Who are you? What to bring? Yes, but how are you? A florin!
( we can do is cry M. R. Benigni and Troisi, 1985)
There are arguments that come back every cyclical and it's all a bunch of arms. In the draft law on federalism is expected that the provincial capitals may establish a fee of fifty cents to € 5 for each night on the town ground by tourists or anyone to go from there - if only for reasons of work - and stay in hotels.
I think it is useless to remember what that argument is unwelcome to hoteliers, especially those of the Adriatic Coast where there is fierce competition and where prices are what they are. Especially given the current economic situation we try to keep them as low as possible, as to cover everything and more (food to parking, use of bicycles to the theme nights, etc.).. Even so, we must defend whenever attempts to trading downward, proposals all inclusive (hotel, beach, ice cream, disco and the 3 am snack included) or free of the "baby" of 16 who "eat from the plate of mom or dad and sleeps in Latvian."
Imagine if we were to charge the fees to stay! I would spend my time to roll on the floor with customers.
The concept of tax residence in itself contains enough contradictions and absurdities, there is no need to add more. Indeed, in the debate that has now opened, representatives of other municipalities in the province have denied that such a tax to be accurate only by common regional capital, Rimini in our case. At the limit, it is added, this could be accepted only on condition that the proceeds were distributed to all other municipalities in the province. Hoteliers of Rimini, of course, could not be satisfied with this compromise because he felt discriminated against compared to hotels in other places. It would be a cause for alteration of normal competition in the sector.
to want to be fair and impartial, should not be required to be a tribute only an economic category when there are many others who earn through tourism: beach resorts, restaurants, bars, pubs, kiosks, theme parks and entertainment stores. Just to mention the main ones. And even among the types of tourist offer establish an uneven playing field. In the cities of art, for example, visitors staying an average of 1 to 3 days so it might be more inclined to pay the tax with respect to a visitor to the seaside where a holiday we dwell 1 to 2 weeks. Also, if you want to have to go see the Coliseum in Rome to visit the Uffizi you must go to Florence for the Tower of Pisa in Pisa ... and so on. So the evaluation of the pay a little more is quickly made and accepted because there are no alternatives. It gives the common ones (and their host structures) a stronger bargaining power with the tourist. Those who choose the sea or the mountain would not these constraints and the fact that there is or is not a tax would certainly impact on the evaluation and the choice of tourist destination.
Chances are that this is the right time. Now the municipalities are reduced in such a manner that will be very difficult, perhaps impossible, to ignore occasions such as the tax to fill the coffers. If you made use of the road fines to help balance, why should they give up an opportunity like that?
Imagine if we were to charge the fees to stay! I would spend my time to roll on the floor with customers.
The concept of tax residence in itself contains enough contradictions and absurdities, there is no need to add more. Indeed, in the debate that has now opened, representatives of other municipalities in the province have denied that such a tax to be accurate only by common regional capital, Rimini in our case. At the limit, it is added, this could be accepted only on condition that the proceeds were distributed to all other municipalities in the province. Hoteliers of Rimini, of course, could not be satisfied with this compromise because he felt discriminated against compared to hotels in other places. It would be a cause for alteration of normal competition in the sector.
to want to be fair and impartial, should not be required to be a tribute only an economic category when there are many others who earn through tourism: beach resorts, restaurants, bars, pubs, kiosks, theme parks and entertainment stores. Just to mention the main ones. And even among the types of tourist offer establish an uneven playing field. In the cities of art, for example, visitors staying an average of 1 to 3 days so it might be more inclined to pay the tax with respect to a visitor to the seaside where a holiday we dwell 1 to 2 weeks. Also, if you want to have to go see the Coliseum in Rome to visit the Uffizi you must go to Florence for the Tower of Pisa in Pisa ... and so on. So the evaluation of the pay a little more is quickly made and accepted because there are no alternatives. It gives the common ones (and their host structures) a stronger bargaining power with the tourist. Those who choose the sea or the mountain would not these constraints and the fact that there is or is not a tax would certainly impact on the evaluation and the choice of tourist destination.
Chances are that this is the right time. Now the municipalities are reduced in such a manner that will be very difficult, perhaps impossible, to ignore occasions such as the tax to fill the coffers. If you made use of the road fines to help balance, why should they give up an opportunity like that?
holidays other 
0 comments:
Post a Comment