|
They have jacked up berthing fees. Hence cruises moving to Ijmuiden and Rotterdam. The tourist tax is aimed at those flying in or arriving by ferry or train. It helps cut down on the numbers of stag dos and the like that make the place even more unbearable.
It isn't unique to Amsterdam, or the Netherlands. At least they aren't (yet) charging day visitors as Venice has suggested doing. Tourists put the whole infrastucure of a city under pressure, and some of the money goes towards supporting public transport (Amsterdam has cheap public transport compared to much of the country), maintaining the roads, helping maintain public buildings and museums. I can't see what the problem is with a tourist tax, or the rate Amsterdam is charging. The simple answer is if you don't like it go somewhere where you won't pay tourist tax or whatever the next tourist destination wishes to call it. |
I said I don't have a problem with those taxes.
But obviously they are raising a large amount of money. If they really wanted to cut down on the number of tourists they could raise the taxes by a lot more than they have. But they're doing it incrementally, suggesting the motive is to keep those tourist tax revenues coming in, not to reduce the number of tourists so much that revenues from tourism and those tourist taxes are drastically cut. |
"Tourism costs Amsterdam more than it can profit from tourism revenues."
Is there a study proving this? I know that Amsterdam is suffering from overtourism, but it's hard to believe it's not profitable. "The rise in tourist taxes was partly to scare away cruise companies, forcing them to IJmuiden and Rotterdam instead" But I guess most cuise tourists will get bussed in to Amsterdam anyway at least from Ijmuiden. (From Rotterdam they probably go to the Kinderdijk and Delft) "The tourist tax is aimed at those flying in or arriving by ferry or train." What about those who arrrive by car, bus, bicycle? Everyone pays the tourist tax who stays in a hotel/accommodation, not?: "At least they aren't (yet) charging day visitors as Venice has suggested doing." Venice could easily implement this because of her unique geography. They have to erect only a few barrier gates/checkpoints. How would you collect and check it in Amsterdam? You could charge those staying in hotels, but not the daytrippers. "It helps cut down on the numbers of stag dos and the like that make the place even more unbearable." Has it really helped in cutting down the number of stag dos? I mean if they spend hundreds of euros on stag do a few euros of tourist tax won't chnage their mind. Those who are after cheap stag dos already go to other cities. "If they really wanted to cut down on the number of tourists they could raise the taxes by a lot more than they have." I don't think that's the right way. It would give the message that Amsterdam is welcoming only the rich tourists. Amsterdam is a World Heritage Site and everyone should have the opportunity to see the masterpieces of Van Gogh and Rembrandt regardless of financial situation. |
Originally Posted by hetismij2
(Post 16992534)
They have jacked up berthing fees. Hence cruises moving to Ijmuiden and Rotterdam. The tourist tax is aimed at those flying in or arriving by ferry or train. It helps cut down on the numbers of stag dos and the like that make the place even more unbearable.
It isn't unique to Amsterdam, or the Netherlands. At least they aren't (yet) charging day visitors as Venice has suggested doing. Tourists put the whole infrastucure of a city under pressure, and some of the money goes towards supporting public transport (Amsterdam has cheap public transport compared to much of the country), maintaining the roads, helping maintain public buildings and museums. I can't see what the problem is with a tourist tax, or the rate Amsterdam is charging. The simple answer is if you don't like it go somewhere where you won't pay tourist tax or whatever the next tourist destination wishes to call it. |
3 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by BDKR
(Post 16992646)
"Tourism costs Amsterdam more than it can profit from tourism revenues."
Is there a study proving this? I know that Amsterdam is suffering from overtourism, but it's hard to believe it's not profitable. >>>see the links, they're in Dutch, but google translate will help "The rise in tourist taxes was partly to scare away cruise companies, forcing them to IJmuiden and Rotterdam instead" But I guess most cuise tourists will get bussed in to Amsterdam anyway at least from Ijmuiden. (From Rotterdam they probably go to the Kinderdijk and Delft) >>> No "The tourist tax is aimed at those flying in or arriving by ferry or train." What about those who arrrive by car, bus, bicycle? Everyone pays the tourist tax who stays in a hotel/accommodation, not?: "At least they aren't (yet) charging day visitors as Venice has suggested doing." Venice could easily implement this because of her unique geography. They have to erect only a few barrier gates/checkpoints. How would you collect and check it in Amsterdam? You could charge those staying in hotels, but not the daytrippers. >>> do something with geolocation on people's phones, I guess. "It helps cut down on the numbers of stag dos and the like that make the place even more unbearable." Has it really helped in cutting down the number of stag dos? I mean if they spend hundreds of euros on stag do a few euros of tourist tax won't chnage their mind. Those who are after cheap stag dos already go to other cities. >>>Not really "If they really wanted to cut down on the number of tourists they could raise the taxes by a lot more than they have." I don't think that's the right way. It would give the message that Amsterdam is welcoming only the rich tourists. Amsterdam is a World Heritage Site and everyone should have the opportunity to see the masterpieces of Van Gogh and Rembrandt regardless of financial situation. https://nos.nl/artikel/2174718-koste...t-noorden.html Attachment 3038 https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/01/18...ort-2-a3650794 https://geografie.nl/artikel/leefbaa...isme-amsterdam https://www.groene.nl/artikel/oproll...-rotkoffertjes |
If you want to avoid the tax, stay outside the ring road, then all you need is daily bus/tram/ferry/metro ticket which you will probably need anyway if you want to get around.
|
Originally Posted by menachem
(Post 16992488)
Tourism costs Amsterdam more than it can profit from tourism revenues.
If I read the article from the Green party correctly, this reflects only the ratio of costs versus direct revenues of some 60 million euros from the tourist tax (not tourism related revenues) and canal cruise levy. The total turnover of what tourists or visitors spend in Amsterdam is estimated between 6.3 and 9.7 billion euros per year (depending on which statistic you believe). While obviously turnover does not equal profit, it looks like a much more sensible number to take into consideration than just the tourist tax. And while it is true that lots of revenues go to multi-national corporations which save more taxes offshore than what they pay locally, any European "high street" is full of the same range of multi-national chains so this is not something really unique. In addition, the corporate tax regime of the Netherlands itself is also, ahem, quite creative compared with other countries. VAT on tourist expenditures should be relevant with up to 20? percent going to the treasury or national budget and should be part of the calculation. Which raises the question if Amsterdam is not carrying the burden for the whole region or province and should be compensated or helped in some way. Finally, as foreign tourists make up only half of all visitors you could also ask yourself how much impact even a meaningful reduction of hostels by, for example, 20 percent would have when at the same time the metropolitan area is growing and more and more residents of neighboring "sleep cities" use Amsterdam as their logical destination for dining, pub crawls, or any other leisure time activities. |
Originally Posted by Cowboy1968
(Post 16992804)
Are you sure?
If I read the article from the Green party correctly, this reflects only the ratio of costs versus direct revenues of some 60 million euros from the tourist tax (not tourism related revenues) and canal cruise levy. The total turnover of what tourists or visitors spend in Amsterdam is estimated between 6.3 and 9.7 billion euros per year (depending on which statistic you believe). While obviously turnover does not equal profit, it looks like a much more sensible number to take into consideration than just the tourist tax.) And while it is true that lots of revenues go to multi-national corporations which save more taxes offshore than what they pay locally, any European "high street" is full of the same range of multi-national chains so this is not something really unique. In addition, the corporate tax regime of the Netherlands itself is also, ahem, quite creative compared with other countries. VAT on tourist expenditures should be relevant with up to 20? percent going to the treasury or national budget and should be part of the calculation. Which raises the question if Amsterdam is not carrying the burden for the whole region or province and should be compensated or helped in some way. Finally, as foreign tourists make up only half of all visitors you could also ask yourself how much impact even a meaningful reduction of hostels by, for example, 20 percent would have when at the same time the metropolitan area is growing and more and more residents of neighboring "sleep cities" use Amsterdam as their logical destination for dining, pub crawls, or any other leisure time activities. De Groene Amsterdammer is a respectable topical weekly that has existed for over a century. The intention of the current city government is to curb tourism (slightly). There now is a big debate on the future of the RLD as RLD. Which sleep cities do you mean btw? Almere? Point is: short lets, an increasing expat pressure on the housing market and overtourism are creating the perfect storm, while the positive outcomes for the city are very limited at best, or realistically, non-existent. (For instance, in many earlier studies, booking.com, which has its head office in Amsterdam was counted as being "in the Amsterdam tourism business" and so its revenue was duly added to the "tourism surplus" that makes the tourism balagan worthwhile. |
Originally Posted by bilboburgler
(Post 16992799)
If you want to avoid the tax, stay outside the ring road, then all you need is daily bus/tram/ferry/metro ticket which you will probably need anyway if you want to get around.
|
Originally Posted by menachem
(Post 16993746)
In that case I would choose Leiden, Haarlem or Utrecht or possibly, Rotterdam as much better options.
|
Originally Posted by bilboburgler
(Post 16993748)
I agree Haarlem (about 10 minutes on the train) and Utrecht are good stays (not been to the other two. But then you have to buy train tickets as well as internal Amsterdam tickets. Both ideas are good.
As if those are not great places to stay in their own right. |
Love, love, love Rotterdam, and such an easy trip from Amsterdam.
|
"I agree Haarlem (about 10 minutes on the train) and Utrecht are good stays (not been to the other two. But then you have to buy train tickets as well as internal Amsterdam tickets."
You don't need to buy separate tickets, it's all on the OV-Chipkaart. In case you think the OV-Chipkaart is not worth for you for a short stay it may be worth to buy the Amsterdam and Region Travel Ticket covering Haarlem(but not Utrecht), I'm not sure if that's the cheapest solution if all you want is commuting from Haarlem to Amsterdam(you have to do the math), but it looks like a great deal if you do a couple of other trips in the region. By the way, I think this ticket is a great tool to encourage tourists to visit places outside Amsterdam. https://www.iamsterdam.com/en/plan-y...-travel-ticket It covers a wide area around Amsterdam and you could do daytrips to visit such interesting places, not crowded with hordes of tourists. Like the house of Peter the Great(the Russian Tsar) in Zaandam. It is a must see for travellers who are a fan of Russia like user bilboburgler. ;-) IMHO, it looks much more interesting than the overrated AFH in Amsterdam, not crowded, cheap and you don't have to book a ticket to get in without queuing for hours. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czar_P..._(Netherlands) |
" Like the house of Peter the Great(the Russian Tsar) in Zaandam. It is a must see for travellers who are a fan of Russia like user bilboburgler. ;-) "
You may be a Russian Troll but you made me smile. Nothing wrong with Russia. Why do I have a problem with Putin, oh so many reasons, lets just trip over one. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43315636 |
OFF
If you care to take a look at my contributions on this forum(mostly the Europe branch) you could see that I'm not a troll(and not Russian, that's also not a secret where I'm from). There is nothing wrong with having a problem with Putin, millions of Russians think like you and I'm glad that you say "nothing wrong with Russia". From 1 or 2 of your comments(few months ago, already deleted I think) it seemed to me you had a problem with Russia and not only the regime. When you suggested that travellers shouldn't visit Russia, because of the regime. I sense you have an intense dislike against Putin and the current Russian regime. Perhaps you should diversify your sources of information. It probably won't change your mind completely, but it may help to see less in terms of black or white. |
I'm not sure how your defence of a warmongering killer is helping the OP understand Dutch tourist tax.
But let's not fight, I think you are a Troll you state you are not, we should agree to disagree. |
Originally Posted by bilboburgler
(Post 16994503)
I'm not sure how your defence of a warmongering killer is helping the OP understand Dutch tourist tax.
But let's not fight, I think you are a Troll you state you are not, we should agree to disagree. |
He had a huge impact on the history of Russia and the world. She is only a symbolic figure.
I was not comparing the persons though, but the 2 attractions of Amsterdam and its region |
"I'm not sure how your defence of a warmongering killer is helping the OP understand Dutch tourist tax."
I didn't say a word about Tony Blair, did I. |
Originally Posted by BDKR
(Post 16994568)
He had a huge impact on the history of Russia and the world. She is only a symbolic figure.
I was not comparing the persons though, but the 2 attractions of Amsterdam and its region The Czar Peter house is hardly "an attraction of Amsterdam" (and its region) It's a minor sight of a minor sight and not this big cultural landmark. I believe Eyse Eysinga's planitarium up in Franeker is of greater importance. (near the "Amsterdam Islands") |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:05 PM. |