Travel Promotion Act

Frank II,

Thanks for posting that! I haven't heard anything at all about this until now.

I'm assuming that since Canadians don't require a Visa to enter the U.S., that we'll be included and therefore forced to pay this ridiculous fee.

I can state very clearly that this will NOT promote my travel to the U.S., it will prevent it! As I said before, perhaps I'll look at Cuba again.

Cheers!

I'm not sure what the article means by 'The European Union... is considering retaliating against it by charging U.S. visitors to Europe a $10 fee,' as that's not really something the EU has the power to do. That would be a decision for each country or a block decision by the Schengen countries (which of course include non-EU states).

It's possible the author really meant Schengen but, TBH, un-sourced, vague statements make my BS detector go ping. As an EU voter, although I believe in reciprocity, it's not something I'd support in practice as I suspect it would probably cost more to collect than it would bring in.

"un-sourced, vague statements make my BS detector go ping" I couldn't have said better myself!

They could be referring to comments made in this article:

EU Responds to Travel Promotion Act

Possibly - although that still doesn't say anything about the EU planning a €10/$10 tax for Americans. The closest it gets is "We are also concerned that there will be calls for Americans to pay the same fees..." They're worried some poeple might suggest it, possibly, sometime in the future...

It's a political press release full of 'maybes' and 'might dos' - it's basically a complaint about US plans, not a statement of intent. I agree with the principal but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for any EU tax. And I think people would be wise to not get too worried about hyperbole coming from travel bloggers.

The idea of promoting something by taxing it seems silly. At least when we tax tobacco or alcohol, we don't pretend it's to promote them.

On the face of it I agree with Brad, but I can sort of see where the Yanks are coming from and how it may sort of work.

In the grand scheme of things $10 on a transatlantic ticket is peanuts but from the US point of view all those $10 will add up. We already pay all sorts of things to enter the US, APHIS fees, Sept. 11 fees... the fuss will really depend on how they collect the fee and how much of a fanfare it gets.

As long as they don't do anything silly or third-world-ish like collecting cash at the border or asking for a credit card when you apply for ESTA it won;t cause too much fuss. Bury it in the ticket fee like all the other taxes, don't issue press releases on a slow news day and learn from Gordon Brown's mistake and grandfather in already issued tickets (or build in a 6 mo. lead time) and 99% of the world won't even notice. The 'blogsphere' will go mad for a day and they'll be no shortage of rants on flyertalk but play it right and most real people won't even know they've paid a fee.

Not saying I agree with the idea but I do see the logic...

I agree with Peter.

And what's $10 in the grand scheme of things FrankII?

As if that would be a deterrent to Europeans wanting to travel. Don't we pay some ridiculous amounts in VAT and we don't live in the UK/Europe?

I have a sneaking suspicion that Eli is agreeing with me sarcastically?

I kind of meant what I said though, I'd rather not pay an extra $10 but it's only about £7 in real money so it's not a deal breaker on a £400 ticket. As long as it's included in the ticket price I doubt people will notice.

If they really wanted to promote travel they'd scrap the finger prints, scans, ETSA and other general harassment, reel in the Customs officers and send all the immigration staff on a course to assure them that people aren't 'being foreign' on purpose.

P.S. As far as VAT goes I've paid my fair share of sales taxes in the states, at least you guys can claim back some of the VAT.

Peter,
asking for a credit card when you apply for ESTA

But that is exactly how it is implemented.

And while I agree that $10 are basically just a rounding error in relation with the expenses of an intercontinental trip, it is perceptions that count.

It is not as if Americas problems on the international tourism market are the result of insufficient knowledge or appreciation of American tourist destinations -- which could be remedied through such an advertising effort.

No, the problem is that the entrance procedure for non-American tourists is already perceived as a nightmarish and intrusive experience. Adding a tax on top of it only adds insult to injury.

That said I really, really don't think there will be any European "retaliation." Why hurt your own tourism industry in such hard times, just for a "tit for tat"?

And to be honest the EU has quite a few areas in which they could legitimately show some spine versus the USA (US-EU PNR, SWIFT data transfer, Open Sky, etc).

What is the big deal ??? We do it all the time. Tax the tourist. After all they do not vote locally and they have no choice but to pay. Look at the taxes added to hotel bills. My last hotel bill in Chicago had about 25% in taxes and fees. Car rentals add all kinds of special fees. I often wonder how our Europe friends respond to a quote hotel rate of $100 and find that it is really $115 to $125. And no way to judge if they have been ripped off by someone adding an extra five for his pocket. One nice thing about Europe when the hotel rate is 150 E it is 150E.

Well that's a whole different kettle of fish then!

Logically it shouldn't make a difference, $10 is $10 no matter how you pay but that's not human nature. If Mark's right then it probably will put quite a few people of travelling to the US.

It doesn't even make sense from a monetary point of view. They've already got systems in place for collecting taxes from the airlines but now they'll have to implement a whole mechanism for collecting small amounts from millions of miscellaneous foreigners!

Peter, I seriously agreed with you.

And now with Frank in CO. :-)

We are charged ridiculous taxes on hotels.

President Obama's logic, if not astute, is at least consistent.

Encourage travel to the U.S. by making people pay a fee to come here.

Brilliant.

The best incentive is already in place. If we proceed with incurring the amount of national debt President Obama has proposed, and restructure our debt service to China as proposed, the Dollar will almost certainly continue to devalue relative to the Euro.

Eli: I must be getting too cynical in my old age.

I agree about your odd way of tacking on taxes at the end. I always have a chuckle when one of 'those' posters comes along - getting all paranoid about scams or 'Gypsies' in Europe. I imagine their reaction if we tried to add taxes at the till here!

P.S. before it gets too partisan it looks to me that the bill had major support from both parties. It passed both houses with very few descenting votes. Does anyone know which party even put the bill forwards? (Assuming your laws work like that.)

"... but now they'll have to implement a whole mechanism for collecting small amounts from millions of miscellaneous foreigners ..."

Technically it is a tax per two year ESTA visa, err, permission, not a tax per visit.

So it would be difficult to hide it in the airline ticket price.

That's why my idea would be so much better. Make it a per flight tax: it's easier, causes less fuss, cheaper to implment and you can charge it more often (= more money.)

Ah, the world will work so much better when I am King...

Ken, Canadians are exempt. I read it in the Toronto Star this morning.

Just a comment.

I visited Chile last year and they charge $75 to enter. This is beacuse Chileins have to pay $75 to enter the US.

So I guess stuff like this already happen. You just pay it and count it as a trip cost.

The government is already way too big, and we're facing unprecendented deficits. Therefore, as a general rule, I'm against any new boards and new government expenditures. I don't care how it's paid for. But for the record, I think the tax is counterproductive.

Wow...I've created a monster.

And I want to apologize, I didn't post this as a question only a comment-against board rules.

Fortunately, most of you realized my intent and have commented just the same.

To answer Peter, the bill was introduce by the following:

Senate:

Senator Dorgan, (Democrat from North Dakota)
Senator Ensign (Republican from Nevada)

House:

Congressman Delahunt (Democrat from Massachussetts)
Congressman Blunt (Republican from Missouri)

As it was entered as a bipartisan bill, it would be easily passed especially since there was no cost to the U.S. taxpayer.

I guess the real problem is how to implement it as U.S. citizens and those who already pay for visas can't be charged. It might be too much to ask the airlines to try to collect it and make sure they only single out the visitors who are subject to it.

I just wonder if other countries might start doing the same thing and charge. What would stop the Schengen countries from coming together and starting a fee for visiting Americans? Granted, $10 or 10 euros isn't much....but it does make people wonder?

Lets face it...it's a lot easier for Americans to enter Schengen than it is for citizens of Schengen countries to visit the U.S. And this new "tax" just makes it seem less inviting to visit here.

Another great example of government logic. And as others have hinted, it completely ignores the elephant in the room of all the post-9/11 security hassles. Taxing visitors is nothing new. That's the reason Florida has no state income tax. The state's biggest source of revenue is hotel taxes. This doesn't seem to be too much of deterant to visit the Sunshine State.

How about charging for the Smithsonian and other DC museums? I go to Paris, they don't let me wander into the Louvre for free.

Yes I know there are exceptions (i.e. London)...

Taxes already add up. As an example, a round trip flight to Copenhagen from DC this summer is $575. That's right, $575. It's a great deal and I'm sure lots of people would travel at that prices.

When you look it up, however, the actual price for the ticket is $940. The difference? $365 in taxes and fees (63% of the ticket price).

If we really wanted to promote travel to the US, maybe we could work on removing some of the taxes and fees Peter referred to so it becomes a good deal to fly here. It wouldn't hurt to have friendlier customs either (but it's hard to balance that with people who are willing to blow themselves up in hopes of killing some westerners).

Forget the new tax! Marketing the U.S. to prospective tourists is fine, but perhaps we could just borrow an extra two-hundred million dollars per year from the Chinese like we normally do to fund the rest of our budget instead of shaking down Germans for ten bucks. Another option might be to add an extra fee (sort of a cost of borrowing) to the corporations who received hundreds of billions in taxpayer-funded bailout money and divert it to this program. Here’s a really crazy idea…expand the visa waiver program so that people from places like Poland, Greece, and Croatia can more easily visit the U.S. And finally, couldn’t we do something to make entry a little less painful while maintaining an acceptable level of security? I mean, it’s not pleasant even for U.S. citizens wishing to return home from holiday. How about eliminating the passenger manifest paperwork that we must submit at the gate and diverting the savings to this program? That’s just one, simple step that could probably fund this marketing program for years.

Michael, I'm somewhat shocked that you'd even consider taking money away from those poor corporations we bail out. Here are two main reasons that it would be a bad idea:

1) The poor executives would see their multi-million dollar bonuses lowered. How can they afford all their unnecessary luxuries if we don't give them all that money for doing nothing.

2) If we take money from the corporations, it would mean less money for them to buy off Congress. Especially now that the Supreme Court has given them carte blanche to spend as much as necessary to get their candidates elected.

I like Peter's articulations, dated March 5, at 1:22 A.M. and at 5:03 AM and at 5:31 AM and at 8:08 A.M.
I enjoyed reading Frank II's snide comment, dated March 9. (I also enjoy reading parts of MAD magazine).