Edinburgh’s five per cent visitor levy came into force at the end of July, making it the first UK city to charge a tourist tax, with Glasgow, Aberdeen and Cardiff all preparing to follow within the next year.
Our recent Travel Insider newsletter on the subject prompted a wave of reader emails, and while most agreed with the principle, opinion split sharply over who should actually be paying.
Several readers argued the current model lets the wrong people off the hook: overnight visitors are taxed while day trippers, who can do just as much damage to a city’s infrastructure without spending a penny on accommodation, pay nothing at all.
Others pointed to European cities such as Ljubljana, where a modest nightly charge funds free public transport, as proof that a tourist tax can work brilliantly, provided the money is spent visibly and well.
Not everyone was convinced, however. One reader warned that yet another charge on already-expensive UK accommodation could put visitors off altogether and do irreparable damage to the economy.
Here’s what you had to say:
Day trippers should pay their share too
I do agree with a tourist tax. I am always happy to pay local taxes when I go abroad. I feel it’s important to support the lovely places we are privileged to visit – eg Venice.
I live in Oxford, which is increasingly swamped by tourists – mostly fleets of day trippers who come in coaches that clog up beautiful St Giles – who come to see the university. If they visit a college they pay significant entrance fees.
However, Oxford city itself struggles for money and looks tatty – poor roadway quality, no decent public loos, candy and tourist tat shops, no trees in the centre, and the pedestrianisation of Broad Street is a mess with planters full of dead plants, crash barriers, tourist buses etc. Oxford has also struggled to keep a tourist information office open.
I would definitely apply a tourist tax and find a way to tax the day trippers, not least making the coaches stop at the Park & Rides, as Oxon residents are supposed to do with the new traffic controls in Oxford city.
Cathie Wood
Liverpool takes a battering from stag and hen parties
I live in Liverpool City Region. At weekends Liverpool gets loads of stag parties and hen parties descending on the city, not to mention football fans during the season too. It’s year-long and takes its toll on amenities.
A tourist tax won’t stop people coming, but it will put money into local authority coffers. If that money is used to improve the environment, so much the better. The thing is I would never bother with Edinburgh in August – it becomes a version of Camden due to the Fringe, and wise Scots rent their flats out knowing they can charge what they want. A tourist tax won’t put me off visiting at other times of the year, just as European tourist taxes don’t stop me visiting Spain or other destinations where they are levied. It’s appropriate.
Zint
Day trippers escape the tax
Having holidayed in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany, tourist tax is one of those things you have to pay. It is usually a modest amount and just accepted.
I can understand a need for a tax at places that are extremely popular, however the more I think about it the way it is structured is somewhat perverse. Overnight visitors pay the tax whilst day trippers do not, yet it is the overnighter that contributes most to the local economy by using restaurants, bars etc.
Paul
How tourist tax revenue can transform a city
Nice piece on tourist taxes. If those paying can see some reason for and benefit from the tax, it is welcome.
Two years ago I was in Ljubljana, perhaps the most attractive capital city in Europe. No cars, other than residents and licensed business owners, are allowed within the city, and the streets are quiet, largely with pedestrians and cyclists. The income derived from a €5 per night tourist tax meets the cost of green electric minibuses, which are plentiful and provide free transport for all. It works beautifully. Everyone benefits.
In the UK, we are very good at missing out on such schemes. Going back to the 60s, if we had introduced motorway tolls, as adopted by every other European country, with all derived income going towards transport infrastructure – including preventing or filling in potholes – we would be in much better shape.
Bob Reeves
A modest flat charge, spent visibly, is the fairest model
I think I take a slightly different view from yours on visitor levies.
In terms of the detail, you and I are probably on the same page. Such a tax should be as simple as possible to understand, implement and collect. A percentage on, effectively, just part of the overall bill does seem overly complex and bureaucratic. It would be far simpler to charge a modest flat rate, as happens in countless resorts across Europe.
My second thought is that, as in many parts of the Alps, it should be clear to the person being taxed how their money is spent, to the benefit of residents and local people. This should involve hypothecating the money collected and accounting for its expenditure.
In many places, the resort tax gives you free local transport. In addition to helping the environment, this improves the viability of those routes, directly benefitting the local population and making their area more “liveable”. There are also plenty of examples where these revenues are used to enhance and maintain path networks, thereby helping to reduce erosion, improve walkers’ safety and, again, benefit local people.
Other examples I have seen include the provision of municipal facilities like swimming pools, play parks and sporting facilities. Local museums, other cultural venues and significant events are recipients too.
A modest charge that is used to enhance the visitor experience, improve the local environment and improve amenities for residents can only be a good thing. It is also a good way to improve relationships between tourists and local people.
John in East Lothian
A simple flat fee, based on price bands, would work in the UK
I don’t really understand what all the fuss is about. We go to Paris two or three times a year and pay €8 per person per night in our hotel. I take the view that if we can afford to stay in a nice hotel in a beautiful setting, we can afford to contribute a little towards the infrastructure of the city.
It should be no different in the UK. It must be possible to devise a simple system which doesn’t get caught up in whether meals are included. Perhaps a flat fee based on price bands?
Wyn
Ring-fence the money and manage it properly
As a destination development professional based in Scotland, I am in favour of Transient Visitor Levies, as long as the tax raised is properly hypothecated (ring-fenced) for a set of agreed priorities and projects and managed effectively by a public-private partnership through an overseeing board.
I am sure the new TVL in Edinburgh will significantly enhance the visitor experience and help promote balanced, responsible tourism development.
Kenneth Wardrop
Already-expensive UK accommodation doesn’t need another charge
I don’t disagree with this in principle. In France we’ve had the taxe de séjour for as long as I remember, however as usual in the UK it seems that this is going to be too expensive. On top of already accommodation that is some of the most expensive in Europe! That would put me off holidaying in the UK, or even promoting the UK to friends – I live in the UK.
Nathalie Pasquie
Some of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity.
Want to share your views? Simply click ‘log in’ or ‘register’ in the top right corner to sign in or sign up. Once registered, you can comment on the day’s top stories for a chance to have your opinions showcased.
Want your voice to stand out? Independent Premium subscribers enjoy priority for featured comments. Subscribe here.
Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment, click here.
