Foreign visitors should pay more than local visitors for cultural and historical attractions. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

Sample 1:

It is sometimes seen that tourist attractions, including museums, important historical sites and prominent monuments, impose a higher fee for the overseas travellers than the local people. I do not agree with this idea and believe that the charges should be exactly the same.

From a perspective, it might seem logical to charge foreign tourists more to enter a traditional and historical place as most of those monuments and establishments are state-owned and the government fund those from the tax they collect from the local residences. From this regard, many feel that local residences are already paying a portion of the ticket money through the tax they pay to the government. However, this is a very narrow view, and this arrangement dissatisfies the visiting tourists as many of them find it discriminatory. From a broader view, if more foreign travellers are encouraged to visit nationally important tourist attractions and important historical and cultural place, this would bring more foreign tourists and this would ensure more earning from the tourism sector. Furthermore, it would help spread the national and cultural importance around the world. From this perspective, collecting some extra money from the entrance ticket is a shortsighted step.

Furthermore, happy tourists encourage their immediate friends and family members to visit a country and some tourist attractions. If those tourists get the impression that they are being changed more money than the local people, they would psychologically feel unhappy and would share their dissatisfaction with others which would mean less foreign tourists. Many shrines and monuments are maintained by the ticket money it collects and if the number of visiting travelers get decreased, it would be tough for the authority to maintain those important places. From this perspective, having an equal entrance fee has a better impact.

To conclude, from a broader perspective having the same ticket fee, both for the residence and foreign tourists, to allow the entrance to any nationally and historically important place including museums, art exhibitions, parks and historical places is more beneficial, and I completely agree that the fee should not be different.

Sample 2:

Maybe everybody has experienced that they have to pay more in comparison to local people to enter a museum or zoo. For some people, it can be acceptable while others may dislike it very much. Some people advocate it while others may object it. In this essay, I will try to put myself in the position of both groups and discuss the cons and pros of each option.

Firstly, when the foreign visitors pay more for a cultural and historical attraction, it will bring more income and economic benefits for the owners of that attraction. Further, the more money is gathered through the attraction, the more service the provider can give to the tourists. They can use the money to improve the facilities offered to the tourists like translations in several languages, brochures, headphones. Moreover, they can educate local people about the attraction and hire them as tourist guides to assist visitors to offer a better understanding of that attraction.

On the other side, those who disagree with this opinion may say that this discrimination may lead to a misunderstanding, and they may think that the system is abusing them. This feeling of abusing may result in dissatisfaction and reduction in the number of tourists. Moreover, the less amount of tourist, the less income will be brought to the attraction.

For instance, The British National Museum is free for everybody to enter while the Louvre Museum in Paris costs a lot of money for visitors to enter, and both have a lot of visitors each year. I believe that the staff of each attraction must calculate the benefits and drawbacks of each measure and evaluate the consequences. To conclude, it is difficult to suggest "the golden solution" which will work out for every attraction.

Sample 3:

Some people think that tourists should pay more money to visit cultural and historical places than local residents. I do not agree with this motion. In my opinion, local people and tourists should pay the same fee to visit museums and historical places.

Firstly, if the government increases ticket price for tourists, the number of tourists who visit the country can decrease. As a result, this situation affects the country's economy badly. Moreover, cultural and historical places symbolise a country's characteristics. Therefore, they are advertised for countries. If the figure of tourists declines the opportunities for adverts local restaurants and places will also get reduced. It is also bad for countries' economy. If more money is taken from the international tourists than the local visitors, the foreigners would feel discriminated, and this might lead to dissatisfaction among them.

Secondly, ticket price can be equal both for the local people and tourists because both of them have a right to visit cultural and historical places equally. To separate visitors in terms of their nationality is not a good sense and, in my opinion, unfair. Some countries are notorious for unfair ticket fees such as Turkey and Greece. For example, Topkapı palace is a very popular historical place in Turkey. It is visited by hundreds of thousands of people every year. It is very famous all over the world. However, according to the news, which I have read it recently, the number of foreign visitors is decreasing due to high ticket fees in Turkey. The price for tourists is four times higher than for local visitors in some museums in Turkey. Hence, many tourism agents criticise governments because of this.    

In conclusion, in my view, tourists and local visitors should pay the same money to visit cultural and historical places. To increase ticket price for tourists in cultural and historical places does not enhance tourism income. By contrast, it can decrease it. Furthermore, I would argue that both local visitors and tourists have an equal right to visit cultural and historical places.

Sample 4:

It has been a long time that countries all over the world are improving their tourism industry to boost their economy. So, they are attracting foreign travellers to come and see their cultural and historical attractions. However, the implementation of additional payment to them more than the local tourists is unacceptable. This argument will be proven by looking at how improper this is because local government has subsidisation already and excursionists from other countries have made contributions already.

For one, imposing more charge to foreign visitors is objectionable because the local state has already subsidised its cultural tourism improvement. For instance, one of the new 7 wonders of nature in the world, the Puerto Princesa Underground River which is situated in Palawan, Philippines has been improved a lot through the help of not only the local administration of the province but also our national government. So, all they have to do is to encourage more foreign tourists to come and see the place. Therefore, there is no need for them to pay extra fees to see the beautiful cultural heritage of our country.

In addition to this, travellers from other countries have contributed too much money already when they visit a certain country. For example, the Philippine Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) is collecting 1500 pesos as a travel tax for every foreign excursionist, an equivalent of 50 USD. This is actually a lot of contributions collected by the Philippine government from them. Thus, it is very undesirable to charge them more for improving the countries historical attractions.
In conclusion, it is disagreeable for the state of the Philippines to collect more fees from visitors of other nations due to the fact that it has subsidised its cultural and historical attractions and collecting airport tax already from them. So, collecting more fees from these people is highly not recommended.

Sample 5:

In the contemporary epoch, tourism is the most prominent industry as people all around the globe are striving to take vacations either regularly or intermittently. It is irrefutable that whether tourists from other nations should be charged extra compared to the local people frequently generates a remarkable deal of heated debate. In my perspective, I vehemently accord with the mentioned assertion, and this discourse will elucidate the significance of collecting extra charges from foreigners with credible illustrations.

To start with, individuals take trips to a plethora of regions according to their convenience. These can be either within the country or in other nations. When people from foreign lands visit, they are charged more than the local communities. The government establishes these norms and regulations in order to enhance the economy by collecting massive monetary incentives. Furthermore, it has minimal impact on foreigners as they are wealthy and affluent to afford the extra costs charged. To exemplify, the Taj Mahal is one of the historical mascots of India and is renowned for its rich cultural heritage. Make a visit, and the entrance fee is charged a hundred bucks extra for foreigners. This eventually leads to substantial growth in the overall tourism industry.

Similarly, the livelihood of common people that are reliant on tourism has enormous benefits by charging more from international visitors. When they visit numerous cultural, religious and historical sites, many shopkeepers make a living by selling handmade handicrafts that are well known in their respective regions and have a vintage cultural background. In such scenarios, foreigners are deeply interested in getting acquainted with the traditional materials and are overwhelmed to pay more and help poor citizens. This gradually increases the lifestyle of the underprivileged communities employed in this industry.

Considering everything, the tourism industry is evolving tremendously with a small surcharge of rates for international visitors and is fruitful not only to local authorities but also to residents.

Sample 6:

It is sometimes argued that tourists from overseas should be charged more than local residents to visit important sites and monuments. I completely disagree with this idea.

The argument in favour of higher prices for foreign tourists would be that cultural or historical attractions often depend on state subsidies to keep them going, which means that the resident population already pays money to these sites through the tax system. However, I believe this to be a very shortsighted view. Foreign tourists contribute to the economy of the host country with the money they spend on a wide range of goods and services, including food, souvenirs, accommodation and travel. The governments and inhabitants of every country should be happy to subsidise important tourist sites and encourage people from the rest of the world to visit them.

If travellers realised that they would have to pay more to visit historical and cultural attractions in a particular nation, they would perhaps decide not to go to that country on holiday. To take the UK as an example, the tourism industry and many related jobs rely on visitors coming to the country to see places like Windsor Castle or Saint Paul’s Cathedral. These two sites charge the same price regardless of nationality, and this helps to promote the nation’s cultural heritage. If overseas tourists stopped coming due to higher prices, there would be a risk of insufficient funding for the maintenance of these important buildings.

In conclusion, I believe that every effort should be made to attract tourists from overseas, and it would be counterproductive to make them pay more than local residents.

Sample 7:

It is believed by some people that higher entry fees for established places should be set for foreign tourists compared to residents. In my opinion, this is a necessary measure as it would greatly encourage local people to pay more attention to their culture and history heritage. Firstly, this essay will discuss the expected increase in visits by locals, and secondly, it will analyze the financial support getting from higher prices for international visitors.

The primary reason why tourists should pay more is that it may urge local people to become acquainted with famous attractions of their region. In other words, having such a financial advantage they would be more interested in visiting cultural or historical places for a lower entrance fee. For example, it has been revealed that in cities with such payment system residents started to show their attention to local attractions three times more frequently.

Another point to consider charging higher fees from foreign visitors is significant financial benefits which facilitate keeping local attractions in proper condition. On no account should the importance of additional revenues for local attractions be ignored since it would greatly increase the opportunity for stable prosperity. To illustrate, recent research has shown that more than a half of historical museums in East Europe are funded only with entry fees, which are much higher for foreign visitors.

In conclusion, I am strongly convinced that charging foreign visitors with the higher price might help to keep historical and cultural heritage in sustainable condition as well as encourage local people to visit these places because of financial benefit.

Sample 8:

It is irrefutable that every nation has a different culture and mysterious history. People are more willing to interact with this heritage and are curious to travel to various destinations with incredible specific backgrounds. International commuters should reimburse for historical monuments as compared with natives. However, I believe that despite facing the serious challenge of imposing a massive amount, foreign visitors still hold their position firmly. Several arguments can be presented to defend my opinion.

The first argument favouring international visitors is that it does not require additional charges to visit any country. This offers the visitors a high level of flexibility to easily move anywhere without facing any difficulties. For instance, international people easily interact with the history or culture they are seeking without extra charge. Furthermore, foreign commuters have immensely boosted the economy of the nations; this leads authorities easily manage the infrastructure or fulfil the basic need of the country with contributions best assessed through the visitors. To add, the staff gives tremendous benefits to increase the sales of local products worldwide. Other passengers also put their intentions towards the local locations once they would be treated the same as local people even without discrimination. So that no other medium is better than travellers in spreading the popularity of historical events in the countries. Finally, in many parts of the world, people still do not have sufficient funding to spend additional charges to explore various places; if government impose the fees same as local people thus leads thousands of visitors to come forward and show their interest in the specific locations which has a deep history of the nation.

It is implied that the appetite for international travellers should pay more money to visit historical attractions to preserve these precious buildings conveniently because the maintenance of old structures is quite expensive, and a government is unable to invest massive funds to keep the building alive for a long time. Through the foreign passengers, there is the possibility of regular updates and rapid access to many people to know the history of about country. For example, India is a land of monuments, so the Indian government took the initiative to surge the prices of old buildings for international visitors. These practices help to protect these monuments with the funding of immigrants. Therefore, I believe that the government needs to consider this case related to overseas commuters and hike the charges with a nominal margin that has no impact on their financials.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, inclined, the charges of international visitors have not to lead to any decline in the circulation of visitors. It is still going great, Guns. The situation might get change in future. However, when would hope and imagine that oversees visitors gradually surge and would be no space for local people in the days to come and enhance the condition of every country and remove the deprivation from the nation.

Sample 9:

It is often proposed that overseas tourists should bear a higher cost than residents when visiting places of cultural and historical significance. While I acknowledge the economic benefits of this viewpoint, I predominantly disagree with this stance for reasons of fairness and hospitality, which I will elaborate on below.

On one hand, the argument to charge foreigners more could be viewed as economically justifiable. Tourist attractions, particularly those of cultural and historical importance, often require substantial funds for maintenance and preservation. These expenses could be offset by charging international tourists a higher fee. This additional revenue could then be utilized to enhance the experience of visitors, making these sites even more appealing and potentially attracting more tourists. For example, the revenue could be used to improve facilities, enhance displays, or provide more informative tours.

However, on the other hand, imposing such a policy might create a perception of inequity and could tarnish a nation's reputation for hospitality. Visitors, as temporary members of a host community, should be treated with equal respect and dignity, not regarded merely as a source of income. This egalitarian approach fosters a spirit of unity and openness, crucial for promoting cultural exchange and mutual understanding. Furthermore, a policy of increased pricing for foreigners may dissuade budget-conscious travelers from visiting these attractions, thereby counterproductively reducing overall revenue and international exposure.

In conclusion, while charging foreign visitors more for historical and cultural sites might offer some financial benefits, I strongly believe that the potential harm to a country's image and the potential deterrent to visitors outweigh these advantages.

Sample 10:

Nowadays tourism is playing a vital part for the development of many countries’ economy. However, it has detrimental effects, causing serious damages to those attractive places. Some people argue that there should be additional taxes, in order to cover up those loses. Although, it is pivotal to apply some extra charges to protect such places, there should be some release on those taxes, as will now be discussed.

There is no debate about the fact that there should be a way to find sufficient financial support to protect the damaged property. The maintenance charges are becoming very expensive, and some people try to do harmful activities to those attractive places to increase those damages. In addition to that, protection of the actual value of tourism places is important for future generations. If there is not much repairing done on damages as a result of financial difficulties, then there are no such places for young generation to visit in the future.

On the other hand, it seems that there should be some flexibility on those higher charges from tourists. Economically, foreign income of any region is making considerable contribution to its development. If the foreigners feel that they are being charged heavily, they might not try to visit those places and it may lead to a reduction of foreign income, which means there are some negative effects on employees as well. The second relevant idea is the popularity of the place. As a result of affordable fees, a lot of people have a chance to explore the tourism places. Therefore, there is an opportunity to become famous in those places around the world.

In conclusion, extra taxes are needed to be applied in order to run those places properly, meeting expenses to maintain, while setting reasonable fees on tourists to receive higher income to develop the economy.

Sample 11:

For many countries, tourism is an important industry that supports and runs the economy of a country. Moreover, there is a heated argument between the two sides regarding whether the foreign tourist should be charged higher than the local tourist for visiting the historical and cultural places. This topic has two different sides which offer valid arguments to support their idea. Let’s have a glimpse of these ideas before reaching any conclusion.

To begin with, foreign tourists visit any heritage or any foreign historical places once in their lifetime. They don’t often visit these places. So in a form of generosity, they should be charged in the same way as the local people are charged for visiting such places. Additionally, allowing the foreign tourist to visit these places at a reasonable and same charge will enhance the cultural value and would help to spread our culture to different nations and different people, thus enhancing our historical and cultural importance among international tourists. Moreover, by allowing international tourists we are not only promoting our culture but also our markets which attract the foreign tourists a lot. India is a diverse country in many facets and this diversity attracts huge tourists which is very beneficial for a country.

On the other hand, many still believe that the international tourist should be charged higher than the local tourist to generate additional income from the international tourist. As we all are aware that India has a diverse culture which attracts huge tourists from overseas. Thus, charging a high amount can be very beneficial for a country. These high charges are used for the maintenance of the country. It is the responsibility of the nation to take care of their cultural and historical monuments and places so that they can promote their cultural and historical pride.

In conclusion, it might not seem appropriate to charge high prices for foreign tourists to visit many historical and cultural places of any nation.

Sample 12:

The historical monuments and symbolic places of a country are pride in themselves. Exploring these places can be the main aim or the main purpose for a tourist. But currently, there is a discussion regarding the distribution of the fees between the local visitors and the foreign tourist. The discussion states that the international tourist should be charged higher as compared to the local visitors.

Firstly, tourism is the major sector for the financial stability of a nation. Promoting tourism would not only promote our cultural and historical knowledge but would also stimulate the economy of a nation. Visiting and exploring these cultural sites would increase the pride of a nation through international tourists. By allowing the foreign tourist to visit these places at a very reasonable and similar price would not create a rift in the mind of the tourist and would help to promote more tourism among different international tourists. Charging a difference may not seem to be generous and would appear to be narrow to the international tourist. This can even affect the image of a country and would directly affect the tourism sector of a nation.

Secondly, if we see from a broader perspective, we can find that charging the same money would be more beneficial for running after few additional charges. Keeping a low reasonable charge will flourish the tourism sector of a nation and simultaneously, would add value to the culture and heritage of a nation.

To conclude, from a wider perspective it is wiser and more prudent to charge international tourism in the same way as we charge local tourists.

Sample 13:

For many, charging high fees from international tourists may seem to be appropriate but to many, it is not a generous act of running the economy. Both sides have their own opinion to support their arguments. Let’s take a glance at both the arguments before concluding up.

To begin with, many believe that charging high income from foreign tourists can help to increase the economy of a country by prospering the tourism sector. Moreover, by charging additional charges extra services can be given to the visitors so that they are tempted to visit these places. This extra income can be used to add extra facilities step by step to make the tourism sector appealing.

On the other hand, many believe that displaying such discriminatory behavior among international tourists and local tourists can ruin the image of that country. It can create a sense of misunderstanding and can create a difference of opinion. Additional such sought of behavior can even affect the tourism sector and the cultural values. Thus, there would be a sense of dissatisfaction among the tourists resulting in the reduction of international tourists visiting a particular country.

To conclude, every money charged should be equal for every tourist so that more visitors can visit the historical and cultural places of a particular country.

Sample 14:

For the past few decades most countries have witnessed a rapid increase in tourists into their borders, and there is an argument that foreign visitors to heritage sites should be charged more than locals. I completely disagree with this idea.

At first glance, higher prices for visitors from overseas seem reasonable, as most cultural and historic monuments are restored and maintained using government funding, meaning that local people already pay to these sites through the tax system. However, upon further reflection one would find that such an approach is at best short-sighted, at worst counterproductive.

Foreign tourists contribute to the economy of the host country not only by paying entrance fees to cultural and historical sites, but also by spending on a wide range of goods and services, including transportation, food and accommodation. The money they spend could be a boon to local businesses, the prosperity of which helps to create jobs for local residents. When foreign visitors have to pay more to visit holiday destinations in a particular country, they may feel that they are treated unfairly and decide not to visit that country in the first place. Over time, this will result in a decline in the overall number of tourists and the attendant fall in tourism revenue and employment opportunities, to the detriment of everyone. It is therefore wiser for important sites and monuments to charge the same price regardless of nationality, an approach that is adopted by many world-famous tourist attractions such as the Forbidden City and Buckingham Palace.

To sum up, considering the contributions foreign tourists make to the economy of the host community, it is important that these tourists be able to pay the same as locals.

Sample 15:

The idea that foreign tourists should pay more than locals to visit important sites and monuments is sometimes put forward. However, I completely disagree with this viewpoint.

Some argue that residents already contribute through taxes to the maintenance and preservation of cultural and historical sites. But I think this is short-sighted. Tourists from overseas contribute significantly to the economy of the host country through their spending on a wide range of goods and services, such as food, souvenirs, accommodation, and travel. Therefore, governments and locals should be glad to support tourist sites and encourage foreign visitors to explore them.

If overseas visitors were charged higher prices to visit cultural and historical sites, it could discourage them from traveling to that country altogether. For example, in the UK, places like Windsor Castle and St. Paul’s Cathedral charge the same admission fee for all visitors, regardless of their nationality. This helps promote the country’s cultural heritage, and it is crucial for the tourism industry, which provides many jobs. If foreign visitors stopped coming, it would pose a risk to the maintenance and preservation of these important sites.

In summary, I believe that it is important to make an effort to attract foreign tourists, and it would be counterproductive to charge them more than locals to visit historical and cultural sites.

Sample 16:

Nowadays, tourism is the number one source of income of most towns especially in my country- Philippines. Visitors from foreign land and even the locals are being charged with entrance fees by merely visiting the beaches, zoos, amusements parks and even the historical places in a certain town in exchange for the preservation cost and profit in favor of the town being visited. Apart from this, some say that visitors from the place should pay less than those foreign ones, I strongly agree on this idea.

Tourist attractions in a town or city are being maintained and taken cared of by locals so they should primarily benefit from it. The favors should be given back to its people through the discounted prices they can enjoy every time they visit tourist attraction in the local area.

Secondly, the inhabitants of the area are the ones who have paid taxes to support the development of their hometown. Needless to say, residents are already contributing to the cost of tickets through the monthly taxes they pay.

Lastly, by lowering the cost of visitation fees of the locals, they will be encouraged to invite friends, workmates and other potential visitors in their own place. It provides a sense of confidence and pride to invite others and be proud with the support that the local government gives to its people.

In the end, it is logical to say that the locals must enjoy a lesser charge than foreign visitors in visiting historically important places including museums, art exhibitions and parks. The ideas do return the favor of patriotism. Besides, government business us nothing if its people are not happy to support it.

Sample 17:

Opinions are divided when it comes down to whether international holidaymakers should be charged more than the natives for their visits to cultural and historical places. In this case, I am completely inclined to the notion that visitors from overseas should pay more money as the admission fee for entry to the tourist attractions.

For a start, a powerful argument in favour of overseas holidaymakers shouldering a substantial share of admission revenue is that local inhabitants are already contributing to the maintenance and upkeep of their historic and cultural sites through taxes. In fact, visitors from foreign countries are not being swindled; they are paying the usual market rate while nationals receive a discount on account of being a taxpayer. A case in point is overseas university admission. If one gains admission to a foreign university, he or she is expected to be charged considerably more than his or her counterparts, as they or their parents pay taxes in that country.

Similarly, another stronger argument is that the costs of running and upkeeping historic and cultural attractions are huge, and the higher fees for international holidaymakers help to fund this, while allowing locals to enjoy the best of their own cultural and historic attractions at a rate that is not prohibitive. Besides, many countries employ this slanted entrance fees model. Take the Pyramids of Egypt for example. Foreign tourists pay 420 Egyptian pounds (US$ 23) for a ticket that allows the entrance to the chambers of the Great Pyramid, whereas Egyptians are able to enter for 20 Egyptian pounds.

All things considered; it seems reasonable enough to assume that the dual pricing proves completely justified. As a taxpayer, citizens are permitted to enter their country’s historic and cultural sites at a price that should not be prohibited.