While no final decision has been made, authorities in Kyoto are considering greatly increasing taxes on the most expensive hotels in the city, in order to discourage overtourism.
In this post:
Kyoto could add $125+ nightly tax for luxury hotels
While Kyoto has long been popular with international tourists, it has really exploded in recent years, and at this point we’re seeing just about every major luxury hotel group open a property there.
As it currently stands, hotel rates in Kyoto have a nightly consumption tax of 10%, a variable occupancy tax based on the cost of a stay, and then a lot of hotels also have a 10% service charge added on to the rate.
When it comes to the occupancy tax, that was introduced in 2018, and currently uses the following three tiered system:
- If a room costs less than 20,000 JPY, the nightly occupancy tax is 200 JPY per person
- If a room costs between 20,000 and 49,999 JPY, the nightly occupancy tax is 500 JPY per person
- If a room costs 50,000 JPY or more per night, the nightly occupancy tax is 1,000 JPY per person
Under the proposal, this system would be updated as of March 2026. This would go from a three tier system to a five tier system, with a significant increase in the occupancy tax for the most expensive hotels:
- If a room costs less than 6,000 JPY, the nightly occupancy tax would be 200 JPY per person
- If a room costs between 6,000 and 19,999 JPY, the nightly occupancy tax would be 400 JPY per person
- If a room costs between 20,000 and 49,999 JPY, the nightly occupancy tax would be 1,000 JPY per person
- If a room costs between 50,000 and 99,999 JPY, the nightly occupancy tax would be 4,000 JPY per person
- If a room costs at least 100,000 JPY, the nightly occupancy tax would be 10,000 JPY per person
Based on the current exchange rate, one USD is roughly 158 JPY. So to convert the above amounts, a hotel costing at least $634 per night would have a $63 occupancy tax per person per night. In other words, based on double occupancy, you’d be paying over $125 per night, just for the occupancy tax (and that doesn’t include the 10% consumption tax or the 10% service charge at many properties).
Note that this occupancy tax even applies to bookings with points, unlike the consumption tax and service charge.
Is this additional tourist tax unreasonable?
Kyoto’s current hotel occupancy tax scheme reportedly generates around $33 million per year, while the city estimates that the new scheme would raise around $82 million per year, so that’s quite a substantial increase. This proposal is expected to be discussed at the municipal assembly in February 2025, and if approved, it will be implemented as of March 2026.
What’s my take on the prospect of this tourist tax increasing substantially? I think the first major question is how the extra money would be spent. There’s no denying that day-to-day life in Kyoto has been changed for locals as a result of the amount of tourism. In principle, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to tax tourists in a way that makes the lives of locals better. That being said, often this money isn’t actually well spent.
Beyond that, here are a few thoughts that come to mind:
- I don’t actually think this proposal would do much to curb tourism, as I don’t think this would move the elasticity of demand for most people visiting Kyoto; hotel rates in Kyoto are through the roof, and that doesn’t seem to be deterring visitors
- This would ultimately penalize not just foreigners, but also Japanese tourists coming from other parts of the country; that has to be factored in, especially with their reduced buying power due to the weak Japanese Yen
- Perhaps in some cases it would cause more people to take day trips to Kyoto, and I’m not sure that will necessarily help with reducing tourism
Bottom line
Kyoto is considering greatly increasing its occupancy tax for hotels, in response to the amount of tourism. Luxury hotels would be hit hardest, and could see the daily per person occupancy tax increase from 1,000 JPY to 10,000 JPY. This means that a luxury hotel room with double occupancy would have a $125+ daily tax, in addition to the standard 10% tax plus the 10% service charge.
In February 2025, the decision will be made as to whether or not this tourist tax will be implemented as of March 2026.
What do you make of Kyoto’s plans to greatly increase occupancy taxes for hotels?
In principle, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to tax tourists if it contributes to improving the lives of locals. However, it’s not our place as foreigners to judge how effectively that money is spent. Japan, as a sovereign nation, has the right to make these decisions, and I would argue that their track record inspires trust. Japan’s focus on the wellbeing of its people is a key reason why so many visitors admire and enjoy...
In principle, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to tax tourists if it contributes to improving the lives of locals. However, it’s not our place as foreigners to judge how effectively that money is spent. Japan, as a sovereign nation, has the right to make these decisions, and I would argue that their track record inspires trust. Japan’s focus on the wellbeing of its people is a key reason why so many visitors admire and enjoy the country. Its safety, organization, politeness, and cleanliness are a testament to this cultural commitment.
I've noticed that usage of the phrase "sovereign nation" is a good indication that a given person is a total moron.
This doesn’t make much sense. Over tourism happens when there is a big crowd. A big crowd comes when things are cheap and there are lots of things to see. I would have to expect small percentage of the crowd is wealthy with large percentage have avg income. If you want to tackle over tourism, you increase rates on cheaper hotels and guess what, you won’t have over tourism period. It’s very simple. To tax...
This doesn’t make much sense. Over tourism happens when there is a big crowd. A big crowd comes when things are cheap and there are lots of things to see. I would have to expect small percentage of the crowd is wealthy with large percentage have avg income. If you want to tackle over tourism, you increase rates on cheaper hotels and guess what, you won’t have over tourism period. It’s very simple. To tax the expensive hotels rooms more and cheap hotel rooms less just means money grab and nothing more. If they are really concern with over tourism, just make everything very expensive. You will see large crowds disappear very fast. Of course should only rich people have access to Kyoto is a different topic from over tourism. Let’s call a spade a spade, this is a money grab.
As some one who loves to travel, these thing infuriate me. These cities rely on tourism for their standards of living yet they want tourist money but NOT the tourists?
People want to visit because it’s a beautiful place with culture and history not found in many other places. Why should some one be deprived of this experience because the local government can’t regulate or streamline the tourism better?
People don’t want to visit...
As some one who loves to travel, these thing infuriate me. These cities rely on tourism for their standards of living yet they want tourist money but NOT the tourists?
People want to visit because it’s a beautiful place with culture and history not found in many other places. Why should some one be deprived of this experience because the local government can’t regulate or streamline the tourism better?
People don’t want to visit crap holes on vacation- which is why places that don’t have much tourism- don’t have much tourism. Now we’re herring from these local who benefit from tourist dollars “get the **** out- but leave your money with us”?
I’m sorry- if you don’t want tourists then don’t take their money or the benefits that comes from tourist money.
It's a balance. Too much tourism does negatively affect resident quality of life, primarily in terms of crowding and transit/traffic congestion, which fuels the (IMO heavily sensationalized) negative attitudes towards tourists. It also makes it worse for tourists coming to see and do stuff because tours/restaurants are booked out, cultural sites are overcrowded, and hotels get more expensive.
At the end of the day, there's two realistic ways to reduce tourist demand. You can...
It's a balance. Too much tourism does negatively affect resident quality of life, primarily in terms of crowding and transit/traffic congestion, which fuels the (IMO heavily sensationalized) negative attitudes towards tourists. It also makes it worse for tourists coming to see and do stuff because tours/restaurants are booked out, cultural sites are overcrowded, and hotels get more expensive.
At the end of the day, there's two realistic ways to reduce tourist demand. You can increase costs, and you can try and create demand for other places to draw people away from the overcrowded place. Kyoto's municipal government only has the power to do the 1st, so that's what they're doing, whereas prefectural and national governments will need to step in to make other areas like Tohoku, Kyushu, Shikoku, or the areas west of Osaka/Kyoto more attractive and better known to tourists. It's not like Fushimi Inari is the only shrine in Japan with torii gate tunnels, nor is Arashiyama the only bamboo forest.
Kyoto most certainly does not rely on tourism for its standard of living.
In some ways the overtourism issue is something that the prefectural and national governments will need to address. Taxing hotel stays is a good way for Kyoto to bring in more revenue to maintain its infrastructure under the tourist load, but as mentioned elsewhere eventually you do hit the point where people day-trip from Osaka instead of staying in Kyoto.
The root of the situation is that Japan can be hard to navigate if...
In some ways the overtourism issue is something that the prefectural and national governments will need to address. Taxing hotel stays is a good way for Kyoto to bring in more revenue to maintain its infrastructure under the tourist load, but as mentioned elsewhere eventually you do hit the point where people day-trip from Osaka instead of staying in Kyoto.
The root of the situation is that Japan can be hard to navigate if you don't know the language, and due to decades of Tokyo-Kyoto-Osaka being the golden route for tourists, obviously those areas received the most investment to make it easy for tourists to visit them. Since those areas are the easiest to visit, and also contain a huge and concentrated share of Japan's culture heritage sites, you end up in a feedback loop where those are the places tourists primarily go, and to make matters worse they tend to go all at the same time, IE the several weeks of cherry blossom blooms or during the fall colors.
From my own experience, outside of bullet trains, limited express trains, and some inner-city buses, it generally was not the easiest getting around outside of the tourist golden route. Many of them did not make english announcements, did not show stop names except in kanji, in some cases buses and local trains required cash fares, and so on. All of those issues were a recurring thing in my 2018 trip around Tohoku and the central alps, though I can at least say that Nagano, Toyama, and Kanazawa have all gotten much better in that regard as of my 2022 trip through those areas. I haven't been back up into Miyagi, Aomori, or Akita since, but I'd hope that at least Miyagi would have made similar improvements since then. At the end of the day most tourists are going to choose the easy sightseeing route, so unless more areas are made tourist-friendly and publicized, you're still going to see most tourists sticking to the golden route.
We won a lottery at the grocery store so we got Kyoto's best hotel for free. I thought it was a fantastic stay, five stars.
I can see how others may be discouraged by this tax, though.
Come on, the Kyoto government are not that stupid. They know that if the goal is to reduce overtourism, you jack up the taxes on the cheap hotels. This is about getting revenue; Kyoto is swimming in debt and teeters on municipal bankruptcy. Obviously, they are not going to send out press releases saying, "we desperately need money and tourists are they only cow left to milk."
As others have pointed out, price sensitive customers are going to respond to price hikes by staying in Osaka. Those who are happy to spend $700 a night for a 30 sqm room won't be bothered by a slight increase.
As others said, there are not many alternatives for the municipal Government and this way they at least get some money from the cake. I would argue this will help locals as they either don’t get a tax raise or some tax funded projects that have been low on money will get more. You could also use some of the money to run campaigns for other travel destinations in Japan to funnel tourists over. :D
Overtourism particularly from Americans has destroyed travelling in Japan.
Bring on the hotel taxes especially if it targets loud, obnoxious and obese Americans.
The US is a distant fourth for JP tourism, behind Korea, China, and Taiwan.
Regarding the elasticity of demand: the tax can just keep on increasing until it does have an impact. Meanwhile, in the Canary Islands, a tourist tax of $0.50 per night is considered daring (and it's still nowhere near to being implemented); it should be at least $5, irrespective of class of accommodation.
Kyoto is one of the most debt-ridden cities in Japan so local government try any single method to boost revenue
Lucky, have you considered hiring a photo editor or subscribing to a stock photo service? I understand wanting to use your own pics, but these poorly-lit, grainy cellphone images really look cheap and terrible.
It is like trying to square a circle.
Japan may have welcomed approximately 35-36 million visitors in 2024, and the government has set an ambitious target of 60 million by 2030.
With all the thoughtful encouragement so that foreign tourists go and see less "obvious" sights, average visitors, especially those going to Japan for the first time, will focus on Tokyo-Osaka-Kyoto circuit, with maybe Sapporo, Hiroshima, and Fukuoka add-ons. There's no way to...
It is like trying to square a circle.
Japan may have welcomed approximately 35-36 million visitors in 2024, and the government has set an ambitious target of 60 million by 2030.
With all the thoughtful encouragement so that foreign tourists go and see less "obvious" sights, average visitors, especially those going to Japan for the first time, will focus on Tokyo-Osaka-Kyoto circuit, with maybe Sapporo, Hiroshima, and Fukuoka add-ons. There's no way to change it much, I am afraid...
I am actually surprised the current Kyoto visitor tax revenue is quite low, TBH.
Kyoto has its own unique challenges as a tourist destination, akin to Venice, that Tokyo or Osaka may not be overly concerned with.
At least, with the additional tax revenue, they could engineer a much more developed network of express buses catered to tourists that would link major sights, perhaps as far as Arashimaya.
I mean, it sounds like the local policy (raising taxes) is at odds with the national policy (more tourists).
Having said that, I'm not sure why they don't just make it a straight percentage rate (say, 10%...which is what the consumption tax is...) rather than doing these slab banded rates.
Firstly, let's say you increase the tax to 10k USD per person per night. Would that affect hotel usage? Of course. So we do believe hotel tax can have an effect.
There is no need for a tax to directly need to have a corresponding thing a government has to spend on. Money is fungible. That's the beauty of it. One year it can be used for roads and another, for water treatment plant. Who...
Firstly, let's say you increase the tax to 10k USD per person per night. Would that affect hotel usage? Of course. So we do believe hotel tax can have an effect.
There is no need for a tax to directly need to have a corresponding thing a government has to spend on. Money is fungible. That's the beauty of it. One year it can be used for roads and another, for water treatment plant. Who knows. Who cares. You love in Florida. Do you think Japan needs a lesson from the US on spending tax dollars?
Secondly, the real question is can it curb over tourism? That remains to be seen. But to say a policy shouldn't be enacted or isn't a perfect policy then "I don't know about this...". That's honestly a dumb way to approach trying to solve the problem. You try a policy and then tweak it or abandon it for newer policy.
It's like those shitty drivers in Florida, Ben. What's a good way to solve that? Well, who knows?! But you add a law and if it doesn't work, you amend it. Or add new ones. It's just called governance.
I agree with Ben. If someone is dropping $1600 on a Park Hyatt or LXR base room, do we really think they will decide to avoid Kyoto if you tack on a 10,000 yen fee?
It just feels like a perfunctory government to-do: we don’t want to really discourage tourists (by, say, implementing a lottery for non-locals, which is required for lodging accommodations and implementing barriers for day-trippers), but we sure like money, so let’s add some taxes.
What I’m seeing here is some great news for the hotel operators in and around Osaka Umeda and Shin-Osaka stations.
Another stupid hypocrisy at the level of green washing everything.
Like carbon credits doesn't prevent carbon emissions. It just a money grabbing scheme.
Charging more doesn't prevent overtourism. It's just another greedy cash grab. Looking at you too Maldives.
You want to prevent overtourism then you reduce the number of tourists. (and kill the local economy in the process)
You can just name a few, either close all the attractions, i.e. shrines are closed...
Another stupid hypocrisy at the level of green washing everything.
Like carbon credits doesn't prevent carbon emissions. It just a money grabbing scheme.
Charging more doesn't prevent overtourism. It's just another greedy cash grab. Looking at you too Maldives.
You want to prevent overtourism then you reduce the number of tourists. (and kill the local economy in the process)
You can just name a few, either close all the attractions, i.e. shrines are closed to visitors or cap the number of tourists on arrival (cough cough did I just taught CBP on weaponizing ESTA).
anyone, anywhere in the world, complaining about "things changing" or "too much tourism" or "this city isn't just for the locals anymore" deserves the worst in life and it's gratifying to know that in this case, they're experiencing it.
more on topic, of course these taxes won't move the needle; and I'm looking forward to touristing there next month, see you soon, locals :)
I agree 100%. The “overtourism” canard is just so deeply anti-humanistic.
You're totally right. You should have the right to displace and disturb local people in their home whenever you want. Just because you are lucky and fortunate in life to be able to travel and/or be a digital nomad, does not mean that you have the right to anything. Be respectful, be grateful. You're going there for a reason. If you destroy the very thing that you enjoy about that city, then mirroring your own words back to you, seems like you deserve that.
Change is the only constant; anyone hung up on "the way things used to be" is dull-witted and obsolete. My presence there does not inherently destroy anything, obviously, and people who are destructive (e.g., litterers) should face fines/sanctions no matter whether they're local or just passing through.
If one pays 500 USD for a room not considering taxes , fees etc. then the proposed will not do a thing. Consider the amount of places charging 1000 USD plus in the world and yet they are busy. Thus it’s like a no win situation and yet Japan or other places have so much more to offer than Osaka, Tokyo, Kyoto, Sapporo but everybody’s list is the same names. Same with Europe, Paris is...
If one pays 500 USD for a room not considering taxes , fees etc. then the proposed will not do a thing. Consider the amount of places charging 1000 USD plus in the world and yet they are busy. Thus it’s like a no win situation and yet Japan or other places have so much more to offer than Osaka, Tokyo, Kyoto, Sapporo but everybody’s list is the same names. Same with Europe, Paris is overpriced, Santorini (give us a break) look at 3 rd or 4th tier locations and screw the major chain hotels. More fun and better experiences for less money and fewer people. Read about history of a country in a book.
It will do nothing. They should impose the fees on large tour groups. Those buses are the one funneling large quantities of obnoxious tourists within the same time range and same locations. Those tourist don't do much business with the locals because they are on a timed schedule and then they leave. And the tour groups prefer to get their customers to selected locations /vendors and it's rarely the surrounding locals.
This is the greatest thing I’ve heard all day. Price the peasants out. And you should all be watching football.
I’ll still haunt you.
A train from Osaka to Kyoto is 20(?) minutes.
Osaka hotels about to have a price advantage.
Was thinking this, just seems like this will encourage more day trippers. Even a local train from Osaka is only 45mins.
Yes, from Kyoto Station to Osaka Station you can take JR special rapid train which will take about 25 minutes and only stop in Takatsuki and ShinOsaka station. There are other private railway operator(Keihan and Hankyu) that have express trains between Kyoto and Osaka as well.
Overrated destination.
Exactly. I spent a week there before the pandemic and it was a pleasant city but hardly deserving of the fulsome praise it is now receiving.
Bingo
I’m a fan of this assuming the money is spent to help with overcrowding problems, such as increased bus frequency in and around Kyoto, increased police, etc.
I spent a lot of my 20s (2010ish - so not that long ago) in Japan and have been to Kyoto many, many times. I loved going to Kyoto when I lived in Japan. It was busy but pleasant and not overrun. I hadn’t been back since the...
I’m a fan of this assuming the money is spent to help with overcrowding problems, such as increased bus frequency in and around Kyoto, increased police, etc.
I spent a lot of my 20s (2010ish - so not that long ago) in Japan and have been to Kyoto many, many times. I loved going to Kyoto when I lived in Japan. It was busy but pleasant and not overrun. I hadn’t been back since the pandemic, so we all went for a trip in September 2024 (no Japanese public holidays near our trip in Kyoto). It was overrun and I mean overrun, mostly by other Japanese and Asian tourist. Also, an insane amount of Australians (who were generally extremely disrespectful of Japanese norms). It was near impossible to get on a bus or easily move around the city. I was ready to go back to Tokyo after 2 days - a week was almost miserable, especially bc of the obnoxious Australians (it’s sad when the Americans are the well behaved ones, lol).
So, I say tax them until they stop coming.
I’ve never met an obnoxious Australian. Are you sure you have the right country?
Sounds like you've never met an Australian
;-)
The problem with this philosophy is that is how they will sell it to you and you will believe wholeheartedly. But it's rarely the case. Look at your city's bride tolls and transit over the years. They'll tell you they will spend the money to improve Yada yada. But the improvement is almost always minimal at best. Think Marriott devaluing your points and then tell you it's to improve your service.
Meh I’m Australian and was there for third or fourth time in November. There’s a lot of us travelling to Japan because it’s close(ish), cheap and similar time zone with some great cities to visit. Certainly Aussies can be obnoxious as can Chinese, Americans etc.
My tip would be to skip Kyoto. We visited Nara, Tokyo, Kobe and Hiroshima on this trip. And that’s barely scratching the surface of all the small towns you...
Meh I’m Australian and was there for third or fourth time in November. There’s a lot of us travelling to Japan because it’s close(ish), cheap and similar time zone with some great cities to visit. Certainly Aussies can be obnoxious as can Chinese, Americans etc.
My tip would be to skip Kyoto. We visited Nara, Tokyo, Kobe and Hiroshima on this trip. And that’s barely scratching the surface of all the small towns you can visit.
Japan is begging Aussies to visit some other cities. Unfort it’s like visiting Paris or Rome vs other hidden gems. Word just needs to get out that other better destinations exist.
Incidentally I wouldn’t stay in Kyoto for a week. Would be bored out of my mind.
A more effective way would be to declare the whole interesting part of the city center a historical monument and sell limited numbers of passes to visit it.
Of course a certain number of exemptions for local inhabitants and businesses would have to be in place.
Hotels restaurants etc located inside the perimeter would have preferential access to permits with the permits quite expensive to attract a wealthier clientele and discourage low value...
A more effective way would be to declare the whole interesting part of the city center a historical monument and sell limited numbers of passes to visit it.
Of course a certain number of exemptions for local inhabitants and businesses would have to be in place.
Hotels restaurants etc located inside the perimeter would have preferential access to permits with the permits quite expensive to attract a wealthier clientele and discourage low value Airbnbs and day-trips.
Of course it requires gate checks everywhere and it's an awful solution to put in place and would turn the Kyoto city center in a form of Disneyland. In return it guarantees a form of revenue to make it up to the locals and can even support some sort of yield management to smooth out demand.
Also allows to put in incentives for example no restrictions to Japanese nationals etc.
The interesting part of the city center is quite large in Kyoto. You're talking about 1/3 to 1/2 of the city's entire area.
Everywhere east of the Kamo River, south of Demachiyanagi, and north of Kyoto Station (just picking landmarks, I don't know the street names. Then, something similar to Arashiyama.
I understand the reaction, but its flawed on most levels.
Europe and Asia (Japan ) will soo start to see a reduction in tourism. IMHO
We are past revenge travel... at this point.
While I am hesitant to become political. We have in the US a very uncomfortable and unknowable minimally two years ahead of us... A very large reason I am thinking there will be less outbound tourism.
Much of Northern Asia looks at...
I understand the reaction, but its flawed on most levels.
Europe and Asia (Japan ) will soo start to see a reduction in tourism. IMHO
We are past revenge travel... at this point.
While I am hesitant to become political. We have in the US a very uncomfortable and unknowable minimally two years ahead of us... A very large reason I am thinking there will be less outbound tourism.
Much of Northern Asia looks at risk as does swaths of Eastern Europe, given the incoming President.
Europe, Australia / New Zealand, the US, and Canada accounted for only ~17% of foreign tourist arrivals to Japan in 2024 (less than SE Asia + India).
This is also when travel from China is relatively less due to economic turbulence, and economic growth in many Asian countries like Vietnam, India, and Indonesia remains strong.
Point being it is very unlikely tourism to Japan slows or significantly reduces in the near future and very likely...
Europe, Australia / New Zealand, the US, and Canada accounted for only ~17% of foreign tourist arrivals to Japan in 2024 (less than SE Asia + India).
This is also when travel from China is relatively less due to economic turbulence, and economic growth in many Asian countries like Vietnam, India, and Indonesia remains strong.
Point being it is very unlikely tourism to Japan slows or significantly reduces in the near future and very likely it grows significantly in the next 5 years.
My first thought...day trips from Osaka or other nearby places.
Second, what about business travel? Yes, business travel expenses are usually covered or reimbursed, and I admittedly don't know about Kyoto's corporate market.
Finally, I've been several times to the city, and the crowds really impacted the experience...so I get it...but I don't get the solutions being tried so far...
There are some large companies based in Kyoto, But I don't know many corporate travel within Japan needs to actually stay in Hotels
Not sure what else you expect the Kyoto municipal government or even the prefectural government to do. Raising hotel taxes and other taxes related to tourism is basically the only lever available to those authorities in the short term. In the longer run they can restrict permitting for new hotel construction but since the existing room inventory already allows overcrowding that's not exactly a quick fix.
They can't exactly control Japan's monetary policy to address...
Not sure what else you expect the Kyoto municipal government or even the prefectural government to do. Raising hotel taxes and other taxes related to tourism is basically the only lever available to those authorities in the short term. In the longer run they can restrict permitting for new hotel construction but since the existing room inventory already allows overcrowding that's not exactly a quick fix.
They can't exactly control Japan's monetary policy to address the yen's value, they can't control how much airline capacity serves Japan or Japan's border policies, and there aren't any mechanisms or legal authority to restrict internal movement.
Raising the hotel tax won't magically fix the problem and it may not even make a significant dent in visitor numbers, but it's basically the only policy option they have. And it's possible doing this might encourage more action by the national government. Yes, it's a blunt instrument, but the only alternative is basically politely asking folks to stay away, and that hasn't exactly worked.
I think the taxes should be higher, if the goal is to control tourism numbers.
As westerners we really don’t know sh!t about f@ck in Japan which is overwhelmingly non-western tourists and only the occasional weeaboo. So whether or not this tax is a good idea is beyond our analytical capabilities.
Gosh ! That is such a narrow minded comment. You clearly never been to Japan to make such a statement. I’ve been to Japan 3 times in 2024 including Kyoto. Never seen so many Americans and they were probably close to 50% of the tourist I saw there. Very surprised !
You sure use a lot of "we" and "our"... speak for yourself, internet nobody.
I’m a partner at a top grossing, highly profitable global law firm.
And I'm Atticus Finch.
what a narrow minded commentary.
YOU don't know.
YOU cannot comprehend.
Analytics are clearly beyond YOUR capabilities.
Stay in your sad lonely lane.
Seems silly to allow massive unchecked hotel growth and then try to cut down on "overtourism". Maybe restrict hotel development in the first place? Coulda, shoulda, woulda I guess.
People save for a once in a lifetime trip to go to Kyoto. Adding a bit more cost is not going to do anything without restricting the total # of hotel rooms in the city.
No, that’s wrong. If you reduce tourism by lowering supply, the benefit flows to existing hotel owners in the form of higher nightly rates (this is what NYC is currently doing). If you do it via a tax, the benefit flow to the government/taxpayers (and the end price paid by tourists is the same).
@Ben - that is very reductionist take and ignores a lot of nuance. Of course limiting supply benefits existing hotel owners, but it also benefits the residents who are presumably driving this initiative even more because not only do they get the benefit of increased taxes (room rates will go up because demand is the same but supply is lower) but they also benefit from not being overrun by tourists.
I'm not exactly sure if the city of Kyoto has allowed "massive unchecked hotel growth." Yes, there are more hotels there compared to even 10 years ago, but that's because there has always been a relative under-supply of hotel rooms in the city. Also, the hoards of tourists visiting Kyoto are not really not there for their hotels.
@kyotonative - as you are a native, I don't want to lecture you about your own city. All I can do is share that your government states "the number of hotel and ryokan rooms in Kyoto City increased from 26,297 rooms in 2015 to 42,678 rooms in 2023..." a 162% increase. That seems to me to be a massive growth.
It’s not just Japan that is feeling the pain due to over-tourism, let’s not forget the problems in Europe last year and with plans already being developed for 2025 for more protests maybe raising taxes is an option. The “Stayaway” initiative wasn’t all that effective in Amsterdam that’s for sure.
Always baffles me when people vote for higher taxes as a way of trying to be gatekeepers. If the tax was needed to maintain the infrastructure of the area or something of that nature, I'd be more supportive of it.
But this is just more a way to discourage lower incomes from visiting the area. It's not like the tax revenue is going to magically benefit locals in a way that all of the increased jobs and sales didn't.
The proposed tax structure is more progressive than the current regressive one, which disproportionately penalizes lower cost room rates (although not by much). Although lower room rates will see an absolute increase, it is still a tiny amount (max $6.34 USD at the current conversion rate).
If you are trying to limit tourism, how else would you do so other than through price discrimination? The other approach would be a raw lottery, but tourism is an economic industry as well - it is in a country and local's best interest to maximize tourism spending rather than have a diverse set of tourists visiting.
It's sad but likely the inevitable way tourism is going to head if over-tourism continues and further worsens.