Earlier this year, we learned how authorities in Kyoto were considering greatly increasing taxes on the most expensive hotels in the city, in order to discourage overtourism. This concept has now been given final approval, and will be implemented as of March 1, 2026.
In this post:
Kyoto will add $130+ 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
We’re now going to see new rules implemented for stays as of March 1, 2026. This will 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 will be 200 JPY per person
- If a room costs between 6,000 and 19,999 JPY, the nightly occupancy tax will be 400 JPY per person
- If a room costs between 20,000 and 49,999 JPY, the nightly occupancy tax will be 1,000 JPY per person
- If a room costs between 50,000 and 99,999 JPY, the nightly occupancy tax will be 4,000 JPY per person
- If a room costs at least 100,000 JPY, the nightly occupancy tax will be 10,000 JPY per person
Based on the current exchange rate, one USD is roughly 150 JPY. So to convert the above amounts, a hotel costing at least $664 per night would have a $66 occupancy tax per person per night. In other words, based on double occupancy, you’d be paying $132 per night, just for the occupancy tax (and that doesn’t include the 10% consumption tax or the 10% service charge at many properties).
If you were staying at a hotel costing exactly 100,000 JPY per night with double occupancy, that means you’d pay a minimum of 30,000 JPY per night in taxes and fees, and that’s before any service charges. Those must be the highest hotel taxes anywhere in the world.
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 new nightly tourist tax is expected to more than double annual hotel revenue from this tax, from 5.91 billion JPY ($39.2 million) this financial year, to around 12.6 billion JPY ($88.6 million).
What’s my take on this tourist tax increasing substantially? I think the first major question is how the extra money will 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.
The city plans to introduce a suite of new measures with the additional funding that’s supposed to ease the strain on local infrastructure and improve the visitor experience, including expanding multilingual information services, etiquette campaigns, and a new express bus linking Kyoto Station with the Higashiyama district. I’m not sure how much better that necessarily makes life for locals, but…
Beyond that, here are a few thoughts that come to mind:
- I don’t actually think this change will do much to curb tourism, as I don’t think this will 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 will 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 will cause more people to take day trips to Kyoto, and I’m not sure that will necessarily help with reducing tourism
Bottom line
Kyoto authorities are implementing a plan to greatly increase the occupancy tax for hotels, in response to the amount of tourism. This will take effect as of March 2026, and luxury hotels will be hit hardest, and will 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 will have a $132 daily tax, in addition to the standard 10% tax plus the 10% service charge.
What do you make of Kyoto’s plans to greatly increase occupancy taxes for hotels?
Hawaii does this every few years. Increase the hotel tax. Hotels balk at it, but guess what. People still come in the millions to stay in overpriced mediocre/crappy hotels with expensive mediocre food. I'm local and honestly I don't get it when Mexico or the Caribbean is closer and probably cheaper.
It is x-times more reasonable than the ubiquitous "resort" fees in American hotels. Even some NYC dumps started charging them to unsuspecting guests.
I do hope Kyoto authorities launch several tourist-oriented fast bus lines. It would benefit both locals and visitors
This is the same problem Indonesia has with Bali. They deliberately focus their overseas tourist campaigns on just one destination (two in the case of Japan: Tokyo and Kyoto) and, shock, horror, are surprised when foreign tourists flock to.....just one destination. This is not the tourists' fault. Blame the govt for this self-made mess.
Well... what is there to do in Fukuoka that is comparable to Kyoto/Tokyo? Sendai? Sapporo? Niigata? Kumamoto? Important cultural history happens in the capitals.
I guess you can blame the Ieyasu Tokugawa for moving the capital to Tokyo/Edo and whoever moved the capital from Nara to Kyoto. They are the government at the time.
There is nowhere directly comparable to Kyoto (except for maybe Nara, which is lovely for an overnight stay), but there are plenty of cities with rich history and beautiful old architecture. These range from relatively mainstream options like Kanazawa and Takayama, to cities such as Matsue (Shimane) and Hagi (Yamaguchi), and towns like Hiraizumi (Iwate) and Kakunodate (Akita). Not the same as Kyoto, but lovely and interesting and crowded nonetheless.
*uncrowded
@Japan Starts Here
I think we may have discussed this before lol, but worth adding to this comment section all the same. The issue is less that other places have reasons to visit as well, and more that those other places are often more difficult to get to to begin with or a trip including them is either a super long one or doesn't touch anything west of Tokyo at all. That's just the...
@Japan Starts Here
I think we may have discussed this before lol, but worth adding to this comment section all the same. The issue is less that other places have reasons to visit as well, and more that those other places are often more difficult to get to to begin with or a trip including them is either a super long one or doesn't touch anything west of Tokyo at all. That's just the tyranny of Japan's geography. Of the ones you mentioned only Kanazawa is really convenient for a first-time visitor, especially one on a shorter trip.
One could do a Tohoku loop up to Aizuwakamatsu, Sendai, Hiraizumi, the Aomori area, down to Akita, Kakunodate, and then either backtrack to Sendai and on down or find another route south, but that's a big time commitment and other than Yamadera and maybe Chuson-ji and Motsu-ji, if one is looking for temples there's really nothing comparable to Nikko, Kyoto, or Nara. I say this as somebody who has done this actual itinerary. It was my second trip to Japan and just over 3 weeks long, and I spent 2 weeks in Tohoku and a week split between Kanazawa and Matsumoto. I saw Hiraizumi, trekked up Yamadera, hiked at Lake Towada (still my favorite place in Japan), saw the Nebuta festival in Aomori, Hirosaki, and Goshogawara, hiked in the Shirakami forest, and rode the Akita Nairiku line from Kitaakita to Kakunodate. It was an amazing trip, but infrequent public transport (Lake Towada saw 2 buses a day at that time from Hachinohe station for example) and long distances between places means a lot of travel time.
When I helped a coworker plan a trip for him and his wife this year, I also pointed out that there's a lot outside of Kyoto to see. Their trip was originally 10 days and then adjusted to 14, but it was also their first trip to Japan. In the end, they started their journey with 2 days in Hiroshima, then spent 4 days in Kyoto, 3 days in Kanazawa, and another 4 days in Tokyo. Realistically, without busting your tail with too much traveling, 3-4 cities in 14 days is about the max people can comfortably do. In order to see as much as they could in that short time, that basically means Kyoto was guaranteed to be part of the itinerary no matter what I recommended to them, since they definitely weren't going to go Aizu, Sendai, Aomori, and back or something like that. But I did encourage them to work Hiroshima and especially Kanazawa into their trip, and they loved both of those places.
My list of places I would like to visit or revisit is long. If a city/country wants me to cross them off the list, I'll gladly do it. Congrats Kyoto, I'll cross you off the list (you actually were never on it).
The fee should be higher for entry-level, ideally a flat fee. If you want the unwashed masses to stay away you need to make staying uncomfortably expensive.
Japan does not face an "overtourism" problem, per se. It receives less than a third the visitors of France or Spain, in spite of having a greater population than both of those countries.
The issue is that the national tourism body, JTNO, relentlessly promotes Tokyo and Kyoto/Osaka, and only occasionally mentions secondary and tertiary destinations, many of which have virtually zero tourists.
Creators like myself do our best to spread the word about such destinations,...
Japan does not face an "overtourism" problem, per se. It receives less than a third the visitors of France or Spain, in spite of having a greater population than both of those countries.
The issue is that the national tourism body, JTNO, relentlessly promotes Tokyo and Kyoto/Osaka, and only occasionally mentions secondary and tertiary destinations, many of which have virtually zero tourists.
Creators like myself do our best to spread the word about such destinations, both through our content (and, in my case, through bespoke travel planning services), but our reach is limited.
JNTO would rather amplify Gen Z Tiktokers to promote coffee shops in Shibuya and animal cafes in Harajuku than partnering with established, credible publishers to help distribute visitors throughout the country in a more sustainable way.
It's a real shame, because everyone suffers. Many people visit Japan experiencing only a crude facsimile of what is accessible just a little further off the path, and locals develop deep resentment for visitors who are mostly just going where they're told.
This will be as effective as the charge on non-reusable bags. Didn't stop consumption for most people and the money doesn't actually help anything.
You mean like Chicago’s non-reusable plastic bag tax, which substantially decreased plastic bag usage from year one?
I think that’s completely different, though. No one got priced out of using plastic bags, we just realized we often don’t need them if the default isn’t just to bag everything.
@tda1986
That's Chi Town propaganda for you.
Yes, the it "substantially decreased plastic bag usage from year one".
What they don't tell you is how much reusable and paper bags "substantially increase from year one"
Store are making extra money now they can charge more for bags that is harder to recycle, people still hardly reuse them, and still ends up in the trash.
Of course there is an increase after a substantial decrease. People get used to it. In any case, a lot of people still bring their own bags.
I get the concern. But I think that they are "hoping" to capture more revenue from tourists, but when you price things this high, price elasticity isn't infinite and 1 for 1. Make it too expensive, and you will just end up with fewer people staying in the region. Which is the stated goal, but they seem to be think it will be a local win for revenue, and that remains to be seen. It...
I get the concern. But I think that they are "hoping" to capture more revenue from tourists, but when you price things this high, price elasticity isn't infinite and 1 for 1. Make it too expensive, and you will just end up with fewer people staying in the region. Which is the stated goal, but they seem to be think it will be a local win for revenue, and that remains to be seen. It could result in less tourists (the goal), less revenue for the city, and less revenue for shops, restaurants and hotels.
Given that Kyoto is already basically at max capacity multiple times during the year, I don't think we're at the point where higher taxes are actually driving enough tourists away to cause revenue decreases. At least not yet. And tbh, anybody paying $1k+ per night probably isn't deterred by an extra $100 per person per night.
I think this more likely turns out to be a win-win for Kyoto. Not quite as many tourists, yet more tax revenue, as there is simply no way there’s a decline in tourism proportionate to this level of increase in taxes.
It makes zero sense. There will still be equal number of rooms and this equal number of visitors. It will just be different people. Not a way to fight overtourism and frankly, this seems to give priority to the less desirable type of tourists.
In a country as culturally rich as Japan, there are far more potential destinations to visit than just Kyoto. Frankly, over tourism is a massive turnoff for me and many other travelers, and if I can find someplace just as compelling with a fraction of the visitors (and costs), I’m better off for it.
Just want to point out, all the commenters saying they will stay somewhere else and daytrip to Kyoto are behaving exactly as the tax is intending. If you're staying somewhere next to Lake Biwa, or in Osaka or Nagoya or Kobe, you're likely to spend time exploring those cities and towns that you wouldn't have otherwise if you were just staying in Kyoto. The tourist population gets spread around the area, rather than concentrated primarily...
Just want to point out, all the commenters saying they will stay somewhere else and daytrip to Kyoto are behaving exactly as the tax is intending. If you're staying somewhere next to Lake Biwa, or in Osaka or Nagoya or Kobe, you're likely to spend time exploring those cities and towns that you wouldn't have otherwise if you were just staying in Kyoto. The tourist population gets spread around the area, rather than concentrated primarily in Kyoto, which ends up in a win for those other towns and cities as well as for Kyoto residents and even Kyoto tourists. More people spending a day exploring another city is less people crowding Kyoto's big sites.
Japanese government has become like a police state. Taxing citizens at 10% on everything, ridiculously high road tolls, etc. Real shame.
Spoken like someone who has never even visited a true police state.
That's it? 10% is just a sales tax. Tolls are for maintenance of the road. It just shows how much roads really cost to maintain and the extent of under-investment in US infrastructure.
Wow, this is horrible news for me. I have a points booking at the LXR Roku Kyoto in late May for two nights. I might have to consider whether it makes sense to simply stay in Osaka and do day trips to Kyoto to explore Arashiyama, the one part of Kyoto we did not see on our prior trip to Kyoto. I’m very sympathetic to the need to lessen the blow of over tourism on...
Wow, this is horrible news for me. I have a points booking at the LXR Roku Kyoto in late May for two nights. I might have to consider whether it makes sense to simply stay in Osaka and do day trips to Kyoto to explore Arashiyama, the one part of Kyoto we did not see on our prior trip to Kyoto. I’m very sympathetic to the need to lessen the blow of over tourism on the local residents. These taxes/fees will certainly have a deterrent effect on points and miles enthusiasts such as me who enjoy staying on points redemptions at luxury hotels on trips. Using Osaka as a base is a decent alternative I’ll have to consider now.
I have stayed in Osaka and have explored all around cities. Train to Kyoto is 15mins.
Why would you consider moving to Osaka? To reach Arashiyama, you'll add at least an hour each way on the train from Osaka. Just find a cheaper room.
Wait, so if someone uses points at PH Kyoto or the Ritz Carlton Kyoto (where ADR is always $1400+), they can expect a very big bill when they get there? So the days of a pretty much free stay in Kyoto at the super luxury hotels are gone!?! The taxes are pretty steep, even on an award stay for 5 nights would be a sizeable bill
Love Japan but no. I’m not going to be targeted as a walking arm for their government. Eventually demand will drop. Only reason demand is this high is the weak yen. All these taxes will drive tourists away. Tokyo is absurdly expensive.
I am for this, there are too many poor white folks swarming around Japan nowadays. We visit there every few months and would support this across Japan if it means less people or more the "right" people.
What are you, Chinese? I've been to Kyoto and Osaka and I can tell you it's flooded more with Chinese than "white folk," and the Japanese don't like you!
I think it's more likely Ew is Japanese, and they don't like the gaijins or the Chinese, but at least the Chinese are more likely to know some of their language than an American that thinks that English carries them everywhere.
By default, Chinese and Korean have closer ties to languages and makes it easier for them to learn and communication at least on a basic level and the days of the loud Chinese...
I think it's more likely Ew is Japanese, and they don't like the gaijins or the Chinese, but at least the Chinese are more likely to know some of their language than an American that thinks that English carries them everywhere.
By default, Chinese and Korean have closer ties to languages and makes it easier for them to learn and communication at least on a basic level and the days of the loud Chinese tourist is also becoming less prevalent (granted there's about a billion more people in China to educate vs. the US)
Also, just by proximity, the consumer goods around Asia is very advanced and similar so you also don't get "white folks" making loud tiktoks about the most basic things and getting in people's way. Having seen some of my friends' "little red book" content against friends' tiktok content about Japan, it is quite a bit different and "louder" in general - and generally speaking, Japanese don't appreciate "loud"
Spoken Japanese and spoken Chinese are totally different. Kanji is also very different because mainland Chinese is based on simplified characters. Non-mainland Chinese uses traditional characters that are mostly similar to kanji.
Generally I think having extra taxes to curb overtourism is a good thing, especially for places like Kyoto. I wouldn't have skewed the system so much towards more expansive rooms costing more taxes and have rather used a linear system. It is fair that rich people pay more (as 400 yen will not mean anything if you pay 50.000+ yen per night for your accomodations), but on the other hand will rich people also bring...
Generally I think having extra taxes to curb overtourism is a good thing, especially for places like Kyoto. I wouldn't have skewed the system so much towards more expansive rooms costing more taxes and have rather used a linear system. It is fair that rich people pay more (as 400 yen will not mean anything if you pay 50.000+ yen per night for your accomodations), but on the other hand will rich people also bring more money to the city. Setting a flat 5% tax would have been fair and easier to understand. I would have only set this tax for foraigners to protect Japanese tourism (and honestly, if it is more affordable for Japanese people to travel we tourists will probably also enjoy meeting more Japanese people in the hotels).
My only concern with this is day tourism from Osaka or other cities that are well connected and nearby. There should be a fee for foraign Shinkansen tickets arriving in Kyoto. (Of course enabling us to use hidden city tickets ;) )
haha ‘to curb overtourism’
The greediest people in the planet, the Japanese, who always manage to be mistaken for the kindest
Thank you for not generalizing hysterically.
Japan, which I am certain you know as well as I do, is anthropologically, culturally and socially quite prone to what you call generalization. Where do u see hysteria?
Some additional information:
For the purpose of determining tiers, room rate including service charge but before adding consumption tax will be used. If the room rate is 90000 JPY and service charge is 10%, then it will be 99000JPY and between 50000 and 100000JPY and 4000 JPY hotel tax will be applied - even though the total rate including consumption tax will be 108000JPY. If the room rate includes breakfast/dinner, the corresponding amount will be...
Some additional information:
For the purpose of determining tiers, room rate including service charge but before adding consumption tax will be used. If the room rate is 90000 JPY and service charge is 10%, then it will be 99000JPY and between 50000 and 100000JPY and 4000 JPY hotel tax will be applied - even though the total rate including consumption tax will be 108000JPY. If the room rate includes breakfast/dinner, the corresponding amount will be deducted from room rate. However, if you get free breakfast as elite benefit, there would be nothing to be deducted.
For booking with points, the published cash rate of the room booked with points will be used to calculate the tax. If you could snag the room with the cash rate of 100000 JPY with points, then 10000 JPY tax will be applied.
You missed one important detail. The room cost is **per person**. So if the room cost 100,000JPY for double occupancy, that mean the tax is calculate using the 50,000JPY rate per person.
In addition, if you use extra bed and if it costs 5000JPY, then the room rate per person would be 35000 JPY per person and you only need to pay 1000 JPY per occupant.
How does it apply on points bookings? Which rate do they apply to determine the correct tax?
Osaka-Kyoto trains are 15-25 minutes, so if you wanna save money and stay in Waldorf-Astoria Osaka for 3x cheaper, it's easily doable.
It’s 15 minutes via Shinkansen from Shin-Osaka Station to Kyoto Station, but it’s closer to an hour to get from Namba to Arashiyama or Higashiyama. Moreover, most travelers won’t be taking the Shinkansen, but rather a JR Special Rapid Service, or even the Keihan/Hankyu Lines.
One could still base oneself in Osaka, of course, but you’re looking at a couple hours in transit per day as a minimum.
This is exactly what I was thinking.
Don't even need to stay in the Kyoto city limits with all the connections to Kyoto to tour it for a day.
I'd even consider taking a hotel as far away as Kobe or Nagoya as well.
You can probably find cheap accommodations in places like Oumihachiman or Kusatsu around Biwako if you don't mind taking a local train in over a shinkansen.