Taxes have always been as inevitable as death. In British Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves’ Britain, it is looking like tax increases are as unavoidable as the grim reaper. She must find billions of pounds to fill a black hole in the public finances before the autumn budget.
So far, she has proven unable to cut public spending thanks to a series of rebellions by Labour lawmakers — and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s “defining mission” of making the sums add up by turbocharging growth has also been stymied, partly by Reeves’ move to hike national insurance for employers in her last budget.
GDP figures released on Thursday came in at a relatively anemic 0.3 percent increase for the second quarter this year.
Illustration: Yusha
That leaves taxes and, having ruled out increasing the burden on “working people,” Reeves and her team are spending the summer eyeing other sources of cash. One idea being pushed by some in Westminster is a tourist tax. It is worth taking seriously, both for the potential to raise some much-needed revenue and as a driver of growth.
A stroll around the center of London on a warm day last week confirms there’s plenty of scope. Crowds were 10 deep outside Buckingham Palace and, inside, visitors of all ages and nationalities were glued to audio guides as they gawked at the king’s riches before stopping off for a cream tea in the cafe.
London was the third-most popular destination in the world in terms of international arrivals last year and third for tourist dollars spent in 2023. An estimated 43 million foreign visitors are expected this year and are anticipated to collectively spend ￡33.7 billion (US$45.68 billion), according to VisitBritain.
That is not including business travelers and domestic visitors, who might not be caught by a potential tax, depending on how it is levied.
Among the most world’s most popular tourist destinations, London is rare in not already levying a tax on hotel stays. From Tokyo to Barcelona, New York to Amsterdam, the additional nightly charge is a familiar, if mildly irritating, sight on hotel bills.
As London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who favors a tourist tax, put it: most travelers “don’t really mind paying the few extra euros” when they visit cities such as Paris and Berlin.
Reeves is said to disagree, reportedly squashing proposals by British Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner to introduce measures in the Devolution Bill going through the British Parliament that would allow local authorities to impose a tourist tax. She should reconsider.
There are different ways of imposing levies on tourism, but the most common is a nightly charge, often with varying rates depending on the standard of the hotel or as a percentage of the final bill. Assuming a stay at a four-star accommodation, analysis by the Telegraph suggests the most expensive popular European tourist destination is Amsterdam, at the equivalent of ￡16 a night, down to ￡3.40 for Lisbon, with Venice, Paris and Rome coming in at just more than ￡8.
Given the sums I saw being handed over for Buckingham Palace-branded merchandise, including a ￡10 jar of honey and ￡17 socks, a similar tax in London seems unlikely to break the bank of the average overseas visitor.
The fear for a hospitality industry with fresh memories of COVID-19 is that any tax would inhibit visitor numbers and make alternative, cheaper destinations more attractive.
However, given that most major cities already have a tax, that argument does not stack up. In any case, a recent report by the British House of Commons Library into the potential effects of a tourist tax pointed out that currency fluctuations and the strength of the pound appear to have little impact on arrival numbers, suggesting that so long as the rate is set at a comparable figure to other cities, it is unlike to put travelers off.
What about the effect on destinations that might prove less of a lure for visitors? England’s beleaguered seaside resorts would be particularly loathe to adopt any measure that would further put off holiday makers. The solution to that is to make a tax optional, with local authorities choosing whether it might suit their particular local circumstances.
That is the model favored by mayors including Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, who I discussed tourist taxes with, as well as Khan and Liverpool Mayor Steve Rotheram. Local councils across London are supportive, along with the Institute for Government and the County Councils Network, although the trade body UK Hospitality described such a move as “deeply misguided,” pointing out that the UK charges a higher rate of value-added tax than most countries, which is included in hotel bills.
Maybe so, but Manchester and Liverpool have already taken advantage of a loophole in the law to introduce hotel charges as part of scheme allowing hotels to band together in “Business Improvement Districts” to raise levies, without any effect on visitor numbers, an analysis by the journal Tourism Management showed.
Manchester’s ￡1 nightly fee is estimated to have raised about ￡2.8 million in its first year, but the scheme is voluntary for hotels and limited in geographical scope and the mayors want to go further. Scotland has adopted similar powers and Wales is expected to follow suit next year.
Given how skewed international travel is toward the capital, which attracts more than half of all visitors to the UK, a tourist tax would have to be introduced in London to have a significant impact on the nation’s finances.
That seems fair. Londoners love tourists — but visitors should not get a free ride. As protests in cities around the world highlight, locals suffer from the effects of tourism, in terms of congestion and the added strain on services. Buckingham Palace’s coffers might benefit, but Londoners go uncompensated for tourists drinking their water supply, walking their well-lit streets, leaving litter or slowing down their commute.
A recent YouGov poll found that 45 percent of Londoners would support a tourist tax compared with 37 percent who opposed — this feels more tolerant than the Barceloni, who have taken to shooting visitors with water pistols.
Many taxes, including those in Manchester, are designed to be reinvested in the tourist industry, making them a potential driver of the precious growth Reeves is seeking. A broad definition of what constitutes the industry, such as allowing spending on transport that tourists also utilize, would free the chancellor up to divert money elsewhere.
Here is another idea: Unusually for a global city, most of London’s leading tourist attractions (although not Buckingham Palace) are free. That means tourists get to glory in the treasures of the British Museum, the National Gallery, the National History Museum and the rest without paying a penny. How about introducing fees for nonresidents, as New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art does, with locals allowed to “pay as you wish” (they must produce a credit card with a New York billing address to qualify)?
The savings could be pocketed by His Majesty’s Treasury in terms of reduced grants to the nation’s cultural institutions — the British Museum alone received ￡43.2 million in government funding last year.
Reeves is right to be leery of imposing any more pain on a hospitality industry already struggling with the national insurance and minimum wage increases. However, by being smart about how a levy is introduced — limiting it to areas such as London and the wealthy tourists who can afford it — estimates are that she could raise ￡500 million a year (on a nightly bed tax of ￡12). That would not fill her budgetary black hole, but it would be a start.
Rosa Prince is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering British politics and policy. She was formerly an editor and writer at Politico and the Daily Telegraph, and is the author of Comrade Corbyn: A Very Unlikely Coup and Theresa May: The Enigmatic Prime Minister. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
The Ministry of the Interior late last month released its report on homes that consumed low amounts of electricity in the second half of last year, offering a glimpse of the latest data on “vacant houses” — homes using less than 60 kilowatt-hours of electricity a month. The report showed that Taiwan had 914,196 vacant houses, or a vacancy rate of 9.79 percent, up from 9.32 percent in the first half of last year and the highest since 2008, when it was 9.81 percent. Of the nation’s 22 administrative areas, Lienchiang County (Matsu) had the highest vacancy rate at 17.4
RSS