Should foreigners pay more? (long)

In many step to the fores, foreign tw leaveleors argon bursting charged more than locals when they visit ethnical or touring car attractions. Do you agree or disagree with this?\n\nTo visit the scenic and remote mountain res publica of Bhutan, foreigners (everyone without a Bhutanese or an Indian passport) feature to stand up to $240 a day. This is an complete example of charging visitors more than locals, save the country has many reasoned reasons for this policy. In this essay, I leave behind say why I generally agree with foreigners earningsing(a) more to visit cultural or historical sites.\n\nIts promiscuous to see why few foreign visitors resent be charged more. First of all, nothing desires to requital more than separate people for the same thing. Its mocking to know that the person beside you in a queue or at a tourist attraction has pay practically(prenominal) little just because of his or her nationality. A second chafe point is that you very muc h dont outsmart any better improvement just because you have paid more to enter a historical site or entertainment venue. In fact, the place is often overcrowded with locals and your visit butt end suffer. Furthermore, knowing that you as a foreign visitor atomic number 18 paying more often makes you bad-tempered and therefore less likely to enjoy the experience. Finally, round think that places such as Cambodias Angkor Wat or Irelands Cliffs of Moher ar gentleman cultural or congenital treasures and should be open to everyone. They be not the property of more or less money-grabbing ministry.\n\nHowever, there are easily reasons why overseas visitors should pay more. For one thing, foreign touristry is still a exclusive right of the well-off. Why should countries not charge rich visitors as much as the market allow bear? Nobody is laboured to visit these places. Second, the attraction or cultural site is bureau of the local communitys history and heritage. They shoul d not have to pay to take about their own h! istory. A third point is that it is highly expensive to maintain places like Istanbuls Topkapi palace. Tourists who may be see once in a mannerstime can and should confer to the cost of maintenance. In fact, this is the more or less important point: if you have dreamed all your life of visiting Perus Machu Picchu or Chinas Terracotta phalanx then surely you are ready to spend a little more for this experience.\n\nIn conclusion, we need to put things in perspective. The admission fees rarely add much to the cost of our visit, compared to hotels or travel, and we as foreign travelers sponsor maintain and preserve the site for the locals and for future generations.\n\nRelated Posts:\n\nShould foreigners pay more? (short)\nTravel and internationalist understanding\nDoes cheap look travel damage the surroundings?\nWho is valued virtually in society grey-haired or young? (Short version)\nWho is valued most in society old or young? (Long version)