Higher prices for tourists are becoming the norm – and Britain should get in on the act
For all their quirks, you can't fault the Japanese for their common sense. As a case in point, just look at the mayor of Kyoto, Koji Matsui, who recently announced that he is considering a higher price for tourists using the city's increasingly congested public transport network.
With Japan facing a huge increase in tourism in recent years, Matsui-san isn't the only one looking to take steps to make visitors pay a little bit more in order to compensate for the cheaper yen. Reports of Japanese restaurants and bars charging higher prices for foreigners have been rife in recent years, with the best deals reserved for those able to order from a Japanese-language menu.
While dual pricing remains somewhat of a taboo, some Japanese establishments have begun defending the practice – although not for the reason you might expect. One Tokyo restaurateur, Shogo Yonemitsu, told journalists that the extra charge (around £5) levied on non-locals was justified given that tourists very rarely spoke any Japanese and, thus, required extra attention from the service staff.
You can't fault the logic there. But is the extra reasoning really necessary? Surely, two-tier pricing can be justified on the much simpler basis that charging extra for tourists – particularly those benefiting from a steep currency discount – is a good idea in its own right and almost always morally justified to boot.
There's a reason that the practice is widespread across much of what development-types like to call the Global South. Attractions from the Giza Pyramids and the Taj Mahal to Machu Picchu have offered discounted prices for locals for decades. Sometimes the gap can be steep: at Galápagos National Park in Ecuador, Westerners can expect to pay five times as much as locals – and quite rightly so.
Traditionally, two-tier pricing has been justified by the imbalance in purchasing power. But now, the practice is increasingly being adopted by richer countries too. Just last month, no less a figure than President Macron of France announced plans to fund the upkeep of the Louvre by charging higher entrance fees to non-EU nationals – including Britons – from next year.
The Louvre isn't alone on that front. The Alhambra palace in Spain and the Acropolis in Athens both operate a similar system, with discounted prices for locals and other EU nationals. (In case you're curious, the inclusion of 'other EU nationals' is to keep on the right side of Brussels' law, which forbids countries from discriminating against their fellow EU citizens).
While the practice is less established in the US, it is starting to make an appearance in those States which attract the lion's share of tourists. In New York, locals visiting The Met gallery are encouraged to make a voluntary donation, for example, but are exempt from the usual $30 entry fee. Meanwhile, Disneyland has long offered discounted deals for Florida residents.
Across the world, then, the picture is clear: higher prices for tourists are becoming the norm. And while we may grumble about having to pay our Brexit premium to see the Mona Lisa, perhaps we should be directing our energies to a much bigger question: isn't it time that Britain got in on the game?
Anyone who spends time in London will be painfully aware that tourism numbers have been surging in recent years. According to the latest available figures, our capital city welcomed some 10.4 million international visitors in the first half of 2024. That's a 10 per cent increase since 2023 and 5 per cent more than in 2019, the last year of the pre-pandemic, pre-inflation world economy.
Of course, more visitors means more money for businesses and government coffers alike. But that doesn't mean these levels of tourism don't bring their downsides. By some estimates, more than 1 in 100 homes within the capital has been converted into an Airbnb, meaning higher rents for those who actually live and work in the city.
Then there are the specific cases where charging tourists is the only moral course of action. Take museums, for example. Free entry for those living in Britain makes sense, given that the vast majority of us contribute to their upkeep through taxation. But why should international visitors get to see the wonders of the British Museum without paying a penny?
The museum's outgoing interim director, Mark Jones, made a similar point last year. 'It would make sense for us to charge overseas visitors for admission to museums, as they charge us when we visit their museums,' he told The Sunday Times. You can apply the same logic to our glorious national parks, some of which, like Snowdonia, have seen a massive surge in visitors since the pandemic.
But rather than charge tourists more, Britain has a tendency to adopt systems which do the opposite – even if it is usually unintentional. Take the zone system on the London Underground, where longer journeys cost more. It may sound like common sense, but it also means that commuters end up shelling out more of their cash in order to subsidise tourists zipping between St Paul's and Oxford Circus.
Nor should we lose sight of the fact that many of the tourists flocking to the Royal Mile or Covent Garden wouldn't wince at paying extra. They clearly haven't been put off by the already grossly inflated hotel prices in London and Edinburgh. Not to mention the fact that many of them are coming from the States, and are thus already saving money due to the stronger dollar.
It's true that introducing tourist premium prices would require a bit of thinking. Flashing a British passport would be the obvious option, but that doesn't account for the large number of non-UK nationals living and working here. Needless to say, having the British Museum ask people to produce evidence of a recent gas bill would be infinitely stupider than the current system.
But even with those wrinkles, I'm increasingly convinced that it's time the UK followed both Japan and France in squeezing a little extra from our international visitors.
It might not be the way we've done things historically, but the wind is clearly blowing in one direction – and there are no prizes to be had standing in its way.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Slovakia will veto Russian sanctions if they harm national interests, Fico says
Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico said on June 8 that Slovakia will block EU sanctions against Russia if they are deemed to harm the country's national interests. "If there is a sanction that would harm us, I will never vote for it," Fico told reporters. Fico's comments come as Slovakia's parliament passed a resolution on June 5 urging the government to oppose any new international sanctions or trade restrictions against Russia, citing alleged negative economic impacts. The non-binding resolution argues that the sanctions imposed in response to Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine have driven up energy prices, disrupted supply chains, and harmed Slovak industry. The resolution calls on government ministers to 'defend national economic interests' in international forums and resist further punitive measures targeting Moscow. Since taking office in 2023, Fico has reversed Slovakia's previous pro-Ukraine policy, ending military aid to Kyiv and questioning the value of EU sanctions on Russia. EU foreign policy decisions, including sanctions, require unanimous approval by all member states. A Slovak veto could force concessions or delay enforcement in future rounds. Unlike Ukraine-skeptic Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban who has repeatedly obstructed and delayed the bloc's sanctions against Russia and military aid for Ukraine, Slovakia has not previously attempted to block EU sanctions. "I am interested in being a constructive player in the European Union, but not at the expense of Slovakia," Fico said, without elaborating on how he will vote on any upcoming EU sanctions packages. Fico added that he would not support any measure that halts Russian fuel imports that are used to power Slovakia's nuclear power plants. Discussions are underway as the EU is preparing an 18th sanctions package against Russia. EU ambassadors on May 14 agreed on the bloc's 17th package of sanctions against Russia, primarily targeting its shadow fleet of oil tankers. Ukraine's European allies are tightening sanctions against Russia as Moscow refuses to cease fire. Despite Russia's refusal, no new U.S. sanctions have been imposed so far. Read also: After 3 years of full-scale war in Ukraine, Europe announces plan to ban all Russian gas imports We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why do concert tickets cost so much these days? And is it all Ticketmaster's fault?
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Concert ticket prices have risen sharply in recent years. Arena gig tickets have more than doubled, in real terms, since the turn of the century. For the biggest artists, increases have been bigger still. A basic standing ticket to see Oasis at Wembley Stadium on their last tour, in 2009, cost £44 (around £70 adjusted for inflation). The official price, when tickets for the Wembley gig in July went on sale, was £151. The average ticket for Taylor Swift's Eras tour in the UK was £206. This has become a political issue, and at the centre of the debate is the role of the world's largest ticket sales company, Ticketmaster, responsible for both these tours. The UK competition regulator launched an investigation into its sale of Oasis tickets, in particular into the use of "dynamic pricing". In March, President Trump signed an executive order promising "to bring common-sense reforms" to ticket sellers in America's live entertainment industry. If not a monopoly player, it's a near-monopoly, controlling more than 75% of concert ticket sales at major venues in the US, and about 60% in the UK. In 2010 it merged with the world's largest live events company, Live Nation, which controls more than 265 concert venues in the US; and owns or part-owns the Academy Music Group chain of venues, and festivals from Reading to Latitude, in the UK. Live Nation, now Ticketmaster's parent company, is also a major promoter (organising, funding and publicising music events), which promoted 54,000 events last year. It manages artists, too; and it's a big player in advertising and sponsorship, event parking, food and drink sales, merchandise and security. The US Department of Justice describes it as a "live entertainment ecosystem"; Liam Byrne MP, chair of the Commons Business Committee, says it has "more arms than an octopus". Live Nation "has faced allegations of predatory pricing, misleading fees, restrictive contracts, technical blunders, suppressing or colluding with competitors and generally abusing its monopolistic power", said Dorian Lynskey in The Guardian. Fans struggle to get tickets for big events, often facing technical problems, and long online queues; its app is notoriously awful and glitchy. Pricing is opaque. Which? has complained about the "drip pricing" of extra fees – on a £45 ticket, you might get a £6.10 service charge, a £1.75 facility charge, and a £2.75 order processing fee – making it hard to estimate the final price. As a result, Ticketmaster is very unpopular among fans. The country musician Zach Bryan released a live album called "All My Homies Hate Ticketmaster". A poll for More in Common found that 58% of Britons would like to see it nationalised. Michael Rapino, chief executive of Live Nation, claims that big concerts are still "massively underpriced". He may have a point. Demand is often high, and supply is limited. An estimated ten million fans wanted tickets for Oasis, so they could have been priced much higher, and still sold out. A live concert is a special experience; people, even on modest incomes, will pay large sums to see acts they love. And many forces have contributed to price rises. The internet has reduced music sales, so artists now depend on concert fees for nearly all of their income; big artists insist on a high proportion of the revenue from ticket sales. Shows have become more spectacular and expensive to stage. Inflation has been high, and VAT is 20%. The ticket price is shared between, in rough order: artist (including crew, transport etc.), venue, VAT, promoter and ticket seller. Ticketmaster – or a rival such as AEG – might pick up 10% of the total price. Live Nation says its ticket profit margins are less than 2%. Finally, "scalping" can also drive up prices. In the early 2000s, sites such as StubHub launched as legitimate platforms for fans to resell unwanted tickets. But many have been exploited by touts, who buy large numbers of tickets to resell at inflated prices. The problem has been made worse by scalper "bots", which bombard ticketing sites with purchases destined for resale. Such bots are illegal in the UK, but are hard to police. No. Last May, the US Justice Department filed an anti-monopoly suit against Live Nation; the then assistant attorney general, Doha Mekki, claimed that Ticketmaster is rife with "abuse, exploitation and self-dealing". The case is ongoing; it has been reported that it may try to break up the company. The UK Competition and Markets Authority found that Ticketmaster and Live Nation may have breached consumer laws by selling Oasis tickets at almost 2.5 times the standard price, without explaining that they came with no additional benefits, and by demanding a higher price than initially quoted after a lengthy queuing process. Many artists – Bruce Springsteen, Taylor Swift, Neil Young – have complained publicly about Ticketmaster. As far back as the 1990s, the US rock band Pearl Jam tried to organise a tour without using the company, but concluded that it was nearly impossible. There are, though, things that artists with substantial followings can do. They can reject dynamic pricing, as Coldplay and Neil Young have done. Or they can go further, like The Cure's Robert Smith. On The Cure's last tour, not only was dynamic pricing rejected, but tickets were priced at as little as £16, and resale was prohibited. Arguably, says Dorian Lynksey, Smith "made things awkward for artists by proving that they set the prices and dictate the conditions" – though they are happy for Ticketmaster to take the blame.


Bloomberg
8 hours ago
- Bloomberg
How Does the UK's New Tax Policy Affect Where the Ultra Wealthy Live?
The end of the non-dom rule is sending millionaire Britons to new cities in the EU, but is it really a wealth exodus? (Source: Bloomberg)