We pay it abroad without questioning it. Couple of quid a night per adult. Every foreign place I’ve been with it hasn’t charged it to under 18s.

I’ve voted no view either way, it needs to be spent correctly.

Geneva for example it goes to covering free city travel for overnight guests, brilliant use of the funds raised.

 

Hotels do indeed pay for energy and water used, at the "going rate" At present they do not pay the capital costs involved in meeting the increased demand (new reservoirs, and treatment works, new substations and generating plant)

 

Agreed.  I have been trying to quantify hotel rooms / overnight guests in Wiltshire and it's not an easy piece of research!.   

https://www.visitwiltshire.co.uk/dbimgs/Press%20Release%20-%20ACCOMODATION%20REPORT%20HAS%20REVEALED%20SALISBURYS%20POTENTIAL%20FOR%20FUTURE%20INVESTMENT%20AND%20DEVELOPMENT%20-%20FINAL(1).pdf


Out of date, and just one part of the county. A 20 year old study suggests that 10% are business visitors.

6500 bed spaces, 75% occupancy, suggests about 1.5 to 1.7 million taxable overnight stays per annum within 10 miles of Salisbury a decade ago ...

>>> 6500 * .75 * .9 * 365
1601437.5

Let's call that £3 million income, with goodness only knows what proportion of that being spent on the actual collection.

Interesting to note figures of about 1.3 million per annum visiting Stonehenge - goodness only knows what proportion of them are day visitors to the county, what proportion stay locally, and indeed how many are local residents in the council tax catchment anyway.

All these thoughts ignore age issues - and on a recent visit to Stonehenge, I noted a high proportion of school / college groups ...

 
The general idea in France, at least, is specifically to cover some of the extra costs incurred by the local authority - roads and parking, cleaning and rubbish bins, and the like. Otherwise these are paid by the residents, only a few of whom make money off those visitors which could be taxed as an alternative.

That's not all their costs for visitors, and in some places day trippers (who don't pay it) are more important. But that's just a further problem, as yet unsolved. The visitor tax is seen as addressing part of the shortfall, at least.

However, I don't think that is why it's found favour with Andy and his supporters in Andyland (Andymia?). I think its real attraction as something to do at once is that it is (and can only really be) a local tax, paid to local government. And devolution is one of his Big Ideas, perhaps the biggest, and needs a lot of locally raised government revenue.

Since the plan requires local taxes, set and controlled locally, a block grant doesn't have the right look and feel. Shifting existing taxes over (or down) to local level will not be easy, involving undoing current arrangements to remake them, and replacing lost revenu in some cases.

So a new tax is more attractive, even if it is quite small in revenue terms and so makes almost no contribution to the financial autonomy of local governments. The idea's the thing! But I don't think the need or desire to tax visitors because they must have money to be taxed is important here.

 
It's widely used abroad, providing it is used to recoup some of the costs associated with discretionary expenditure on leisure stays I'm fine. It must however be reclaimable by business travellers and contractors engaged on construction and maintenance. Additionally virtually all of the take must go to the relevant local authority and not added to central funds and distributed by central government. There are many documented cases of visitors to Cornwall staying in self catering accomodation arriving with their food and not contributing in any way to the area of their holiday. If these are captured it'll be a good thing.

 
I have posted further comment - as both a hotel user and a past hotel operator - at https://grahamellis.uk/blog2041.html

 

Hotels already pay for the water and energy they use.  Roads, car parks, public transport more arguable.

 
I would support this tax, provided that it is confined to limited areas that are very popular with visitors and therefore prone to overcrowding.
Hotels use a lot of water and energy and should contribute to the capital costs of providing this.
Similar arguments apply to roads, car parks, and public transport.

 
It's not as if our politicos don't already have their hands deep enough into our pockets and then find ways to waste what they've extracted

 
That's a definite 'No' from me. I wouldn't object quite so much if the government wasn't wasting lots of our money elsewhere.

 

A regressive tax is structured so that individuals with lower incomes pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes compared to higher-income individuals, even if the absolute amount paid is the same. It does not consider the person's ability to pay.

This tax is a textbook example of a regressive tax.

 
I would object strongly; it feels very unwelcoming. When I spend time somewhere I'm already contributing to the local economy and employment whenever I spend any money. I will almost certainly be spending more per day on many things (eating out, entertainment, attractions) than the locals do.  Not my fault if the current tax regime doesn't pass that on effectively, and why charge overnight visitors but not those who just come for the day, except that they are an easy target?

On a related note, my local council gives reduced car park rates to us residents.  That does make me a little uncomfortable and feels Little Britain-ish ("local car parks for local people").  Don't we want to encourage people from elsewhere to come into the borough to spend their money here and help our local economy?  It also does nothing to encourage local residents to leave their car at home and use our pretty good public transport (outer W London) or walk/cycle for those local journeys.

PS Going somewhere on holiday in the UK isn't a staycation!  For me it's a perfectly normal holiday, abroad being very much the exception as I haven't run out of UK places I want to see for the first time or return to.

 

I don't doubt your views, but is it really regressive? Pay per head 'x-amount' is equal, and therefore is neither progressive nor regressive.

 

And here is the paperwork example for Zittau from last week ... 2 night stay, 2 adults 2x2=4 pages like this to complete



On a previous visit, I can recall being "let off" - "it doesn't apply" when I admitted to being there partly to see how they do public transport - "learning".  Ironically, I actually wanted to pay to get my local bus pass!

 
For comparison, the French taxe de séjour can be set by each commune within a nationally defined range. For hotels it is (this year) 0.5€ to 1.7€ for 3 star, from about half to double that for 1-5 star. It's paid via the hotel per night and per adult - none for under-18s. Things like camping, gites, and moorings are less. The list I've found does not have holiday rentals - my memory suggests it was similar to the 2 star rate.

It is still defined as for tourists, and while the range of places than can use it has been broadened it is still not available to everywhere. There are a lot of exclusions, e.g. for seasonal staff in resorts.

 
It's a firm "No" from me.

It would seem this Government is doing its level best to destroy the hospitality sector already, the last thing it needs is another regressive tax.

 

Indeed - my "bad" in the subject line.  It is per head per night where I have seen and paid it.

 

That's a Body Tax, not a room tax.

 
yep, that is likely to be right

 

A family of 4 staying 13 nights at £2 per night each would cost £104.

 
Sky News, inventing a headline? 

 
Intrigued to know where the figure of £100 came from…

 
I have voted, thinking about Edinburgh in particular (where I have stayed in hotels many times there, years ago).

I don't think there should be another 'hotel room tax', as it would only serve to reduce the attractiveness of such a tourist venue.  They already have to pay substantial amounts of business tax, after all.

Those peripheral benefits of discounts on various tourist attractions would be irrelevant to me: I was there for an overnight stay to attend two-day business meetings.

CfN. 

 
I have voted - in favour - in my own poll.  I would prefer there not to be a "hotel room tax" - however, it makes sense to help the local authorities pay for the extra support needed by all the extra people around from things as basic as clearing the litter bins and providing more road crossings for the crowds in the town.

In some towns such as Rostock and Zittau, the room tax also brings you things like a pass to use on local public transport or a discount at local attractions. And, yes, used in Rostock to catch the bus without having to work out how to buy a ticket.

 
Looks like it - although at least Scotland already have this - Edinburgh has already implemented it for this summer's trade.

Maybe what's intended is that this tax is levied by mayors, not Government, and mayors get to spend it.

 
From Sky News


That refers to https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rewiring-the-state-cabinet-statement/rewiring-the-state-cabinet-statement-html which includes a very long and potentially very plan setting agenda.  Deep in it


In our travels over this spring / summer, we have become very used to paying a handful of Euros or other local currency per person per night as a local room tax - is this what the proposal is suggesting for the UK?