Travelling to France to get more expensive: Ticket prices for museums set to increase; check how much it will cost
French authorities believe that international visitors, especially those travelling from far-off countries, will still pay to see iconic places or enjoy Paris views.
The plan aims to help cover rising costs and reduce pressure on government funding. At Versailles alone, non-EU visitors make up 42% of the 8 million annual tourists. The site regularly needs money for repairs.
French President Emmanuel Macron confirmed in January that a new pricing model would be introduced. Foreigners from outside the EU would pay more than Europeans, he said. More museums and historical places could adopt this rule from 2027.
However, it is not yet clear whether this rule will also apply to non-EU residents living in France. The full legal details are still awaited.
Currently, some discount schemes exist. There's free entry for EU citizens under 26. The privilege is also given to non-EU residents if they have a valid EU residency card.
This new rule will only apply to tourist spots that are owned and managed by the French government. It will include many of the country's top attractions.
Each museum or attraction in France decides its own ticket prices and any changes to them. This means prices can vary depending on the place you visit. Any future increase is up to the management of each site.
Currently, a standard adult ticket without discounts costs €22 ( ₹ 2,131) at the Louvre. At Versailles, it's €21 ( ₹ 2,034) for the château, €15 ( ₹ 1,453) for the gardens only or €32 ( ₹ 3,100) for full access including the Trianon.
Chambord charges €19 ( ₹ 1,840) while the Arc de Triomphe costs €16 ( ₹ 1,550) for access to the top. However, the base is free to all.
The Conciergerie costs €13 ( ₹ 1,260) though some exhibitions may have extra charges. At the Opéra Garnier, ticket prices depend on the show and seating, ranging from €35 ( ₹ 3,390) to €175 ( ₹ 17,000).
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
23 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Visiting London? You should pay a tourist tax
iStock Taxes have always been as inevitable as death. In Rachel Reeves' Britain, it's looking like tax increases are now as unavoidable as the grim reaper. The chancellor must find billions of pounds to fill a black hole in the public finances before the autumn budget. So far, she has proven unable to cut public spending thanks to a series of rebellions by Labour MPs. And Keir Starmer's 'defining mission' of making the sums add up by turbocharging growth has also been stymied, partly by Reeves' move to hike national insurance for employers in her last budget. GDP figures out Thursday are expected to show an anemic 0.1% increase for the second quarter of leaves taxes and, having ruled out increasing the burden on 'working people,' Reeves and her team are spending the summer eying other sources of cash. One idea being pushed by some in Westminster is a tourist tax. It's worth taking seriously, both for the potential to raise some much-needed revenue and as a driver of growth. ALSO READ: Indians among dozens held in UK work raids A stroll around the center of London on a warm August day this week confirms there's plenty of scope. Crowds were 10 deep outside Buckingham Palace and, inside, visitors of various ages and nationalities were glued to audio guides as they gawped at the King's riches before stopping off for a cream tea in the cafe. London was the third most popular destination in the world in terms of international arrivals last year and third for tourist dollars spent in 2023. An estimated 43 million foreign visitors are expected this year and are anticipated to collectively spend £33.7 billion ($45.7 billion), according to VisitBritain. That's not including business travelers and domestic visitors, who may or may not be caught by a potential tax, depending on how it's levied. ALSO READ: UK emerges as bright spot for Indian students Among the most world's most popular tourist destinations, London is rare in not already levying a tax on hotel stays. From Tokyo to Barcelona, New York to Amsterdam, the additional nightly charge is a familiar, if mildly irritating, sight on hotel bills. As Sadiq Khan, London's mayor who favors a tourist tax, put it, most travelers: 'don't really mind paying the few extra euros' when they visit cities such as Paris and is said to disagree, reportedly squashing proposals by Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner to introduce measures in the Devolution Bill, currently going through Parliament, that would allow local authorities to impose a tourist tax. She should reconsider. ALSO READ: Schengen visa to go fully digital: No more lengthy paperwork & traditional visa stickersThere are different ways of imposing levies on tourism, but the most common is a nightly charge, often with varying rates depending on the standard of the hotel or as a percentage of the final bill. Assuming a stay at a 4-star accommodation, analysis by the Telegraph suggests the most expensive popular European tourist destination is Amsterdam, at the equivalent of £16 a night, down to £3.40 for Lisbon, with Venice, Paris and Rome coming in at just over £ the sums I saw being handed over for Buckingham Palace-branded merch, including a £10 jar of honey and £17 socks, a similar tax in London seems unlikely to break the bank of the average overseas fear for a hospitality industry with fresh memories of Covid is that any tax would inhibit visitor numbers and make alternative, cheaper destinations more given most major cities already have a tax, that argument doesn't stack up. In any case, a recent report by the House of Commons Library into the potential impact of a tourist tax pointed out that currency fluctuations and the strength of the pound appear to have little impact on arrival numbers, suggesting that so long as the rate is set at a comparable figure to other cities, it's unlike to put travelers about the effect on destinations that may prove less of a lure for visitors? England's beleaguered seaside resorts would be particularly loathe to adopt any measure that would further put off holiday makers. The solution to that is to make a tax optional, with local authorities choosing whether one might suit their particular local the model favored by mayors including Manchester's Andy Burnham, who I discussed tourist taxes with recently, as well as Khan and Steve Rotheram in Liverpool. Local councils across London are supportive, along with the Institute for Government and the County Councils Network, although the trade body UK Hospitality described such a move as 'deeply misguided,' pointing out that Britain charges a higher rate of VAT than most countries, which is included in hotel bills. Maybe so. But Manchester and Liverpool have already taken advantage of a loophole in the law to introduce hotel charges as part of scheme allowing hotels to band together in 'Business Improvement Districts' to raise levies, without any impact on visitor numbers, according to analysis by the journal Tourism Management. Manchester's £1 nightly fee is estimated to have raised around £2.8 million in its first year, but the scheme is voluntary for hotels and limited in geographical scope and the mayors want to go further. Scotland has adopted similar powers and Wales is expected to follow suit next how skewed international travel is toward the capital, which attracts more than half of all visitors to the UK, a tourist tax would have to be be introduced in London to have a significant impact on the nation's seems fair. Londoners love tourists — but visitors shouldn't get a free ride. As protests in cities around the world highlight, locals suffer from the impact of tourism, in terms of congestion and the added strain on services. Buckingham Palace's coffers may benefit, but Londoners go uncompensated for tourists drinking their water supply, walking their well-lit streets, leaving litter or slowing down their commute. A recent YouGov poll found 45% of Londoners would support a tourist tax compared with 37% who opposed — this feels more tolerant than the Barceloni, who have taken to shooting visitors with water taxes, including those in Manchester, are designed to be reinvested in the tourist industry, making them a potential driver of the precious growth Reeves is seeking. A broad definition of what constitutes the industry, such as allowing spending on transport that tourists also utilize, would free the chancellor up to divert money here's another idea. Unusually for a global city, most of London's leading tourist attractions (although not Buckingham Palace) are free. That means tourists get to glory in the treasures of the British Museum, the National Gallery, the National History Museum and the rest without paying a penny. How about introducing fees for non-residents, as New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art does, with locals allowed to 'pay as you wish' (they must produce a credit card with a New York billing address to qualify)? The savings could be pocketed by the Treasury in terms of reduced grants to the nation's cultural institutions — the British Museum alone received £43.2 million in government funding last is right to be leery of imposing any more pain on a hospitality industry already struggling with the national insurance and minimum wage increases. But by being smart about how a levy is introduced — limiting it to areas such as London and the wealthy tourists who can afford it — estimates are that she could raise £500 million a year (on a nightly bed tax of £12). That won't fill her budgetary black hole — but it would be a start. (The views of the author are personal) (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. Tariffs, tantrums, and tech: How Trump's trade drama is keeping Indian IT on tenterhooks Good, bad, ugly: How will higher ethanol in petrol play out for you? As big fat Indian wedding slims to budget, Manyavar loses lustre As 50% US tariff looms, 6 key steps that can safeguard Indian economy Stock Radar: JSPL forms Ascending Triangle pattern on weekly charts, could hit fresh 52-week high soon Nifty and business are different species: 5 small-cap stocks from different sectors with upside potential of up to 30% F&O Radar | Deploy Bear Put Spread in Nifty to play index's negative stance amid volatility Wealth creation: Look beyond the obvious in some things; 10 fertilizer sector companies worth watching
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Audi employees: If we need a plant in US, it cannot be at the expense of employees in Germany
Donald Trump's plan to make Germany's leading car company set up a plant in America is reportedly facing a problem. And the problem is: Audi employees in Germany. According to a report in Bloomberg, a top labour official of Audi said that the German carmaker must secure jobs and production in Germany before building a factory in the US over President Donald Trump's tariffs. The Volkswagen AG-owned brand is said to be reviewing several options for setting up its own manufacturing hub in the US, where VW already operates one plant and is building another for the Scout nameplate. Audi's labor leaders are willing to back an expansion in the country only if management gives long-term guarantees for jobs and output at home, said Jörg Schlagbauer, the company's works council chief. In an emailed statement to Bloomberg, Schlagbauer, said, 'We are not refusing to discuss the matter, but for capacity reasons we do not see any need to build a plant in the US at present.' Schlagbauer is also Audi's deputy board chairman. He added, 'If we need a plant in the US for political reasons, it cannot be at the expense of employees and capacity utilization in Germany.' In March this year, Audi reportedly reached an agreement with employee representatives to cut 7,500 German positions by 2029 via buyouts and early retirement. This agreement was in exchange for extending job security guarantees for remaining employees till 2033. Audi is reported to be in the process of informing employees about the offers, though so far 'no significant staff reductions' have taken place, a labor spokesperson said. Donald Trump's tariff war on European car makers In early 2025, President Donald Trump imposed a 25 per cent tariff on European car imports, significantly impacting the EU's automotive industry, which exports €56 billion in vehicles to the US annually. German carmakers like Volkswagen, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz, accounting for 73 per cent of the 820,000 EU cars exported to the US , face severe financial strain. Porsche, reliant entirely on imports, could lose €3.4 billion in earnings by 2026, while Stellantis reported a €2.3 billion net loss in the first half of 2025. The tariffs, effective April 3, 2025, aim to bolster US manufacturing but disrupt global supply chains, raising vehicle prices by an estimated $3,000. A subsequent trade deal reduced tariffs to 15 per cent from August 1, offering relief but still exceeding the pre-2024 2.5 per cent rate. European automakers, already grappling with declining sales in China and EV transition costs, may pass costs to consumers or shift production to the US , as Volvo plans for its XC60. The EU is considering retaliatory tariffs, risking a broader trade war.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
In Tit-For-Tat Move, China Sanctions Two European Union Banks
The move came as a direct response to the EU's earlier decision to sanction two Chinese regional banks — Heihe Rural Commercial Bank and Suifenhe Rural Commercial Bank. In a sharp counter to European financial pressure, Beijing has imposed sanctions on two small Lithuanian lenders — UAB Urbo Bankas and AB Mano Bankas — barring them from conducting any transactions or cooperating with individuals and organisations in China. The measures, announced on August 13, 2025, were declared effective immediately by China's Ministry of Commerce. The move came as a direct response to the EU's earlier decision, effective August 9, to sanction two Chinese regional banks — Heihe Rural Commercial Bank and Suifenhe Rural Commercial Bank — under its July sanctions package over concerns that these institutions facilitated Russia-related financial activity. China, vehemently rejecting the EU's allegations as 'groundless," criticised the sanctions for undermining longstanding economic and trade cooperation with Europe. Beijing urged the European Union to reconsider its actions to protect bilateral ties in trade, economy, and finance. As diplomatic tensions simmer, EU officials indicated they are reviewing China's reaction and remain open to negotiations that might lead to reversing the sanctions, if a mutually acceptable solution is reached. At the heart of this standoff lies a tit-for-tat escalation in the realm of financial sanctions. The EU, aiming to tighten its grip on Russia by targeting enablers of its war efforts, included two Chinese banks in its sanctions list on August 9. Viewing this move as a direct affront, China promptly retaliated by hitting two Lithuanian institutions — symbolic actors but strategically relevant — as a signal that retaliatory measures would follow any aggression. This move reflects broader strains in EU-China relations, stoked by disagreements over trade imbalances, alleged Chinese support for Russia, and competing economic interests. With high-level meetings such as recent summits having failed to clarify common ground, the tit-for-tat banking sanctions underscore a deeper erosion of trust and growing readiness on both sides to leverage financial tools for geopolitical signaling. view comments Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
