Recently, it seems that Japan has become an issue in the Korean media, such as a

<Japan reviews the introduction of travel collection tax as one of the measures for over-tourism (comparison with France)>

Recently, it seems that Japan has become an issue in the Korean media, such as a double price system or a travel tax.

In countries where tourists visit a lot, there are countries that collect taxes called "overtourism."

Recently, tourists visiting Japan have reached a new high beyond the pre-COVID-19 level, so I remember hearing that they feel very uncomfortable when they hear the stories of their acquaintances living in Japan. Among them, I heard that ignorant tourists often raise eyebrows by breaking public order, throwing away trash, and doing various kinds of nuisance acts.

In any case, the first example in the article was a story of a museum that sets a fee for Japanese and allows foreign tourists (including long-term residents and international students) to watch for free, but at first, there was also a part to attract tourism, but it was said that it was discriminated against the Japanese, so it eventually changed to set all of them at the same amount.

On the contrary, some have expressed a policy that the burden should be increased only to foreigners, which is also very much visited by Koreans in Osaka.

The branch of Osaka Prefecture said it had expressed its intention to introduce a "collection fee" for foreign tourists, but in fact, we were already paying accommodation tax in the Osaka area! I think there were many people who didn't know. Usually, I know that tax is included when booking a hotel, and it's about 100 to 300 yen per night, so you didn't know. (I actually didn't know that either.. lol)

However, in addition to this, they are proposing to impose an additional collection of about the current accommodation tax! The collection is said to be one of the measures designed to prevent or take measures against overtourism, and the article took the example of Paris.

First, I interviewed Parisians about how to accept foreigners when they visited Japan, and I thought there would be a lot of opposition, such as, "It is natural to receive the same service at the same price, and it is an infringement of rights."

One man in his 40s in France said, "I don't think it's discrimination in particular," and one man in his 60s said, "There is no sense of incompatibility. I can understand the logic that the Japanese don't have to pay because it's a job in Japan."

A woman in her 50s said, "With the world overflowing with tourists, I think it's good for local governments to try to impose certain restrictions to protect citizens' lives and improve the local economy." Perhaps you had a hard time living in France because of the large number of tourists

You might think these interview nuances are somewhat mysterious, but France certainly felt sympathetic to this system because locals are suffering from over-tourism and implementing a foreign price system accordingly.

As an example of foreign pricing in France, the Louvre Museum, one of the most popular landmarks for foreigners around the world, was selected, and I remember that the visit fee was around 30,000 won to 50,000 won for foreign tourists. It's been a while since I've been there, so I don't remember it in detail, but I remember buying and looking at some tickets that were sold in a set.

However, French and more broadly, residents of the European Union (EU) are said to be free of charge if they are under the age of 26. It is said that without our knowledge, countries famous for tourism operate in this way.

The irony of tourism is that if people don't come, they're promoting me to come..

However, if there are too many cases, local people suffer from over-tourism and it can turn into a social problem. It will not be easy to properly balance it out. lol

Japan also pointed out that over-tourism measures such as the foreign price system may be necessary, but they were concerned that the side effects could be formidable if they were made clumsy. Above all, it was analyzed that even if the collection fee is paid, there will be less backlash when tourists can feel that they are paying for that and enjoying the trip safely.

It was especially true that the idea of managing tourism, which connects business income, employment, and tax revenue to create a more desirable tourism system, was particularly important, rather than simply considering over-tourism caused by the increase in tourists as annoying and limiting it to price.

If you are not satisfied with the services or facilities you enjoy at the tourist destination when you paid the tourism tax, you should be concerned about a decrease in tourists rather than worrying about over-tourism. Even if you pay the tourism tax, you can see that the facilities and management of the tourist destination are well maintained, and if you can enjoy the tour, you can bring about a virtuous cycle of managing the tourist destination through tax revenue that improves as the number of tourists increases.

Even if I pay the tourism tax, I'm willing to pay that much if the tourism tax maintains the comfort of the destination I'm going to. (I don't know if the tax is too big to go on a trip, but.. lol)