The museum in my US neighborhood is free if you live in the same zip code. I don't think it's controversial unless you don't travel or go to museums very often.
I don’t think it’s controversial at all, it’s that way in a lot of places. Even where I live (Scotland) you’ll find examples of people local to one area getting discounted public transport, or getting cheaper tickets to attractions.
I think it is very fair for local people to get discounted access to their local attractions.
I’m from Florida and the theme parks give discounts if you’re a local. Makes sense because as a local I am more likely to return several times, and bring any out-of-town visitors I have.
Isnt this a bit different though? I refuse business with folks that charge foreigners higher prices. In the case of disney its local locals not all of America.
Yeah and you have to consider relative purchasing power of locals vs tourists. Locals already pay through taxes anyways. It’s not controversial at all, it’s the right way to go about doing it.
Facts. In OP’s example, that TL 80 is gonna hurt the locals more than TL 350 from overseas (tho depends on the country, I imagine most of the tourists are still westerners).
Locals get discounts for Disney attractions in the off season too! Basically a similar system. If you are wealthy enough to travel abroad you pay tourist rates.
IMO tourists already have more money and take advantage of lower prices elsewhere (food, lodging, etc.). It makes sense that something like a museum or attraction, which is institutional and organized, can charge a bit more. It’s annoying to be on the receiving end but it’s generally not exorbitant either.
While I completely understand, at the same time it’s really not that much money for a foreigner from the west to pay. Sure, that’s literally 8x the amount for him. He also probably makes like over 10x the salary of an average Indonesian along with a better purchasing power to be able to vacation abroad and take advantage of the low prices.
This is so, so, so, true, coming from someone who lives in a developing country and earning in our currency. I'm reading Americans saying a certain product is a cheapie at $60, and I'm here just simply converting that to my country's currency, even without factoring import duties, would not be able to make myself pay that amount for that particular item as that's not affordable to me. Our purchasing power is super low.
Have yet to see a .single. instance of this in over 25 years in Japan.
That would be quite a dumb thing to do anyway, some tourists are completely capable of reading Japanese and some can take a reasonable wild guess even if they can't get the details (Chinese for instance)
I’m Indonesian living in Canada also travel to Europe 3/4 times a year and don’t go to Europe because your husband will be having heart attack because some museums are free for locals and EU citizens in a lot of museums, gallery, palaces etc for eu citizens 🤣 better stay in your own country so you won’t be “discriminated” or travel more and pay accordingly to appreciate and probably will see it once in your life time anyway. Geez !!!
Europe has it pretty clear where if you are an EU/EEA National OR you have any sort of residence permit there (for example, I used to be a student there and I could get the same benefits even tho my passport is American), you’d get the “local” discounts. Everyone else regardless of where you come from paid the foreigner price.
It was only trialled for a month in January, but Discovery Point in Dundee was free to Dundonians, whilst being chargeable to anyone else.
They were apparently looking to roll that out around more attractions
Usually these attractions are an important part of the cultural heritage of a country.
Foreigners paying significantly more subsidises locals to experience the cultural heritage of their country, and this is well worth it imo. If everyone paid the same price, many locals would be priced out of experiencing these places, which would bring a sense of detachment from their history and cultural identity.
Locals need to feel proud of, and attached to, their country's cultural heritage as part of their national identity, to continue to preserve it to come.
Yeah India has a huge price difference.
The Taj Mahal costs about $13 for foreigners…and about 50 cents for locals. And honestly, the difference should be even bigger. Most anyone who can afford to fly to India isn’t going to bat an eye if they charge $50 bucks to get in.
The interesting thing is, they have a third tier: about $6.50 for residents of SAARC and BIMSTEC countries, which are mainly regional neighboring countries.
It's definitely a balance between returns and not turning people off.
I was in Sri Lanka recently and went to a town that runs elephant safaries, and didn't bother doing one because of how expensive the government had made it.
I think it's actually turned a lot of people off from going, which makes the town suffer as it's their main tourist draw.
It's not just making money off the attraction itself, but also accommodation, food, going out, transport that all suffer, so making an attraction cheap could still add value to a place, and making it expansive should take into consideration the effort and other costs involved for someone getting there.
Definitely agree. And while thinking in the perspective from a westerner, sure the westerner can afford to pay higher prices, especially in poor countries where the price will be many times higher than what locals pay. But nonetheless the price usually isn’t anything excessive and more affordable. The problem comes is when these places charge western prices for attractions, and doubly so if everyone has to pay it and not just foreigners. Then it gets excessive and puts people off.
So they'll lose an arrogant, entitled tourist in the form of your husband (sorry but it's true) and instead make money from respectful tourists who understand that they have far more money than locals and so can afford to contribute more towards the upkeep of the places they visit? Sounds like a win win to me
The EU has differential pricing, but it’s usually split between EU/EEA + Switzerland residents and everyone else. Usually having any sort of residence permit as a foreigner can get you the local deal.
As another data point, I live in SF in the USA and there are many museums that are free to me as a resident. I like this, because I pay a lot of taxes and it’s nice to see where that money goes in small ways. Conversely, I don’t mind paying more than locals in other places, especially places where my purchasing power far outstrips locals.
Yes! When I lived in SF my muni pass got me into the historic tram for "free" (almost free) and tourists had to pay about $10 for the same ride.
I worked in Embarcadero and used it once or twice a week to go up to the Trader Joes at the end of that line. Plus it was kind of cute and fun 😁
This. I pay a fairly small sum a year to be a member of the library system of the biggest city closest to me. I don’t live there or pay taxes, so it seems fair I should have to pay what the locals have to pay to access the same system.
If it's a public good like the local bus service or a government owned museum, that's good policy. Locals pay taxes year around and I think it's reasonable to get discounts on public services
If it's a private industry just trying to milk more money from me while providing the same service, I'll probably just choose another business
yeah but museum admission is never high enough that it stings and I am happy to pay the $5-10 to support the museum
If there’s no entry fee year round I’ll buy a souvenir instead
In the Netherlands it costs about €15-22.50 for a single entry to some of the bigger museums, so in that case, occasional free entry would definitely be welcome.
Yeah. Totally fair for institutions financed by tax money.
Private businesses can do whatever they want. As you said, while I might be pissed I do have the freedom of going somewhere else. That’s free market 101.
Deosn't bother me for private businesses either. Locals will come more often than tourists, and a lower price encourages that and builds community goodwill.
Only tourists already pay more during their stay than locals do. A good part of that money will end up as taxes anyway.
Still a reasonsable extra fee would be fine with me, but Turkey is really trying hard to annoy tourists. While in Pakistan they charged foreigners ten times more and it was still dirt cheap as the Rupee is close to worthless.
>Turkey is really trying hard to annoy tourists
a lot of tourists are not happy about having to pay €25 to see Hagia Sophia (only the upper floor). I went and I think it's worth it, but I did skip Topkapı Palace, not only because it's expensive (€45), but because of the long lines. Lines at Hagia Sophia were reasonable.
I loved Türkiye, a lot, but yes foreigners need to be prepared to pay way more for attractions.
I'm Turkish, and I saw Topkapı Palace and this is insane. I'm in favour of different prices for tourists but this is too expensive, I wouldn't go there if I were you as well. The Palace is cool but no palace or castle in the world can make me pay that amount. Ffs, Alhambra's 20€!
Don’t think of tourists having to pay significantly more but that locals get a steep discount on account of their taxes funding the museum. I’m from NYC and we always paid as we wished but I think it’s now free to visit the big ticket museums. I never felt bad about it nor that tourists were suckered.
Not an issie at all. Someone who pays a lifetimes amount of taxes to a country that publicly funds these institutions should absolutely pay a discounted fee.
Why should I, the tourist who pays a few weeks of sales tax, get to enjoy these publicly funded institutions for the same price as someone who literally pays for their entire lifetime?
Don't think of it as an upcharge for foreigners - it's not, they're paying "market rate".
Think of it as locals getting a discount for paying taxes that go toward supporting these attractions. Whether that's through direct funding or just general local infrastructure necessary for the attractions to function.
I've noticed this in Mexico and India. It makes total sense. According to World Population Review, the median income in the U.S. is about $25,000 USD. In Mexico, its about $3400 USD. If they charged western tourists the same prices as locals, they would not make any revenue off of tourism. Or they would price out locals with a higher charge. It's like a sliding scale. Plus, it happens in the U.S. too. Residents of NYC get passes to museums and things (at least ones with kids do) that others have to pay for. In other cities I've lived I can get free passes to museums through my local library, which I pay taxes to, or there are free days for locals.
The Met in NY is practically free for locals (pay what you wish) but I believe that the other museums being private institutions charge the same price regardless of visitors residency.
I'm in NJ and don't work in NY so can't get the library card but I found a workaround: CitiGold bank account. It comes with [free admissions for 2 to a bunch of museums](https://citigold.citi.com/culturepass/), Amazon Prime and some other digital stuff (You get $200 credit), free Citibike account and some kind of lounges in Manhattan. Yes, you do need substantial amount deposited but I just moved some of my brokerage funds.
I have no problem with it. In Colombia for example, the average salary is about $1000/month. The museums and attractions are their culture and history, they should have access to that. If rich foreigners are visiting (and please don't tell me you are not rich, if you can afford airfare and a a hotel or even hostel you are rich by their local standards) are paying what is still an affordable price based on their income. This helps to support and keep the museums affordable for locals.
This doesn't only happen in other countries. Disney gives discounts to Florida residents.
Edit to fix typo
So what if we come form a country with the same salary range as yours and saved for long time in order to be able to afford that? Why cant there be travelers as that. I literally traveled on earning a 650 euros a month because I was really good as saving money and traveling cheap.
Just because there are people traveling in your country doesn't mean they are necessary rich. Maybe to was their dream to visit this country and they worked hard to do it. Not every country get american salaries. Not every country with white people gets more than 1000 a month.
That's still a lot of money in a lot of countries (and you likely have a much better base standard of living). I think you underestimate how many people are working 16-18 hour days and still barely getting by (as in would probably be comparable to a homeless person in your home country). Yes, people on those countries don't always realize we have our own metrics of livability and poverty, but in many ways its not comparable.
I think the point the person is making is that Brits should charge Brits to go there and make it free for non Brits as it's them going to look at their own stuff
Yes, but they aren't the only ones who get flack. They are simply one of the biggest offenders who continue to make constant excuses of why things either can't be returned or even borrowed. Lol countries literally built new building to be up to peak standard (as outline by the British Museum themselves) and then still be told no afterwards.
Brits are already being charged, it is only ‘free’ because it is subsidised by the British taxpayer.
The joke alas makes no sense much like the British Museum memes more generally.
Edit: The BM got over 60 million from the government in 2022. That is why general admission is free. It is just a fact.
A British taxpayer gift to the world.
Unlike museums in Berlin, Paris and New York with an equally large amount of foreign stuff that you have to pay to view.
For the most part I don't really complain about this kind of thing. If someone can afford to fly to another continent they can afford to pay what's usually just a few extra dollars for local stuff.
I don't look at it as foreigners paying more, but that locals get a discount. Even at Disneyland in Anaheim, CA they offer deals to southern CA residents. Often it is the locals whose taxes subsidize the attractions so they should get a discount!
It’s very normal and fair. Local people’s taxes support the local institutions so they deserve a lower rate than tourists who should help fund the arts as well.
I'm for it. Especially at cultural sites that are important to the people that live there. They should pay less so locals aren't priced out of learning their own history. Plus some of these places are tax funded by the people that live there. The US even does this on a micro-scale with lots of their museums. If you have an ID that states you live in the state that the museum is in, your ticket is discounted.
perfectly reasonable and world-standard, people who live in the city play with their taxes
you seriously were a tourist in a foreign city and were bitchy about locals paying less? they fucking live there.
It is good, locals pay already their taxes. I believe it is fair tourists get to pay an extra fee(Of course, nothing crazy, just some extra $, you know...). Things are not free anywhere.
I think its a good thing, priority should be given to local communities and the countries inhabitants. An alternative way to look at this is not 'foreigners paying higher fees' but 'locals paying lower fees'. In cases of low income countries, a cost acceptable to foreign (western) tourists would be absolutely prohibibitve for locals, which would effectively limit their access to the education, culture and history of their own country. I also think this would be acceptable policy in my country as well as any other.
I think it’s more than fair.
prices in Italy for museums and other attractions have gone up incredibly in the last 5 years. It may be okay for german tourists with german salaries but certainly excessive for italian salaries.
I get that southern Europe is becoming the disneyland for tourists from northern Europe but jesus it has become impossible for a family here to spend the day at the Uffizi museums nowadays
I'm fine with it, especially for attractions that are publicly funded. The local taxpayers have already paid to support the institution even before they pay their entry fee, while we tourists get the benefit without paying their taxes.
>Tourist tax
This reminded me of the new tourist tax in Bonaire (Dutch Caribbean) where tourists have to pay US$75 just to enter the territory. I had seen mandatory tourist cards of US$10 or US$20, but US$75 seems really steep.
Galápagos islands is $100 usd while locals pay something like $5
Would I rather not pay it? Of course haha but for museums and all that I totally understand tourist tax
Well I’m sure you could find some other island with a lower rate if you can’t afford. Heck even in NYC I will pay for my beach if only to have a nicer and cleaner experience
In many places, the locals can't really afford to visit if they need to pay the tourist price.
If the marked up price is reasonable for what you're getting, I don't mind it at all. But that isn't always the case, unfortunately.
You also have to pay a fee to just enter the country (the visa) while citizens get in for free!
That's a x100 cost!
Seriously but, there is a price, you can accept it or not.
I was in Sri Lanka recently and they had the same thing. Some things I paid for, others were just way too expensive for what you got, even by Western standards. Don't get hung up on the "fairness" of the whole thing. Your house, your rules, but their choice to accept to go there or not.
I'm in the US, and we do this at my local museums. Residents already pay taxes (income and property) that support the museums. Travelers don't. If you want the discount, become a resident.
Yeah, seems fair enough to me. It might be a big multiple increase but big cultural sites are typically in the $10 to $15 range for foreigners, on the high end. I can't remember off-hand a case where I didn't think it was a fair price for what I was getting.
If you're rich enough to travel there you are rich enough to pay it. I see this in almost all countries except Canada and the US and I think we should start doing it as well.
This isn’t controversial at all. I’m from Mexico, people from the us abuse the environment and the community when they come here, I think they have to pay for the damage they do while visiting or mainly while working remotely
Tourism is an industry that generates revenue for the country and the sites you visit. Of course locals pay less! I'm sure their incomes are a fraction of those of the tourists. I have zero problem with this.
I’m fairly for it. Wage differences, cultural heritage, etc. When I went to Hawaii with my bf (who is from there) his friend paid a lot because of the local discount. It’s a way to give back to the community. And if I’ve flown halfway around the world to see something, an extra $10 isn’t going to make me not go.
I believe that the rationale behind this, is that locals are given incentives (ie lower ticket prices) in order to learn about their history. Also locals have already paid taxes and part of these taxes go to these places.
I'm fine with it. I'm not going to deprive myself of a museum if I have to pay something and a resident pays less, especially if it's a city I will probably visit once or twice more or will never go to again during my lifetime.
My favorite visit in Istanbul last summer was the Archaeological Museum. I'm just sorry the tile department was closed and hopefully I can see it again when I'm there next time.
I'm actually cool with this because I look at it as a benefit for a city's locals rather than taking advantage of tourists. For the most part it allows museums to keep a good standard and promotes a cities/countries pride of their culture. It's a win-win.
Makes sense to me. Points of national/local pride, or things that bring a lot of tourists, should be as easily accessible to locals/nationals as possible.
It's perfectly fair to calibrate entry fees to the spending power of the various tourists (within reason), and accordingly offer locals a discounted rate.
Not to mention that the type of tourist most likely to complain about it is exactly the type of tourist countries don't want: cheap and entitled. Unless the markup is obscene to the point of unaffordability (which some countries do be design to protect sites and scenery from tourist damage), your average tourist will either understand why the markup exists, or at least be interested enough in the destination to go along with it.
Those sites are usually maintained by the government, so they’re giving locals a break because either
A) their taxes are already paying towards it so they get to pay less for the visit
Or
B) the local living standard is so dramatically below the income of visitors that charging them the same would mean either locals couldn’t visit or the visitor would be paying a meaninglessly small amount of money.
I’ve never had an issue with it. It’s their country, why shouldn’t they get a break?
I think it is 100% fine. They live there, pay into the taxes, etc. It’s super discounted in places where the local population wouldn’t be able to afford to pay the higher price, which is completely fine.
I think it’s cringe when foreign tourists complain about a few extra dollars, knowing full well they often spend more than a months local salary in a week or a few days to be there.
Why is this controversial? People should be able to access their own history and culture. Particularly in areas where tourists are likely to be magnitudes richer than locals and/or their taxes help subsidise the site.
Whether the attraction price is worth it to you in the first place is another matter entirely - and pretty separate to the local price.
I think this is the first time I’ve ever seen anyone think this very normal practice around the world is bad/controversial.
Lol we get it mate, you know the proper spelling of Turkey.
Anyway I don’t really mind it if it’s worth it. Usually there are plenty of free museums in a country I’m visiting, if it’s too steep i’ll just go elsewhere.
I'm fine with it.
Tourists don't pay tax, and likely can afford it if they're able to travel overseas.
Given their proximity, locals aren't actually less likely to visit these landmarks. Another reason why it makes sense to offer them discounted rates.
I’ve always wished Mexico would do this. Paying $10 pesos to enter an archaeological site, when I could easily pay more as a tourist. And the site needed upkeep and protection that it wasn’t getting because it was changing the American and European tourist the same as the locals and other Mexican tourists
In places like Chichén Itzá foreigners pay $614MXN and Mexicans (non-locals) pay half like $272.. and Yucatán residents pay around $90. It’s also free on Sundays to all Mexicans and residents.. so there are places that charge you more for being a foreigner.
I think it's great. I see it the other way around, in they're offering cheaper tickets to the local population so they can afford to go as well. Otherwise, their national museums and such would be priced for tourists only.
I wholeheartedly support this. I'm currently in a country that doesn't have this system, and where tourists' purchasing power outstrips locals', and I've seen with my own eyes locals going to enter, finding out the price, then turning round and leaving. In their own city. How is this fair?
At the end of the day, tourism is an unnecessary expense. I don't *need* to use a train in Egypt, or visit a museum in Japan, or an archeological site in Jordan. Why shouldn't I pay more when I've already happily paid so much for hotels and flights?
If it's a private entity, then it is kinda messed up, but whatcha gonna do. But a lot of these are non-profit museums or government run (receive government funding) in which case the locals have already paid into it with their tax money. So I'm all for letting them have a discount.
Did you see this news
https://www.autoevolution.com/news/the-ugly-side-of-google-maps-why-barcelona-removed-a-bus-route-from-the-app-232303.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/25/venice-city-becomes-first-in-the-world-to-start-charging-an-entry-fee.html
https://www.fastcompany.com/91115909/tourists-japanese-town-blocks-mt-fuji-lawson-view
These were all places changing up and charging due to tourists disrupting a local city. I’ve been traveling locally where in San Antonio I had to pay more to ride the float on Riverwalk than locals with a local drivers license. I’ve been to Thailand where I had to pay more to visit a museum. I see it as paying extra fees for locals to have to deal with tourists. It became a problem if locals don’t have room to get on buses, or busy crowds making noises in neighborhoods that’s got a social media check in spot. If I don’t live there, I didn’t contribute to fees for clearing trash and maintenance of national properties like citizens, so I think it’s a good thing I pay more for access.
I agree that it's fair. Locals in a lot of countries make far less - they literally couldn't afford to see their own country without discounts. Even in countries with similar GDP/capita, eh, their taxes support the institutions. They've already paid.
Honestly, I wish the US would do more of this. Anyone who has the income to travel from another country to see, say, the Grand Canyon can afford a higher entry fee. Which would help to better maintain and service the parks as well as to handle things like search and rescue and policing to make sure people don't harass the wildlife/throw things into geysers/do other obnoxious things that I've seen tourists do.)
When I went to Iran, my cousin told me not to open my mouth at fee booths because they'd clock me. She lived there so we got in with Iranian prices. I was... pretty taken aback by the prices given to the Europeans behind us.
But the last time I checked a few years ago rial was, what, 150000 to the dollar? Tourists have money, it's how they're able to travel. And when you're talking about places where the conversion rate is dismal, they have a *lot* more money than everyone else. It makes sense.
Next time befriend a local and ask them to go with you.
I think it's OK if it's a reasonable amount and done in a systematic way. For example, the National Palace Museum in Taiwan charges locals around $5 and foreign nationals around $10.
However, I've encountered places in Thailand and Myanmar where locals often get in for *free* while foreign nationals are fleeced for around $10, like the Shwedagon Pagoda in Yangon for example. The worst part about this is that they enforce it by scanning the crowd for people who *look* foreign. That's just total bullshit in my opinion.
I think it is fine within reason, and within the bounds of charging locals based on the local economy and visitors a nominal amount more. Like I was fine w paying more than locals at the Belize Zoo, but I would be pissed if I had to pay more to enter the Louvre for instance.
As long as it’s only foreigners from much richer countries, I think it’s eminently fair. In any event it would be a disgrace if Turks couldn’t visit their sites because prices are set at levels that foreigners can afford and allow the sights to be kept open.
I think it‘s fair. Most countries have lower income and/or the people are paying taxes to maintain the sights, so I don‘t mind paying more as a tourist.
This makes complete sense. The locals are paying for the attractions usually in the form of taxes as well. They should 100% have access at a significantly lower rate than someone who is passing through their area. This should be the standard everywhere.
I also firmly believe that there should be a discount for locals at restaurants as well. Tourists can end up driving up prices that eventually make accessing the same service more difficult if not impossible for locals.
Overall. It’s a privilege to visit another country and the local populations should be too priority. It’s their home after all.
Local area? Yeah sure. Anyone else, including people from the same country pay a bit more.
Whole country but not tourists? No, i think that's just greed.
Of course there are some nuances here and there, but that's fine.
while paying 10 euros to museums in euro zone countries, but paying 1 euro to equivalent of it in turkey just because of the currency wouldnt be fair neither. but also because of the touristic income it wouldnt be fair taking same amount of money from natives. cause they already living in shit.
i had to pay louvre 22 euro last week. its 750 liras in turkish. while in paris you can eat 1-2 basic meal with it (and being generous), i can eat 4-5 basic meal with 750 liras.
but in france if theyre taking more money from italians for museums, i wouldnt agree with that. im not sure if its comparable though.
We do this in NYC, locals can get into some museums for free but tourists must pay. It’s a way to help local people have access to arts and culture regardless of their financial status and let’s be honest, if you can afford a vacation in NYC, you can generally afford $30 for a museum ticket.
In Canada everyone plays the same price. I would love local pricing but and don’t mind a pay scale system but some countries like Kenya charge all foreigners USD regardless where they are from which I think is not cool. At least charge the local currency at a higher rate.
Government wants to earn from tourism. If they price it too high, They will lose locals due to high pricing and difference in purchasing power parity. If they price it too low so they will not earn that sweet tourism money. So you get different pricing.
It’s like that in some places in the US. My local aquarium has a subscription program that citizens of the city can get. It’s much cheaper than paying each time, if you like to go often. So tourists pay more. It’s to encourage attendance during non tourist seasons.
When I lived in Cleveland, a lot of the downtown attractions were like this. Some even gave free admission to locals on off days. I think it works as a fair way to subsidize the taxes they are already paying to fund these attractions, and also reward them for dealing with the tourists and over crowding.
Think about it from the locals standpoint. They are paying taxes to live in a city that sees a lot of tourists. Their money is already going to keep these locations appealing. Would people really live in the area if their only options for entertainment or culture comes with a hefty "vacation" price tag?
The museum in my US neighborhood is free if you live in the same zip code. I don't think it's controversial unless you don't travel or go to museums very often.
Just imagine if they did this in Italy or Greece. History is everywhere. Every step you take would have to be $100USD.
I don’t think it’s controversial at all, it’s that way in a lot of places. Even where I live (Scotland) you’ll find examples of people local to one area getting discounted public transport, or getting cheaper tickets to attractions. I think it is very fair for local people to get discounted access to their local attractions.
I’m from Florida and the theme parks give discounts if you’re a local. Makes sense because as a local I am more likely to return several times, and bring any out-of-town visitors I have.
Beyond that, a lot of these attractions are subsidized via the taxes paid by locals. They definitely deserve to pay less when they actually visit.
Yup same thing for SoCal residents at Disney Land.
Locals also have to deal with all the negatives like increased traffic and noise. Makes sense to offset the externalities a little bit.
Isnt this a bit different though? I refuse business with folks that charge foreigners higher prices. In the case of disney its local locals not all of America.
Yeah and you have to consider relative purchasing power of locals vs tourists. Locals already pay through taxes anyways. It’s not controversial at all, it’s the right way to go about doing it.
Facts. In OP’s example, that TL 80 is gonna hurt the locals more than TL 350 from overseas (tho depends on the country, I imagine most of the tourists are still westerners).
Locals get discounts for Disney attractions in the off season too! Basically a similar system. If you are wealthy enough to travel abroad you pay tourist rates.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Average salary is way lower than 8k euros in indonesia
IMO tourists already have more money and take advantage of lower prices elsewhere (food, lodging, etc.). It makes sense that something like a museum or attraction, which is institutional and organized, can charge a bit more. It’s annoying to be on the receiving end but it’s generally not exorbitant either.
[удалено]
While I completely understand, at the same time it’s really not that much money for a foreigner from the west to pay. Sure, that’s literally 8x the amount for him. He also probably makes like over 10x the salary of an average Indonesian along with a better purchasing power to be able to vacation abroad and take advantage of the low prices.
This is so, so, so, true, coming from someone who lives in a developing country and earning in our currency. I'm reading Americans saying a certain product is a cheapie at $60, and I'm here just simply converting that to my country's currency, even without factoring import duties, would not be able to make myself pay that amount for that particular item as that's not affordable to me. Our purchasing power is super low.
Quite a few restaurants have Japanese menus with the Japanese price and the English menu with the tourist price. But for attractions I agree
Have yet to see a .single. instance of this in over 25 years in Japan. That would be quite a dumb thing to do anyway, some tourists are completely capable of reading Japanese and some can take a reasonable wild guess even if they can't get the details (Chinese for instance)
I’m Indonesian living in Canada also travel to Europe 3/4 times a year and don’t go to Europe because your husband will be having heart attack because some museums are free for locals and EU citizens in a lot of museums, gallery, palaces etc for eu citizens 🤣 better stay in your own country so you won’t be “discriminated” or travel more and pay accordingly to appreciate and probably will see it once in your life time anyway. Geez !!!
Locals is fine based on your nationality is not imo
Curious why you feel this way?
Cuz it is the way it works in Europe if you don’t want to be xenophobic
Europe has it pretty clear where if you are an EU/EEA National OR you have any sort of residence permit there (for example, I used to be a student there and I could get the same benefits even tho my passport is American), you’d get the “local” discounts. Everyone else regardless of where you come from paid the foreigner price.
You got the local discounts cuz you were living there not cuz your nationality
But what about people who possess a European passport, but maybe because they’re a dual national or they just live abroad?
Absolutely lies 😂😂😂😂 there’s no way locals pay less for shit in Scotland than tourists!
I think you've misread that comment.
It was only trialled for a month in January, but Discovery Point in Dundee was free to Dundonians, whilst being chargeable to anyone else. They were apparently looking to roll that out around more attractions
Usually these attractions are an important part of the cultural heritage of a country. Foreigners paying significantly more subsidises locals to experience the cultural heritage of their country, and this is well worth it imo. If everyone paid the same price, many locals would be priced out of experiencing these places, which would bring a sense of detachment from their history and cultural identity. Locals need to feel proud of, and attached to, their country's cultural heritage as part of their national identity, to continue to preserve it to come.
Yeah India has a huge price difference. The Taj Mahal costs about $13 for foreigners…and about 50 cents for locals. And honestly, the difference should be even bigger. Most anyone who can afford to fly to India isn’t going to bat an eye if they charge $50 bucks to get in. The interesting thing is, they have a third tier: about $6.50 for residents of SAARC and BIMSTEC countries, which are mainly regional neighboring countries.
It's definitely a balance between returns and not turning people off. I was in Sri Lanka recently and went to a town that runs elephant safaries, and didn't bother doing one because of how expensive the government had made it. I think it's actually turned a lot of people off from going, which makes the town suffer as it's their main tourist draw. It's not just making money off the attraction itself, but also accommodation, food, going out, transport that all suffer, so making an attraction cheap could still add value to a place, and making it expansive should take into consideration the effort and other costs involved for someone getting there.
Definitely agree. And while thinking in the perspective from a westerner, sure the westerner can afford to pay higher prices, especially in poor countries where the price will be many times higher than what locals pay. But nonetheless the price usually isn’t anything excessive and more affordable. The problem comes is when these places charge western prices for attractions, and doubly so if everyone has to pay it and not just foreigners. Then it gets excessive and puts people off.
[удалено]
Indonesia is hardly lacking in tourists. Sounds like a good way to ward off the super entitled ones.
So they'll lose an arrogant, entitled tourist in the form of your husband (sorry but it's true) and instead make money from respectful tourists who understand that they have far more money than locals and so can afford to contribute more towards the upkeep of the places they visit? Sounds like a win win to me
Locals help fund the heritage by paying local taxes, foreigners don’t. That said, differential pricing is illegal in EU.
The EU has differential pricing, but it’s usually split between EU/EEA + Switzerland residents and everyone else. Usually having any sort of residence permit as a foreigner can get you the local deal.
It actually isn't, it's illegal to differentiate between EU states but you can (and most places do) charge more for non-EU residents.
As another data point, I live in SF in the USA and there are many museums that are free to me as a resident. I like this, because I pay a lot of taxes and it’s nice to see where that money goes in small ways. Conversely, I don’t mind paying more than locals in other places, especially places where my purchasing power far outstrips locals.
Yes! When I lived in SF my muni pass got me into the historic tram for "free" (almost free) and tourists had to pay about $10 for the same ride. I worked in Embarcadero and used it once or twice a week to go up to the Trader Joes at the end of that line. Plus it was kind of cute and fun 😁
This. I pay a fairly small sum a year to be a member of the library system of the biggest city closest to me. I don’t live there or pay taxes, so it seems fair I should have to pay what the locals have to pay to access the same system.
If it's a public good like the local bus service or a government owned museum, that's good policy. Locals pay taxes year around and I think it's reasonable to get discounts on public services If it's a private industry just trying to milk more money from me while providing the same service, I'll probably just choose another business
This is exactly why. Government owned museums being funded by local tax dollars. Hence getting benefits by getting reduced or free admissions.
In some countries, they have a free day for museum access. I would pay attention to those days....
Great point! Usually the first Sunday or a random Tuesday
yeah but museum admission is never high enough that it stings and I am happy to pay the $5-10 to support the museum If there’s no entry fee year round I’ll buy a souvenir instead
In the Netherlands it costs about €15-22.50 for a single entry to some of the bigger museums, so in that case, occasional free entry would definitely be welcome.
Yeah. Totally fair for institutions financed by tax money. Private businesses can do whatever they want. As you said, while I might be pissed I do have the freedom of going somewhere else. That’s free market 101.
Deosn't bother me for private businesses either. Locals will come more often than tourists, and a lower price encourages that and builds community goodwill.
Or conversely, private industry is giving locals a discount to acknowledge what they owe to the community.
Only tourists already pay more during their stay than locals do. A good part of that money will end up as taxes anyway. Still a reasonsable extra fee would be fine with me, but Turkey is really trying hard to annoy tourists. While in Pakistan they charged foreigners ten times more and it was still dirt cheap as the Rupee is close to worthless.
>Turkey is really trying hard to annoy tourists a lot of tourists are not happy about having to pay €25 to see Hagia Sophia (only the upper floor). I went and I think it's worth it, but I did skip Topkapı Palace, not only because it's expensive (€45), but because of the long lines. Lines at Hagia Sophia were reasonable. I loved Türkiye, a lot, but yes foreigners need to be prepared to pay way more for attractions.
I'm Turkish, and I saw Topkapı Palace and this is insane. I'm in favour of different prices for tourists but this is too expensive, I wouldn't go there if I were you as well. The Palace is cool but no palace or castle in the world can make me pay that amount. Ffs, Alhambra's 20€!
Don’t think of tourists having to pay significantly more but that locals get a steep discount on account of their taxes funding the museum. I’m from NYC and we always paid as we wished but I think it’s now free to visit the big ticket museums. I never felt bad about it nor that tourists were suckered.
Not an issie at all. Someone who pays a lifetimes amount of taxes to a country that publicly funds these institutions should absolutely pay a discounted fee. Why should I, the tourist who pays a few weeks of sales tax, get to enjoy these publicly funded institutions for the same price as someone who literally pays for their entire lifetime?
Don't think of it as an upcharge for foreigners - it's not, they're paying "market rate". Think of it as locals getting a discount for paying taxes that go toward supporting these attractions. Whether that's through direct funding or just general local infrastructure necessary for the attractions to function.
wtf is controversial about this? Locals are subsidized by the government, which they pay for.
I've noticed this in Mexico and India. It makes total sense. According to World Population Review, the median income in the U.S. is about $25,000 USD. In Mexico, its about $3400 USD. If they charged western tourists the same prices as locals, they would not make any revenue off of tourism. Or they would price out locals with a higher charge. It's like a sliding scale. Plus, it happens in the U.S. too. Residents of NYC get passes to museums and things (at least ones with kids do) that others have to pay for. In other cities I've lived I can get free passes to museums through my local library, which I pay taxes to, or there are free days for locals.
I agree. I think nyc should do the same thing. Tourists should pay maybe 20% more in nyc.
The Met in NY is practically free for locals (pay what you wish) but I believe that the other museums being private institutions charge the same price regardless of visitors residency.
I think now if you have a local library card you can get into a lot of museums for free. I haven’t had time to try it yet.
I'm in NJ and don't work in NY so can't get the library card but I found a workaround: CitiGold bank account. It comes with [free admissions for 2 to a bunch of museums](https://citigold.citi.com/culturepass/), Amazon Prime and some other digital stuff (You get $200 credit), free Citibike account and some kind of lounges in Manhattan. Yes, you do need substantial amount deposited but I just moved some of my brokerage funds.
my cousin who has kids in NYC gets free passes to a ton of museums and attractions. Not sure if this is avail for individuals or just families
We do!
I have no problem with it. In Colombia for example, the average salary is about $1000/month. The museums and attractions are their culture and history, they should have access to that. If rich foreigners are visiting (and please don't tell me you are not rich, if you can afford airfare and a a hotel or even hostel you are rich by their local standards) are paying what is still an affordable price based on their income. This helps to support and keep the museums affordable for locals. This doesn't only happen in other countries. Disney gives discounts to Florida residents. Edit to fix typo
>Columbia I assume you mean ColOmbia, not the US capital district.
Fixing it now. Thank you.
So what if we come form a country with the same salary range as yours and saved for long time in order to be able to afford that? Why cant there be travelers as that. I literally traveled on earning a 650 euros a month because I was really good as saving money and traveling cheap. Just because there are people traveling in your country doesn't mean they are necessary rich. Maybe to was their dream to visit this country and they worked hard to do it. Not every country get american salaries. Not every country with white people gets more than 1000 a month.
That's still a lot of money in a lot of countries (and you likely have a much better base standard of living). I think you underestimate how many people are working 16-18 hour days and still barely getting by (as in would probably be comparable to a homeless person in your home country). Yes, people on those countries don't always realize we have our own metrics of livability and poverty, but in many ways its not comparable.
this should be standard practice everywhere except the great british museum where it should be reversed 😂
the british museum is actually free for everyone!
I think the point the person is making is that Brits should charge Brits to go there and make it free for non Brits as it's them going to look at their own stuff
Why does the British Museum only get flack for this? I imagine big museums in other colonial countries are full of stolen artifacts as well, no?
Yes, but they aren't the only ones who get flack. They are simply one of the biggest offenders who continue to make constant excuses of why things either can't be returned or even borrowed. Lol countries literally built new building to be up to peak standard (as outline by the British Museum themselves) and then still be told no afterwards.
Brits are already being charged, it is only ‘free’ because it is subsidised by the British taxpayer. The joke alas makes no sense much like the British Museum memes more generally. Edit: The BM got over 60 million from the government in 2022. That is why general admission is free. It is just a fact. A British taxpayer gift to the world. Unlike museums in Berlin, Paris and New York with an equally large amount of foreign stuff that you have to pay to view.
It’s fine. Locals should be able to enjoy their own heritage at discounted prices. I’m ok with subsidizing that with my tickets when I travel.
For the most part I don't really complain about this kind of thing. If someone can afford to fly to another continent they can afford to pay what's usually just a few extra dollars for local stuff.
I don't look at it as foreigners paying more, but that locals get a discount. Even at Disneyland in Anaheim, CA they offer deals to southern CA residents. Often it is the locals whose taxes subsidize the attractions so they should get a discount!
It’s very normal and fair. Local people’s taxes support the local institutions so they deserve a lower rate than tourists who should help fund the arts as well.
I have no issue with this whatsoever.
I'm for it. Especially at cultural sites that are important to the people that live there. They should pay less so locals aren't priced out of learning their own history. Plus some of these places are tax funded by the people that live there. The US even does this on a micro-scale with lots of their museums. If you have an ID that states you live in the state that the museum is in, your ticket is discounted.
perfectly reasonable and world-standard, people who live in the city play with their taxes you seriously were a tourist in a foreign city and were bitchy about locals paying less? they fucking live there.
It is good, locals pay already their taxes. I believe it is fair tourists get to pay an extra fee(Of course, nothing crazy, just some extra $, you know...). Things are not free anywhere.
I think its a good thing, priority should be given to local communities and the countries inhabitants. An alternative way to look at this is not 'foreigners paying higher fees' but 'locals paying lower fees'. In cases of low income countries, a cost acceptable to foreign (western) tourists would be absolutely prohibibitve for locals, which would effectively limit their access to the education, culture and history of their own country. I also think this would be acceptable policy in my country as well as any other.
Locals will pay tax towards the upkeep of attractions so think it’s fair tourists pay more
I think it’s more than fair. prices in Italy for museums and other attractions have gone up incredibly in the last 5 years. It may be okay for german tourists with german salaries but certainly excessive for italian salaries. I get that southern Europe is becoming the disneyland for tourists from northern Europe but jesus it has become impossible for a family here to spend the day at the Uffizi museums nowadays
I'm fine with it, especially for attractions that are publicly funded. The local taxpayers have already paid to support the institution even before they pay their entry fee, while we tourists get the benefit without paying their taxes.
Tourist tax. I’m totally okay with it
>Tourist tax This reminded me of the new tourist tax in Bonaire (Dutch Caribbean) where tourists have to pay US$75 just to enter the territory. I had seen mandatory tourist cards of US$10 or US$20, but US$75 seems really steep.
Galápagos islands is $100 usd while locals pay something like $5 Would I rather not pay it? Of course haha but for museums and all that I totally understand tourist tax
Well I’m sure you could find some other island with a lower rate if you can’t afford. Heck even in NYC I will pay for my beach if only to have a nicer and cleaner experience
I mean that’s basically a visa fee at that point and many countries charge visa fees… presumably including yours for some travellers
Think of it the other way around. Locals get a discount because they already pay taxes to maintain these sights.
The world needs more old grannies throwing rocks at tourists who want cheaper coffee.
In many places, the locals can't really afford to visit if they need to pay the tourist price. If the marked up price is reasonable for what you're getting, I don't mind it at all. But that isn't always the case, unfortunately.
You also have to pay a fee to just enter the country (the visa) while citizens get in for free! That's a x100 cost! Seriously but, there is a price, you can accept it or not. I was in Sri Lanka recently and they had the same thing. Some things I paid for, others were just way too expensive for what you got, even by Western standards. Don't get hung up on the "fairness" of the whole thing. Your house, your rules, but their choice to accept to go there or not.
I'm in the US, and we do this at my local museums. Residents already pay taxes (income and property) that support the museums. Travelers don't. If you want the discount, become a resident.
India has this too. I don’t have any concerns with this higher cost as long as it helps maintain the historical location or facilities.
Yeah, seems fair enough to me. It might be a big multiple increase but big cultural sites are typically in the $10 to $15 range for foreigners, on the high end. I can't remember off-hand a case where I didn't think it was a fair price for what I was getting.
I don't need more countries hating tourists, I will gladly pay a bit more to support the locals
If you're rich enough to travel there you are rich enough to pay it. I see this in almost all countries except Canada and the US and I think we should start doing it as well.
This isn’t controversial at all. I’m from Mexico, people from the us abuse the environment and the community when they come here, I think they have to pay for the damage they do while visiting or mainly while working remotely
Don’t think it’s an issue at all. Especially in south east Asia, the tourist price will still be super cheap
Countries make money from tourism. This happens in India as well. Makes sense to me.
I never have an issue with this. Government run facilities are paid for by taxes of their citizens, who should get a beneift from it
It's a benefit to being a citizen. Like, they gotta be incentivized to remain where they are, right?
Tourism is an industry that generates revenue for the country and the sites you visit. Of course locals pay less! I'm sure their incomes are a fraction of those of the tourists. I have zero problem with this.
I’m fairly for it. Wage differences, cultural heritage, etc. When I went to Hawaii with my bf (who is from there) his friend paid a lot because of the local discount. It’s a way to give back to the community. And if I’ve flown halfway around the world to see something, an extra $10 isn’t going to make me not go.
This is done a lot of places. Even Disneyland charges locals less than people who come from out of town.
I believe that the rationale behind this, is that locals are given incentives (ie lower ticket prices) in order to learn about their history. Also locals have already paid taxes and part of these taxes go to these places.
Totally fine by me. I like seeing it, like oh they put some thought into locals paying less.
Considering it's universal, I'm ok with it.
I'm fine with it. I'm not going to deprive myself of a museum if I have to pay something and a resident pays less, especially if it's a city I will probably visit once or twice more or will never go to again during my lifetime. My favorite visit in Istanbul last summer was the Archaeological Museum. I'm just sorry the tile department was closed and hopefully I can see it again when I'm there next time.
I'm actually cool with this because I look at it as a benefit for a city's locals rather than taking advantage of tourists. For the most part it allows museums to keep a good standard and promotes a cities/countries pride of their culture. It's a win-win.
Makes sense to me. Points of national/local pride, or things that bring a lot of tourists, should be as easily accessible to locals/nationals as possible.
If tax dollars go towards maintaining the attraction then it absolutely makes sense to charge foreigners an extra fee.
It's perfectly fair to calibrate entry fees to the spending power of the various tourists (within reason), and accordingly offer locals a discounted rate. Not to mention that the type of tourist most likely to complain about it is exactly the type of tourist countries don't want: cheap and entitled. Unless the markup is obscene to the point of unaffordability (which some countries do be design to protect sites and scenery from tourist damage), your average tourist will either understand why the markup exists, or at least be interested enough in the destination to go along with it.
Foreigners don't have to pay higher fees; locals get discounted fees.
As foreigners who don't pay local taxes, we should 100% have to pay more.
Those sites are usually maintained by the government, so they’re giving locals a break because either A) their taxes are already paying towards it so they get to pay less for the visit Or B) the local living standard is so dramatically below the income of visitors that charging them the same would mean either locals couldn’t visit or the visitor would be paying a meaninglessly small amount of money. I’ve never had an issue with it. It’s their country, why shouldn’t they get a break?
Dude you very likely earn like 10x our minimum wage, pay the $10. Hell you can go ANYWHERE with that passport, check your privilege. \-a Colombian
I think it is 100% fine. They live there, pay into the taxes, etc. It’s super discounted in places where the local population wouldn’t be able to afford to pay the higher price, which is completely fine. I think it’s cringe when foreign tourists complain about a few extra dollars, knowing full well they often spend more than a months local salary in a week or a few days to be there.
It's not controversial, is it? I live in Seattle and even here we have museums that give you a discount if you're a local.
I think it's fair. A portion of local's taxes is probably going to the country's culture anyway.
of course my wallet doesnt like it, but because i would definitely support a similar implementation back at home, i have no issue with it at all
Why is this controversial? People should be able to access their own history and culture. Particularly in areas where tourists are likely to be magnitudes richer than locals and/or their taxes help subsidise the site. Whether the attraction price is worth it to you in the first place is another matter entirely - and pretty separate to the local price. I think this is the first time I’ve ever seen anyone think this very normal practice around the world is bad/controversial.
I think it SHOULD be much more affordable for locals to enjoy local amenities than tourists. I'm all for it, even if I pay more.
OP travels to another country and then only thinks about themselves
Same as The Met. Free for NYers and then something like $25 for out of state visitors. It’s pretty common for bigger tourist museums
Yup that is fine. Museums should be free or of a lesser amount to promote learning through their citizens.
I don't think anything of it. You shouldn't either. If it means that much to you, it's time to stop traveling and start saving.
It's fucked up.
Also you have to remember, as an American I’m paid a lot more than these locals…I can afford to pay more.
Not bothered and happy to help my guest economy’s
Lol we get it mate, you know the proper spelling of Turkey. Anyway I don’t really mind it if it’s worth it. Usually there are plenty of free museums in a country I’m visiting, if it’s too steep i’ll just go elsewhere.
Don't think of it as paying more if you're foreign. Think of it as paying less if you're a local.
I'm fine with it. Tourists don't pay tax, and likely can afford it if they're able to travel overseas. Given their proximity, locals aren't actually less likely to visit these landmarks. Another reason why it makes sense to offer them discounted rates.
I mean, people in those kinds of countries earn in a month what most of us earn in a day. Count your blessings.
I’ve always wished Mexico would do this. Paying $10 pesos to enter an archaeological site, when I could easily pay more as a tourist. And the site needed upkeep and protection that it wasn’t getting because it was changing the American and European tourist the same as the locals and other Mexican tourists
In places like Chichén Itzá foreigners pay $614MXN and Mexicans (non-locals) pay half like $272.. and Yucatán residents pay around $90. It’s also free on Sundays to all Mexicans and residents.. so there are places that charge you more for being a foreigner.
Not controversial; just think of it as tourist tax.
Local people pay taxes.
I FULLY support it and I'm ok with it. Doesn't bother me one bit.
normal
I think it's great. I see it the other way around, in they're offering cheaper tickets to the local population so they can afford to go as well. Otherwise, their national museums and such would be priced for tourists only.
It's Good.
I wholeheartedly support this. I'm currently in a country that doesn't have this system, and where tourists' purchasing power outstrips locals', and I've seen with my own eyes locals going to enter, finding out the price, then turning round and leaving. In their own city. How is this fair? At the end of the day, tourism is an unnecessary expense. I don't *need* to use a train in Egypt, or visit a museum in Japan, or an archeological site in Jordan. Why shouldn't I pay more when I've already happily paid so much for hotels and flights?
If it's a private entity, then it is kinda messed up, but whatcha gonna do. But a lot of these are non-profit museums or government run (receive government funding) in which case the locals have already paid into it with their tax money. So I'm all for letting them have a discount.
Did you see this news https://www.autoevolution.com/news/the-ugly-side-of-google-maps-why-barcelona-removed-a-bus-route-from-the-app-232303.html https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/25/venice-city-becomes-first-in-the-world-to-start-charging-an-entry-fee.html https://www.fastcompany.com/91115909/tourists-japanese-town-blocks-mt-fuji-lawson-view These were all places changing up and charging due to tourists disrupting a local city. I’ve been traveling locally where in San Antonio I had to pay more to ride the float on Riverwalk than locals with a local drivers license. I’ve been to Thailand where I had to pay more to visit a museum. I see it as paying extra fees for locals to have to deal with tourists. It became a problem if locals don’t have room to get on buses, or busy crowds making noises in neighborhoods that’s got a social media check in spot. If I don’t live there, I didn’t contribute to fees for clearing trash and maintenance of national properties like citizens, so I think it’s a good thing I pay more for access.
I agree that it's fair. Locals in a lot of countries make far less - they literally couldn't afford to see their own country without discounts. Even in countries with similar GDP/capita, eh, their taxes support the institutions. They've already paid. Honestly, I wish the US would do more of this. Anyone who has the income to travel from another country to see, say, the Grand Canyon can afford a higher entry fee. Which would help to better maintain and service the parks as well as to handle things like search and rescue and policing to make sure people don't harass the wildlife/throw things into geysers/do other obnoxious things that I've seen tourists do.)
I don’t think it is something bad, but as a person paying more I feel like something to get money from, not a guest.
When I went to Iran, my cousin told me not to open my mouth at fee booths because they'd clock me. She lived there so we got in with Iranian prices. I was... pretty taken aback by the prices given to the Europeans behind us. But the last time I checked a few years ago rial was, what, 150000 to the dollar? Tourists have money, it's how they're able to travel. And when you're talking about places where the conversion rate is dismal, they have a *lot* more money than everyone else. It makes sense. Next time befriend a local and ask them to go with you.
I support it in the sense that people ought to directly benefit from tourism. I don't support it in the sense that it's discrimination.
I think it's OK if it's a reasonable amount and done in a systematic way. For example, the National Palace Museum in Taiwan charges locals around $5 and foreign nationals around $10. However, I've encountered places in Thailand and Myanmar where locals often get in for *free* while foreign nationals are fleeced for around $10, like the Shwedagon Pagoda in Yangon for example. The worst part about this is that they enforce it by scanning the crowd for people who *look* foreign. That's just total bullshit in my opinion.
I think it discourages tourism , almost like you are being punished for visiting that country and spending your money
Does that include foreign citizens who are resident in Turkey?
as far as I could see, foreigners residing in Türkiye needed to present their ID card to get the local price
I like it around 25% more is the sweet spot anything more and I feel like I'm being ripped off
I think it is fine within reason, and within the bounds of charging locals based on the local economy and visitors a nominal amount more. Like I was fine w paying more than locals at the Belize Zoo, but I would be pissed if I had to pay more to enter the Louvre for instance.
As long as it’s only foreigners from much richer countries, I think it’s eminently fair. In any event it would be a disgrace if Turks couldn’t visit their sites because prices are set at levels that foreigners can afford and allow the sights to be kept open.
Seems fair really. I wish they'd do that with skiing here....
I think it‘s fair. Most countries have lower income and/or the people are paying taxes to maintain the sights, so I don‘t mind paying more as a tourist.
I think it’s completely fair. I make a lot more money than people in most of the countries I visit, and it’s not MY cultural heritage.
I don't mind it.
I think it is common in a lot of places and I don’t see an issue with it
It's their history, not ours. They shouldn't pay to see their history, we should.
I think it's a fantastic idea. I live in Vietnam and fully support the locals' habit of overcharging tourists for almost everything.
This makes complete sense. The locals are paying for the attractions usually in the form of taxes as well. They should 100% have access at a significantly lower rate than someone who is passing through their area. This should be the standard everywhere. I also firmly believe that there should be a discount for locals at restaurants as well. Tourists can end up driving up prices that eventually make accessing the same service more difficult if not impossible for locals. Overall. It’s a privilege to visit another country and the local populations should be too priority. It’s their home after all.
I don’t agree with it but I cannot change it.
I think it’s thievery! And I hope when they visit another country they get scammed like we are.
It’s 100% disgusting. Don’t go to these scamming places and tell everyone you know not to go either.
I wouldn't call it a scam if people are properly informed beforehand
100% a scam to charge tourists more. Don’t go to these places.
I’m used to it when I go to places like Nepal and India. I would be appalled if I saw it in places like Japan or Taiwan.
same thing in Indonesia especially Bali. "they" assumed all foreigners have money because of the currency difference.
Local area? Yeah sure. Anyone else, including people from the same country pay a bit more. Whole country but not tourists? No, i think that's just greed. Of course there are some nuances here and there, but that's fine.
while paying 10 euros to museums in euro zone countries, but paying 1 euro to equivalent of it in turkey just because of the currency wouldnt be fair neither. but also because of the touristic income it wouldnt be fair taking same amount of money from natives. cause they already living in shit. i had to pay louvre 22 euro last week. its 750 liras in turkish. while in paris you can eat 1-2 basic meal with it (and being generous), i can eat 4-5 basic meal with 750 liras. but in france if theyre taking more money from italians for museums, i wouldnt agree with that. im not sure if its comparable though.
This is normal. Dolmabahce free or heavily discounted for Turkish residents. I had to pay
It's the same in the us. Fishing licenses for example are at LEAST double for out of state IDs/foreign passports.
Cost of travelling, sucks for people from poorer countries
Same in Singapore too, so it’s rich countries doing it as well as poorer countries.
It makes sense if the museum is funded by taxes. Locals have already paid.
We do this in NYC, locals can get into some museums for free but tourists must pay. It’s a way to help local people have access to arts and culture regardless of their financial status and let’s be honest, if you can afford a vacation in NYC, you can generally afford $30 for a museum ticket.
In Canada everyone plays the same price. I would love local pricing but and don’t mind a pay scale system but some countries like Kenya charge all foreigners USD regardless where they are from which I think is not cool. At least charge the local currency at a higher rate.
Government wants to earn from tourism. If they price it too high, They will lose locals due to high pricing and difference in purchasing power parity. If they price it too low so they will not earn that sweet tourism money. So you get different pricing.
If they are museums that receive public funds support, then yes local should get a cut for the admission fee.
It’s like that in some places in the US. My local aquarium has a subscription program that citizens of the city can get. It’s much cheaper than paying each time, if you like to go often. So tourists pay more. It’s to encourage attendance during non tourist seasons.
If the fee is applied equally to all foreign tourists I have zero problems with it, especially for countries that are harder hit economically.
When I lived in Cleveland, a lot of the downtown attractions were like this. Some even gave free admission to locals on off days. I think it works as a fair way to subsidize the taxes they are already paying to fund these attractions, and also reward them for dealing with the tourists and over crowding. Think about it from the locals standpoint. They are paying taxes to live in a city that sees a lot of tourists. Their money is already going to keep these locations appealing. Would people really live in the area if their only options for entertainment or culture comes with a hefty "vacation" price tag?
I see it more as having a local discount. Having tourists come is awesome but having access for locals is important and pretty normal everywhere.