8 ms·

New Zealander here. Out of all the problems a country could have, 'too many tourists' seems like an awfully good one. I'm sure it's more complicated than this,

New Zealander here. Out of all the problems a country could have, 'too many tourists' seems like an awfully good one. I'm sure it's more complicated than this, but from a naive perspective, putting a higher tax on tourism activities for non citizens seems like a solid solution with no obvious pitfall.

vinay427 10y ago
First of all, I assume you meant to say non-residents, rather than non-citizens. Second, the obvious pitfall here is that tourists don't like feeling like they are visiting a tourist trap, and openly charging them different prices makes it seem like one. I've visited plenty of sites that charge significantly more for non-citizens (in India, in this case) and it feels more exploitative than paying a fee in a country that does not do this. Some museums in Spain, for instance, reach a middle ground by providing free admission to EU citizens during a low-traffic time of the week.
- kobeya 10y ago
  Hawai'i has a "local rate" discount system that is >=20% cheaper for well near everything. It doesn't seem to have any problems...
  - thisrod 10y ago
    Many tourist towns in New Zealand do the same thing. By the way, if you're going tramping in New Zealand, then join the New Zealand Alpine Club. They run a separate system of accomodation for the serious outdoors people. In many of these places, there is a simple and cheap NZAC lodge tucked away in a quiet spot about 5 minutes walk from the overcrowded tourist hostels.
  - vinay427 10y ago
    I'm not asserting it wouldn't work well, but I just wanted to add my personal experience from the few times I have experienced it. Thanks for informing me about the Hawai'i discount, though.
    - hkmurakami 10y ago
      The Kama'aina rate even applies to Pizza Hut.
  - 205guy 10y ago
    Don't forget your mahalo rewards card.
- Taniwha 10y ago
  I'm sure he did mean to include, here in NZ there's little difference, for example everyone gets to vote (no taxation without representation after all). Charging for public goods is very un-kiwi, even for visitors ... it also means having to pay for people to collect the money (in the US that person in the little hut collecting fees when you enter a public park) .... probably something more indirect like a hotel tax would be culturally more acceptable
  - flog 10y ago
    We'll do an honesty box.
    - kalleboo 10y ago
      Many parks in Australia do that.
      - seanp2k2 10y ago
        Lots in the States too, usually at regional parks with low traffic. It's not worth it to station someone there, and the people visiting are generally the types who care enough about the livelihood of the parks to attempt to pay. You fill out an envelope and tear off a paper tag to stick on your dashboard as a receipt. In reality, rangers rarely come and audit parking lots for slips, but again it usually actually works.
  - trome 10y ago
    Is it true that gardening is illegal in NZ? I've heard of a ban on it, but I couldn't imagine a place where your not allowed to grow some carrots, rosemary, strawberries, tomatoes, etc. Its one of the few things that draws me outside in the summer.
    - nathan_f77 10y ago
      Hahaha, that's our sense of humour. Just a joke that started on this Reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/2nem47/can_you_have_a_garden_in_new_zealand/?sort=top https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/2nem47/can_you_...
- vacri 10y ago
  The modern art gallery MONA in Tasmania charges for admittance, unless you're a resident of Tasmania. I've never heard anyone complain about unfair treatment there. The kind of tourist who would consider that a deal-breaker would probably be the kind of low-quality tourist you wouldn't want anyway. A tourist trap isn't "you're charged more than the locals", a tourist trap is "you're charged for crap".
  - blackguardx 10y ago
    Many museums in NYC do this as well. There is a line to get in and prices on a board, but you can pay anything you want or nothing at all. They don't advertise this fact so locals only seem to know it.
    - notgood 10y ago
      It also works because you would feel like shooplifting if you pay nothing, specially if its your first time in it.
    - kwhitefoot 10y ago
      Last time I was in the British Museum (about 15 years ago I think) there was just a huge glass box in the foyer where you could put a donation. I don't know how much of the costs it covers but I saw quite a few people put substantial amounts of money in there. I paid five pounds and had a rather pricey snack in the café as well. No queue to get in.
  - vinay427 10y ago
    Perhaps we have somewhat different definitions for the term. I have heard many refer to "tourist traps" or similar when talking about a store that overcharged them compared to a local, for example. I don't mean to cause confusion by the expression I used, which is why I tried to explain my justification.
- developer2 10y ago
  >> charge significantly more for non-citizens (in India, in this case) Out of curiosity, in India specifically, are the prices targeted at tourists truly exploitive, or are they simply in line with what we can afford in terms of currency exchange? There is a vast gap between "prices are ridiculous, even for tourists", vs. "the tourist is paying more than locals, but they're still getting a bargain or similar to what they'd pay back home". As a tourist, I don't care if I'm being singled out and paying "reasonable prices based on my wealth". I'm smart enough to "nope out of" paying $100 USD for something that should be $20 USD, but I'm not going to complain because a native is trying to earn a decent wage in their poor economy (eg: $100 USD vs. $70 USD).
  - jpatokal 10y ago
    At last check, visiting (say) the Taj Mahal cost tourists 10x more than locals - but it was still only around US$10. So "exploitative" would be a stretch. Visiting Bhutan, on the other hand, incurs fees of at least US$150/day. While justified in terms of minimising impact etc, one politically convenient side effect is to ensure that tourists never interact with anybody not employed by a five-star hotel or visit places without them.
    - developer2 10y ago
      $10 to visit the Taj Mahal - oh my God, so exploitive! That's the sort of thing I was thinking of. It really isn't exploitative at all. Should it technically be free? Yes, but no first world visitor is going to be put out of their way for $10. shrug Of course, there is a huge difference between making your own way to a tourist trap, vs. being "guided" there. One should always be prepared to be scammed if one is paying someone just to travel to a given destination, vs. paying to actually enter that location by the authoritative body at an official entrance. If you're not paying someone at a physical barricade to the location, you're being scammed. Not too hard to understand.
  - jeppebemad 10y ago
    Exactly. There would be no locals visiting if prices were only targeting tourists, and no attractions if prices were only targeting locals. This is of course only in cases of low income countries.
oh_sigh 10y ago
Eh...not really. Imagine an economy that was really dependent on tourism. Now imagine that tourism disappears for any reason. That economy is screwed. Tourism can play a positive role in an economy, but only up to a certain point. If your economy can't function without tourism, then you're in a bad spot.

vinay427 10y ago

First of all, I assume you meant to say non-residents, rather than non-citizens. Second, the obvious pitfall here is that tourists don't like feeling like they are visiting a tourist trap, and openly charging them different prices makes it seem like one. I've visited plenty of sites that charge significantly more for non-citizens (in India, in this case) and it feels more exploitative than paying a fee in a country that does not do this. Some museums in Spain, for instance, reach a middle ground by providing free admission to EU citizens during a low-traffic time of the week.

kobeya 10y ago
Hawai'i has a "local rate" discount system that is >=20% cheaper for well near everything. It doesn't seem to have any problems...
- thisrod 10y ago
  Many tourist towns in New Zealand do the same thing. By the way, if you're going tramping in New Zealand, then join the New Zealand Alpine Club. They run a separate system of accomodation for the serious outdoors people. In many of these places, there is a simple and cheap NZAC lodge tucked away in a quiet spot about 5 minutes walk from the overcrowded tourist hostels.
- vinay427 10y ago
  I'm not asserting it wouldn't work well, but I just wanted to add my personal experience from the few times I have experienced it. Thanks for informing me about the Hawai'i discount, though.
  - hkmurakami 10y ago
    The Kama'aina rate even applies to Pizza Hut.
- 205guy 10y ago
  Don't forget your mahalo rewards card.
Taniwha 10y ago
I'm sure he did mean to include, here in NZ there's little difference, for example everyone gets to vote (no taxation without representation after all). Charging for public goods is very un-kiwi, even for visitors ... it also means having to pay for people to collect the money (in the US that person in the little hut collecting fees when you enter a public park) .... probably something more indirect like a hotel tax would be culturally more acceptable
- flog 10y ago
  We'll do an honesty box.
  - kalleboo 10y ago
    Many parks in Australia do that.
    - seanp2k2 10y ago
      Lots in the States too, usually at regional parks with low traffic. It's not worth it to station someone there, and the people visiting are generally the types who care enough about the livelihood of the parks to attempt to pay. You fill out an envelope and tear off a paper tag to stick on your dashboard as a receipt. In reality, rangers rarely come and audit parking lots for slips, but again it usually actually works.
- trome 10y ago
  Is it true that gardening is illegal in NZ? I've heard of a ban on it, but I couldn't imagine a place where your not allowed to grow some carrots, rosemary, strawberries, tomatoes, etc. Its one of the few things that draws me outside in the summer.
  - nathan_f77 10y ago
    Hahaha, that's our sense of humour. Just a joke that started on this Reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/2nem47/can_you_have_a_garden_in_new_zealand/?sort=top https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/2nem47/can_you_...
vacri 10y ago
The modern art gallery MONA in Tasmania charges for admittance, unless you're a resident of Tasmania. I've never heard anyone complain about unfair treatment there. The kind of tourist who would consider that a deal-breaker would probably be the kind of low-quality tourist you wouldn't want anyway. A tourist trap isn't "you're charged more than the locals", a tourist trap is "you're charged for crap".
- blackguardx 10y ago
  Many museums in NYC do this as well. There is a line to get in and prices on a board, but you can pay anything you want or nothing at all. They don't advertise this fact so locals only seem to know it.
  - notgood 10y ago
    It also works because you would feel like shooplifting if you pay nothing, specially if its your first time in it.
  - kwhitefoot 10y ago
    Last time I was in the British Museum (about 15 years ago I think) there was just a huge glass box in the foyer where you could put a donation. I don't know how much of the costs it covers but I saw quite a few people put substantial amounts of money in there. I paid five pounds and had a rather pricey snack in the café as well. No queue to get in.
- vinay427 10y ago
  Perhaps we have somewhat different definitions for the term. I have heard many refer to "tourist traps" or similar when talking about a store that overcharged them compared to a local, for example. I don't mean to cause confusion by the expression I used, which is why I tried to explain my justification.
developer2 10y ago
>> charge significantly more for non-citizens (in India, in this case) Out of curiosity, in India specifically, are the prices targeted at tourists truly exploitive, or are they simply in line with what we can afford in terms of currency exchange? There is a vast gap between "prices are ridiculous, even for tourists", vs. "the tourist is paying more than locals, but they're still getting a bargain or similar to what they'd pay back home". As a tourist, I don't care if I'm being singled out and paying "reasonable prices based on my wealth". I'm smart enough to "nope out of" paying $100 USD for something that should be $20 USD, but I'm not going to complain because a native is trying to earn a decent wage in their poor economy (eg: $100 USD vs. $70 USD).
- jpatokal 10y ago
  At last check, visiting (say) the Taj Mahal cost tourists 10x more than locals - but it was still only around US$10. So "exploitative" would be a stretch. Visiting Bhutan, on the other hand, incurs fees of at least US$150/day. While justified in terms of minimising impact etc, one politically convenient side effect is to ensure that tourists never interact with anybody not employed by a five-star hotel or visit places without them.
  - developer2 10y ago
    $10 to visit the Taj Mahal - oh my God, so exploitive! That's the sort of thing I was thinking of. It really isn't exploitative at all. Should it technically be free? Yes, but no first world visitor is going to be put out of their way for $10. shrug Of course, there is a huge difference between making your own way to a tourist trap, vs. being "guided" there. One should always be prepared to be scammed if one is paying someone just to travel to a given destination, vs. paying to actually enter that location by the authoritative body at an official entrance. If you're not paying someone at a physical barricade to the location, you're being scammed. Not too hard to understand.
- jeppebemad 10y ago
  Exactly. There would be no locals visiting if prices were only targeting tourists, and no attractions if prices were only targeting locals. This is of course only in cases of low income countries.

oh_sigh 10y ago

Eh...not really. Imagine an economy that was really dependent on tourism. Now imagine that tourism disappears for any reason. That economy is screwed. Tourism can play a positive role in an economy, but only up to a certain point. If your economy can't function without tourism, then you're in a bad spot.