel-dwellers.
To my mind they're still tourists - as in non-resident. Whether there on Business or Pleasure, the same circumstances apply. Why should the onus be on the residents to pay for them?

FourPart;1471922 wrote: To my mind they're still tourists - as in non-resident.


I don't know why we continue to employ a fully-fledged language like English. There seems no call for it at all.

FourPart;1471922 wrote: Whether there on Business or PleasureThe last time I flew there was no Pleasure class. There was a Business class and a Tourist class. You'll note that serious users of the language, as opposed to dilettante amateurs, distinguish between business users and tourists. Tourism is a word with a specific meaning which excludes all of those examples I gave earlier. Tourist does not mean non-local. If it meant non-local, it would be spelled "non-local" instead of "tourist".

Let me call this meeting to order.

Rather than discuss the niceties of the English language and whether the Headline writer got it right......or should that be write ?

I reckon we ought to talk of if a 'Hotel Tax' for people staying in Hotels is worth thinking about...................Carry on.



( I apologise for any grammar or spelling errors)

noun

1.

a person who is traveling, especially for pleasure.
(Dictionary.com)

Note, not exclusively for pleasure.

Business tourism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm baffled. Why on earth not just use the correct word? They're Visitors, they're not necessarily Tourists. The tax is quite simply misnamed, it's a proposed tax on all hotel users. Just call a spade a spade. Every person staying in an hotel where the tax is applied will be taxed.

What's peculiar is that the council deliberately chooses to put the money up front for all the council services used by hotel visitors, many of whom may well be tourists. The council chooses to do this because attracting emmets improves the local economy. That's why there's tourist information kiosks and leaflets and Come To Sunny Skegness posters plastered over railway toilets. It adds to the affluence of the area. These councils are about to bite their own noses if they try to charge hotel visitors for the costs which the council voluntarily pays to attract them in the first place.

I also question this Tourist vs Visitor Issue.

I travel about quite a bit and stay overnight most times. Take Blackpool recently. I had no option but to book 3 nights stay but I wasn't a tourist. I had to be there and I was visiting yet because Blackpool like Brighton Is viewed as a Tourist attraction, why should I pay more or Indeed, why should my hosts pay more ?

I'm going to Manchester next week staying overnight. Tourist or visitor ?

I found this Informative.

An alternative to a tourist tax - a T-BID - Centre for London

I stayed in Ruislip a while back. Had anyone approached me over breakfast and asked whether or not I was a tourist I would have drawn notice to my suit. Not, I would have said, common tourist attire. I would then have directed his attention to the conference sign welcoming the Burroughs Large Systems UK User Group to the hotel. The hotel was practically filled with attendee members of the Burroughs Large Systems UK User Group, all wearing suits, mostly pinstriped. None of them were even slightly tourists. Ruislip itself hasn't seen a bloody tourist since Queen Victoria died. Not even John Betjeman, researching his Shell Guide in 1934, was a tourist. The entire suggestion that all hotel users are tourists is bogus.

Are we done with this aspect of the thread yet, or shall I go on to the occasion when I was last giving workshops in Birmingham?

spot;1471958 wrote:

Are we done with this aspect of the thread yet, or shall I go on to the occasion when I was last giving workshops in Birmingham? You go for It.

Similar to us In Blackpool. Having breakfast all suited and booted. Even a rare occasion where I sported high heels. Climbing on to the Ferris wheel on the Pleasure Beach as tourists In December was clearly not our Intentions. Nor we're we dressed for skinny dipping at the Sands water world.

Just a thought... Most tourist attractions In such places as Blackpool and Brighton are closed for winter so how does that work exactly ?

Why be bothered about the word itself anyway? The word "Tourist" covers a wide genre of travelers, regardless of the purpose of their touring. To insist on a more specific term to mean the same thing is no real different to the inane Political Correctness we are all faced with these days.

The point is that whatever you choose to call it, the tax (or whatever you choose to call it) makes sense. It benefits the residents, and is a relatively small expense to those who have to pay it. Much like when using someone elses phone, being expected to put something in the box towards the cost of the call (although, I grant you, that's probably a bit of an outdated principle these days, but I think you know what I mean).

FourPart;1471965 wrote: Why be bothered about the word itself anyway? The word "Tourist" covers a wide genre of travelers, regardless of the purpose of their touring. To insist on a more specific term to mean the same thing is no real different to the inane Political Correctness we are all faced with these days.

.


More uneducated clap trap

tourist

Line breaks: tour|ist

Pronunciation: /ˈtʊərɪst /

Definition of tourist in English:

NOUN

1A person who is travelling or visiting a place for pleasure:

the pyramids have drawn tourists to Egypt

tourist: definition of tourist in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)

How Is visiting another town on work related business ' for pleasure'

FourPart;1471965 wrote: It benefits the residents, and is a relatively small expense to those who have to pay it.


You have no idea how the different pressures will balance. I can't imagine the councils will actually increase their spending on tourism, the idea of the OP seems to be to cover the existing cost. Yes, the hotel tax will bring in £X a year. If the policy results in a reduction in visitor numbers then the taxation on local businesses, who will have lower turnover and reduced profits, will amount to a loss to the council of £Y a year. If Y exceeds X then the policy will have been counterproductive.

Unless someone can produce prior instances with the consequent figures then we're discussing the policy in an informational vacuum. It may well be that for some councils it will increase overall council income and for others it will reduce it, despite the fact that they'll all have their own additional amount £X raised.

What seems immediately and accurately predictable, though, is that the imposition of the tax will inevitably reduce local business profitability because there's no possible mechanism for the imposed tax to increase visitor numbers or to increase their individual spend. So, the council may or may not increase its overall income but the local traders and hotel-keepers will invariably end up with less profitable businesses.

Why would anyone vote for a council that behaved so inanely?

Oscar Namechange;1471968 wrote:

NOUN

1A person who is travelling or visiting a place for pleasure:


As opposed to AND visiting a place for pleasure.

Yes, it's primary usage is as in pleasure, but it can also refer to general traveling for other reasons. The point is though, that whatever the word you choose to use, the outcome is the same.

If not Tourist, what word would you use for it to include everone who comes to the town, be it for business or pleasure, whilst allowing it to be generic?

Why do I even ask. You're not interested in the subject matter in hand. You're just interested in personal attacks as usual.

FourPart;1471972 wrote: As opposed to AND visiting a place for pleasure.

Yes, it's primary usage is as in pleasure, but it can also refer to general traveling for other reasons. The point is though, that whatever the word you choose to use, the outcome is the same.

If not Tourist, what word would you use for it to include everone who comes to the town, be it for business or pleasure, whilst allowing it to be generic?

Why do I even ask. You're not interested in the subject matter in hand. You're just interested in personal attacks as usual.


The difference and definition for me Is this. If I go anywhere In the country where I need to stay overnight and I am In a position to hand my boss a receipt for my expenses. then I am not a tourist and thus not there for pleasure but to work.

Where does a tax come Into that ? How do they differentiate ?

FourPart;1471972 wrote: Why do I even ask.
Why indeed. The answer is some posts back. Visitor.

Wow, What's the big deal?

It doesn't matter whether you are a tourist or a business visitor, or just come around to visit your Grandma, if you stay in a hotel room, they tack on an extra bit to the room charge, and call it a visitor tax, or a tourist tax, or some other type of tex, and the local gummint gets to spend it, hopefully on something useful.

If you don't wanna pay the tax, then sleep on a park bench.

LarsMac;1471980 wrote: Wow, What's the big deal?

It doesn't matter whether you are a tourist or a business visitor, or just come around to visit your Grandma, if you stay in a hotel room, they tack on an extra bit to the room charge, and call it a visitor tax, or a tourist tax, or some other type of tex, and the local gummint gets to spend it, hopefully on something useful.

If you don't wanna pay the tax, then sleep on a park bench.
Thank you. Sense at last.

Should anyone like to pick up on the prospect of a council's revenue actually falling as a result of the tax, the thread might at last get back to where it was meant to be.

spot;1472000 wrote: Should anyone like to pick up on the prospect of a council's revenue actually falling as a result of the tax, the thread might at last get back to where it was meant to be.
Was it so much a case of the revenue failing, or a mis-management of the revenue by spending it on the wrong things?

£1 a night? Come off it, what's more likely to put people off is parking charges or just not being able to park and get about. Good idea if it reduces costs for locals. It's more than that for an hours parking in some places. Most people touring will be doing so by car.

Does brighton still have the line of sewage just out at the end of the pier?

gmc;1472003 wrote:

Does brighton still have the line of sewage just out at the end of the pier? I've told you this before... No.... but Portslade further up the coast did.

spot;1472000 wrote: Should anyone like to pick up on the prospect of a council's revenue actually falling as a result of the tax, the thread might at last get back to where it was meant to be.


Well, in areas where such taxes have been established in Canada and US, they have not reported any los of revenue due to such taxes. Though, over here the levi has usually been a % of the hotel charges, rather than a set dollar amount.

With a £1 set tax, the guest at the lower value hotels, like the Granville are penalized much more than those that stay high end places, like Drakes Hotel.

I suggest the councils look at making the tax a percentage, rather than a set amount.

That would probably be far more palatable.

gmc;1472003 wrote: £1 a night? Come off it, what's more likely to put people off is parking charges or just not being able to park and get about. Good idea if it reduces costs for locals. It's more than that for an hours parking in some places. Most people touring will be doing so by car.


Very good point. In Southampton £1 would buy you about 20 mins in Parking Time.

I think It's a massive con... a stealth tax.

Councils all over the country have had local funding cut. South Glou where I am, Is one who's seen cuts to budgets that have seen street lights turned off and even grass verges being only cut twice a year. This to me, Is not Tourist tax at all. It's a con to bring back the level of council funding that local councils need just to survive without Government having to pay out more.

Oscar Namechange;1472019 wrote: I think It's a massive con... a stealth tax.

Councils all over the country have had local funding cut. South Glou where I am, Is one who's seen cuts to budgets that have seen street lights turned off and even grass verges being only cut twice a year. This to me, Is not Tourist tax at all. It's a con to bring back the level of council funding that local councils need just to survive without Government having to pay out more.


Wherev do you think government gets it's money from?

Thank thatcher, indirect taxation hits the poorest in society so she could claim to be reducing taxes but increased indirect taxation instead, (VAT up to 20%, fuel duty etc etc) labour have done just the same and they're still at it. It's no accident that those on lower or middle income pay more in tax as a percentage of their income than the well off.

This tax is a red herring it's only a stealth tax if people don't know it is being levied.

stealth

Also found in: Legal, Wikipedia.

stealth

(stĕlth)

n.

1. The act of moving, proceeding, or acting in a covert way.

2. The quality or characteristic of being furtive or covert.

3. Obsolete The act of stealing.

gmc;1472067 wrote: Wherev do you think government gets it's money from?

Thank thatcher, indirect taxation hits the poorest in society so she could claim to be reducing taxes but increased indirect taxation instead, (VAT up to 20%, fuel duty etc etc) labour have done just the same and they're still at it. It's no accident that those on lower or middle income pay more in tax as a percentage of their income than the well off.

This tax is a red herring it's only a stealth tax if people don't know it is being levied.


Fair enough... but It's till a con. Government cuts back on council funds so we all suffer but rather than Increase funding they come up with this. It's a cop out.

Just one example

Stop the Council Cuts | ePetitions – Coventry City Council

I have been fighting my local Council for weeks to get street lighting put back on. I won... sort of... they compromised and now only turn them off between midnight and 4 am.

the point is its not just £1 though its per person per night so work it out

2 adults and 3 children 7 nights = £35 extra , hen party 16 people 1 weekend 2 nights =£32

thats a nice little income when you add it to all the hotels in the area plus car parking

and the greedy councilors will still claim their obsene amount of expenses and live in their leafy residential streets where sunday morning is wash the car day

AA grumpy;1472130 wrote: the point is its not just £1 though its per person per night so work it out

2 adults and 3 children 7 nights = £35 extra , hen party 16 people 1 weekend 2 nights =£32

thats a nice little income when you add it to all the hotels in the area plus car parking

and the greedy councilors will still claim their obsene amount of expenses and live in their leafy residential streets where sunday morning is wash the car day


Good point Comrade

The simple truth is that in one way or another there has to be an income of 'x' amount. If it were to come from Central Government, then it would still have to be raised by taxation. The fact is that the Council has to raise a set amount of money, so it has the choice of getting to residents to foot the bill for it all in Council Tax, or get those that actually use the services to pay something towards the cost. I don't see that as being unfair at all. Similarly, I would be in favour of doing away with road tax & putting the tax onto the cost on fuel instead. In that way those that use the roads most pay most, plus it would mean that tourists / visitors to the country would also have no choice but to pay their way as well. After all, we have to pay the tolls on their roads. The hotel tax is really no different.

I have to go to London. I'm working. Why should I pay extra for being classed as a bloody tourist ?

You do - it's called the Congestion Charge.

FourPart;1472141 wrote: You do - it's called the Congestion Charge.


One reason I'm going by coach,

Oscar Namechange;1472173 wrote: One reason I'm going by coach,
I know if you book ahead enough on the National Express website you can get some really ridiculously cheap deals on the coach, such as a return to London from Southampton for £6, whereas a return by train (with Disabled Person's Railcard) costs £54.

FourPart;1472300 wrote: I know if you book ahead enough on the National Express website you can get some really ridiculously cheap deals on the coach, such as a return to London from Southampton for £6, whereas a return by train (with Disabled Person's Railcard) costs £54.


I got a return from Bristol Including Insurance all In for £22.

Half what It would cost me In fuel without the congestion charges and Parking fee's. You can't complain at that eh ?