Great Western Coffee Shop

From The BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46838307)

Ridiculous idea - why is taxing everyone/everything the default response in this country?  ::)

Wellll ... USA sales and accommodation tax is common place on top of quoted rates, though a few states do not charge it.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/fiscal-policy/state-lodging-taxes.aspx

Of course, if Theresa May wants to fund a wall between Dover and Calais to stop people crossing the channel in small, unofficial boats and putting themselves in danger, she might suggest one on a national basis.

A tourist tax is applied on Mallorca. When I went last June it was certainly more than the equivalent of £1 per night although I can't remember the exact figure

Rome had one too when I visited there and it too was more than a £ a night.

I think we pay enough tax as it is, Should wait and see what Brexit brings. The government may find they have more money and then can fund councils properly.

Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilised society.

Are we (or Bath, or anyone else) talking about taxing tourists, or visitors?

That vexatious little addition to hotel and other accommodation rates (since 1910), the French taxe de séjour has (and this is going to amaze you) loads of administrative rules, and they are all worded in terms of tourists and  tourism. It has to be used to support and promote tourism, usually going into the tourist office's budget. But there are only a few cases where a distinction is made between tourists (who pay) and non-tourists, notably for rentals (and holiday lets are legally distinct here too) or for some seasonal workers in tourism. It always gets added to your hotel bill, even in places (e.g. around Paris) where you'd have thought tourists were a small minority of hotel guests.

I think it's a little more sophisticated than that, as are the benefits of tax, and the costs -  of collecting and administering it, as well as the consequences of introducing it, but I'd be intrigued to hear how you feel that civilised society in Bath is currently sufficiently imperilled to justify this particular tax?

I don't suppose things are worse in Bath than elsewhere, but I thought you'd broadened it out into a more general question about tax. As to civilised society in Bath: to paraphrase Gandhi, I think that would be a good idea. ;)

Jolly quips aside, I accept that the whole question of tax and spending is not straightforward. I do however find it hard to understand why people's unwillingness to pay the price of living in a civilised society has made it impossible for politicians of any stripe to raise general taxation to a point where public services can be properly funded.

Bath is lucky to be in the situation where it has significant numbers of tourists to tax. Less fortunate places will have to make do with raising council taxes and business rates.

People aren't unwilling to pay tax - most have no choice anyway - personal tax revenues rise year on year, and lower taxes stimulate economic growth - Corporation tax receipts have increased, despite rates steadily falling.

You might find the concept of Laffer curves interesting.

It's more a question of Government spending decisions than the revenue they have available which is the issue.

People are unwilling to pay tax in the sense that it's incredibly rare for them to vote for higher taxes in return for better services.

Please try to understand, it's tax revenue that matters, higher tax rates do not necessarily lead to the same thing -as I pointed out, Corporation tax revenue has increased hugely despite rates being lower.

Ultimately its how the Government decides to spend this revenue that determines how and which services are "better".

Yes but we don't have the services that we once had when tax rates were higher.  Also the idea of a government winning an election of a manifesto of raising taxes has been considered laughable for a generation. 

Sorry if we want public services we are going to have to pay more tax.  There is no magic money tree (except of course when Mrs May needs to buy off the DUP).

.....or you could suggest scrapping Trident (£quarter of a trillion), and/or HS2 (£60 billion)........and use the money far better elsewhere on public services such as Health or Education for example?These are all legitimate manifesto arguments and the sort of choices Governments have to make, as well as deciding on taxation. Ultimately, it's all about choices, but you need to understand the effect that simply raising taxes has on (for example) economic growth and business investment. These issues are not, I'm afraid, as black and white as you seem to think.

You know full well the difference between revenue expenditure and capital investment.  Whatever you think of HS2 you cannot scrap it and spend the money to fund revenue on public services.

That is not just a government restriction, any listed company trying it would be in trouble very quickly.

Indeed. A small rise in the base rate of income tax would raise vastly more revenue than a large rise in the higher rates.

And revenue now is higher than when we had 'better' services...its just being spent differently (like billions extra on the ever-increasing costs of the bottomless pit that is our NHS

Healthcare everywhere is, by its nature, getting more costly as people live longer. I'm all in favour of an honest debate about that; but so often cant and ideology gets in the way.

OK I'll kick it off. People should not be allowed to live longer (except me) - I'd say that's pretty pragmatic?  :)

Badly needed nationally, I'd agree. Choices & decisions badly needed.

That's along the lines I was wondering.

Bath has lots of people who stay there in hotels and guest houses - on business trips, for a few days when working in the town, overnight when visiting friends in hospital, or when visiting friends and family who lack accommodation ("a spare room") at home.  Not tourists, but a hotel bed tax would catch them.

Bath has lots of visitors who come in for the day - it's one of the "honeypot"s for overseas guests from all over the world taking coach tours from London to Stonehenge and Bath in a day, or perhaps stopping briefly in the city on a longer trip that takes them on to the overnight stop near Stratford-upon-Avon.  Tourists, but they would not pay the hotel bed tax.

The Great West Way tourist promotion, as I understand it, has one of its objectives to even out tourism - relieve pressure on those hotspots and make use of so much else that we have that's worth seeing and would give a much better flavour of the London to Bristol corridor.  I find myself wondering if this "bed tax" in Bath would end up hitting that market with the locl authorities such as Wiltshire are encouraging, and helping turn the quick honeypot samplers into even better deals.

We then start looking at the proposed charges for diesel vehicles ... though I suspect that most of the day trip coaches are modern and clean and wouldn't have to pay; the public transport cries of "foul" seem to come from bus operators who's businesses use more mature fleets of vehicles.

Tourist taxes (they call them that generally in English) on the continent apply also to business visitors. 

£1 a night is hardly likely to be a deal-breaker for either class of visitor, is it?

There is an argument that this money should be spent on improving visitors' experience in Bath rather than going into general revenue, as seems to be proposed; in any case more visitors means more money spent in Bath, which ought to translate into more revenue for the council to spend on other things.

Bath should certainly not be complacent about its charms - it has gone out of fashion before, and could do so again. I was amused by this article in The Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/best-european-city-break-2019-visit-travel-couple-minsk-venice-arles-bristol-a8707891.html) which suggests that visitors to Bristol might find Bath a good place to sleep..!

I'm all  in favour of  taxation funding  healthcare. I  probably  had every penny I ever paid back, and a few more, when I was cured of cancer 16 years ago. Since I quit  smoking (10 years before the cancer) I have applauded every increase in tobacco duty as a way of making the miscreant pay for his own deliverance. This approach also explains why I seldom  drink to excess, unless abroad (like now).

I have paid a tourist tax in many places. Most notable is probably Venice, sinking beneath a million foreign feet a day, as cruise ships dock and disgorge a couple  of thousand day visitors who will eat dinner back on board, as the floating hotel glides along Giudecca, keel a mere metre or two above the floor, their sole contribution to the local economy being a  coffee and one of those Chinese-made masks.  The rest of the holiday population is put up
 in Air BnBs that  mean the local youngsters can never dream of being able to afford a home in the city.

Bath is close to Venice in this way although without a handy cruise port, Avonmouth being a minnow in this regard, and more somewhere to depart from than arrive to. Bath is an historic city of international importance, struggling to cope with the strains  put upon it by its visitors, and Bristol could end up that way before long. A pound a night on a £100 hotel bill would hardly  be noticed by the American  or Asian tourist, ticking the bucket list or matching friends' selfies on Instagram. It could, though, help the council to keep the place looking good without  further  taxing the people  who voted for them to run the place. Or make it less attractive for the locals to sublet their coal cellar.

Most  likely, though,  it will mean that national government will reduce whatever support it gives to the city penny for penny.

We've got two separate "topics" in one thread here. One about how much revenue can be raised, another about how happy people are to pay tax.

Must be a combined one?.

In which case, I've missed one of them. Visitors to a place have no part in the discussion about whether or not a tax is fair, proportionate, justifiable, whatever. They are beyond the democratic process, and simply choose whether to visit or not. If they do, they must dip their hands to their pockets. What use the money will be put to is not a matter for them.

Sorry about the nonsense that appeared here, cat trod on laptop.

I would not support a tax levied specifically against tourists or other visitors. Tourists spend valuable money and thereby help to create and retain local jobs.
Business visitors also encourage business.

What I would support would be a charge on fuel burning vehicles, similar in principle to the London congestion charge. That would raise useful money, whilst not penalising those visitors who use public transport.
The negative impact of such a charge on car-borne visitors would hopefully be offset by a more pleasant environment with less pollution and less congestion.