Why must everything be taxed? Tourist taxes seem to me to be among the most ridiculous. Tourists bring in economic activity which provides far more value than the tourist taxes collected. Taxing something results in less of it; why a city would want to reduce tourism is beyond me. It isn't like tourists are not paying VAT, transport taxes, etc. The business owners that sell to tourists are making more money, which is also taxed and leads to them hiring more people and buying more products.
However leftists love feeding the government even if it is a net loss for economic prosperity. They want to tax everything without understanding that taxes reduce economic activity.You certainly need a minimum level of taxation, but it's a religion with many people. Next time you rent a car, have a look at the various taxes. Then calculate how many taxes the car company is paying for that euro of revenue. The same transaction is ultimately taxed each time to money touches someone.
As far as subletting, that should be handled between the landlord and the tenant: that's a private contract and the government ought not have any say.
If there's a problem with 'drunken neighbors,' then that also should be handled contractually between the co-proprietors of a particular building.
Government intervention isn't necessary for any of this.
I prefer leftism than rightism, because in my mind rightism leads to having your water poison you, Flint-style.
I remember reading an article about Barcelona and how it was actually losing money due to low-budget tourists: the city has to maintain/clean infrastructure for them, but they don't bring much income. Not sure how they tax their bars, but these people would just get wasted and puke in their parks, and the city has to clean up after them.
I prefer pragmatism and common sense to rightism or leftism, but just to add balance to your statement, let me point out that leftism may lead to unavailability of toilet paper :-)
It's just silly to tax the good thing (tourists), just because some of them misbehave.
The correct solution is to fine bad behaviors (littering, public nuisance, overserving drunks, etc.) and instituting fees for operating businesses that directly contribute to the problem (for example bars, liquor stores).
> It would seem more expensive to police this adequately, prosecute, collect the fines, etc. I'm not sure your plan could ever have ROI.
Of course it would be more expensive to police it, man-hours are not free. The obvious upside is that it would stop the unwanted be behaviors and not tax the good (tourism).
The is no need for prosecution, as fines are handles through an administrative process nor is there a problem to collect the fines within the EU (from where most tourists in Barcelona are) due to cross-border collections.
The plan would immediately have a ROI if enforcement costs less fines were less than the current costs for cleanup/maintenance. Furthermore current tourism/hotel taxes can just be changed to bar, liquor store fees and licenses, if need be and thus have zero net impact on finances.
Lastly, and most importantly, ROI should not be the primary metric when trying to change bad behaviors. The current situation externalizes the costs of bad behavior, whereas my solution internalizes the cost. Even if there was a real cost to my solution, it has a net positive benefit to the public good, and to society that's worth paying for.
> That's forgetting the impact on the life of people who actually live there in the short term.
What impact? Not many are likely object to less public intoxication and puking in the parks.
I don't think it would stop unwanted behaviors by tourists. So the tourist gets reprimanded and then leaves when their trip is over, the next tourist comes and the process begins again. It's whackamole.
Of course it wouldn't stop unwanted behavior immediately, but word does get around.
I'm not condoning any of the following, but:
- you don't bring liquids to an airport
- you don't go to Thailand to insult the king
- you don't bring chewing gum to Singapore
- you don't fly via the US due to the TSA
- you don't overstay your visa
The point is, if you want to stop unwanted behaviors, you make rules and you enforce them, and eventually (most) people, even those that haven't been to your country, will know what isn't condoned and modify their behavior accordingly or stay away.
The former Soviet Union, and its satellites were remarkably destructive towards the environment, much more so than the democratic West. The nuclear accident in Chernobyl is but one example.
And that doesn't even factor in that the Soviet Union was remarkably less productive than the democratic West.
It's not about economic benefit, it's about equality: if you have a major form of income not being taxed, you're effectively giving preferential treatment to that person versus everyone who gets taxed.
Tourists have far more money to spend than local residents, since they're not staying for long. So they tend to empty heavily touristic cities from their residents. Think about it for a moment: would Paris without cafes and french people still be Paris?
I think a lot of people would consider Paris without the French heaven :)
Jokes aside, a lot of holiday spots are popular regardless of the lack of locals. Paris without the French might not be the Paris you know and love, but undoubtedly it would still be popular.
However leftists love feeding the government even if it is a net loss for economic prosperity. They want to tax everything without understanding that taxes reduce economic activity.You certainly need a minimum level of taxation, but it's a religion with many people. Next time you rent a car, have a look at the various taxes. Then calculate how many taxes the car company is paying for that euro of revenue. The same transaction is ultimately taxed each time to money touches someone.
As far as subletting, that should be handled between the landlord and the tenant: that's a private contract and the government ought not have any say.
If there's a problem with 'drunken neighbors,' then that also should be handled contractually between the co-proprietors of a particular building.
Government intervention isn't necessary for any of this.