It’s not too taxing to consider the benefits of tourism levies
It’s irritating to pay, but very small change for funding an international Games, when neither the Ottawa federal government nor the BC provincial government are any readier to cough up now than back in the summer.
The same seems true for Kuala Lumpur, which hosted the 1998 Games and is keen to again, but would prefer 2026 to 2022. As if in preparation, the Malaysian government recently decided, with its hotels being by international standards “modestly priced”, to introduce for overseas visitors a flat-rate tourism tax, on top of the service charge and Goods and Services Tax. Again, though, no national Games budget guarantees this time round.
There’s no significant federal backing for Adelaide either, the third city technically still in the running. It’s the only Australian mainland state capital that’s not hosted the Games, but not helped by next April’s Commonwealth Games taking place just 2,000 kms away on Queensland’s Gold Coast.
My complete outsider’s view, therefore, is that the UK government probably doesn’t need a tourist charge or indeed anything more “to secure the Games for Britain”, since, if the competition hasn’t already withdrawn for a second time, it very soon will.
Whereupon, my localist instincts would normally prompt a small rant – about how bizarre and humiliating it is in our hyper-centralised British polity for the Second City’s elected representatives not being able to decide for themselves to introduce this most local of local taxes, in order, as Council leader Ian Ward puts it, to avoid “going anywhere near the city council’s revenue budget” for its 25 per cent share of the Games’ funding.
If I’ve space left, I’ll still close on a micro-rant, but I concede the Commonwealth Games may constitute an exceptional case.
When former Council leader Sir Albert Bore argued for Birmingham having the power to introduce a hotel bed tax, or when Bath, Edinburgh, currently Hull, and even London consider the feasibility of tourist taxes, the requirement for central government approval and legislation is irritating and insulting.
However, with this summer’s rushed bidding process actually caused by Durban’s late withdrawal on financial grounds, it’s understandable the CGF wants both local and national budget guarantees. Which makes ministers having to “give the green light to a tourist charge” sad, but here arguably quite useful to Birmingham’s cause.
But that’s the exception that should prove the rule.
If you happen over the coming months to be sun- or snow-chasing, certainly in Europe, the strong chances are that you’ll be paying tourist levies or hotel taxes whose rates and conditions are determined by the city or region, rather than the national or federal government.
Austrian provinces have their Tourismusgesetz or tourist levy; Belgium its city taxes; France its Taxe de Sojour; Germany its Kulturförderabgabe or culture tax, which possibly makes you feel a touch more uplifted than parting with your Bettensteuer or bed tax; Italian cities their Tassa di Soggiorno – and so on alphabetically.
As you obediently pay up, it might fractionally reduce the pain to think that they’re mainly local taxes contributing hopefully to local tourist economies.
If you happen to be sun or snowchasing, the chances are that you’ll be paying tourist levies or hotel taxes