“If the purpose and objective of the “climate resilience tax” and “passenger taxes” in municipalities is the direct “return” to the tourist destinations themselves and their better “shielding” against natural disasters and extreme weather events, with a visible improvement of the natural and built environment for the benefit of citizens and visitors, then of course we agree”, the Union notes in its statement. Hoteliers Athens-Attica.
Then it is added: “However, if the continuous increase in the so-called “climate change resilience rate” and “passenger taxes” in Municipalities is simply a way of increasing public revenues from Tourism – and as a rule from hotels – we present our “objection”, but at the same time (we even present it as a “rhetorical” question) we would also like to know the following:
What is the real size of the investments made – in both cases of taxes – by the coordinated State, i.e. by state and municipal funds at the level of, for example, Athens and Attica? What proportion of the revenues from taxes of this type in tourism “returns” to tourist destinations for the necessary projects and infrastructure improvements, even “due to climate change”?
The contribution of hotels is great
EXAA stresses that “the (long-term) contribution of hotels (and) to taxes is large and measurable. Do we know what the corresponding contribution is of other accommodation categories – which today outnumber hotels in terms of beds – as well as other tour activities? We wonder about the above, both as tourism entrepreneurs and as citizens, since the new tax increases will clearly affect the medium and long-term demand of “tomorrow” for the Athens product – and not only this one, of course.”
Furthermore, it is stated that “these “contributions”, which are requested from time to time by an incoming visitor, do not concern projects and infrastructures implemented in his home country, but in ours, so a logical explanation is needed for what he is asking for. For example, the specific visitor, who we are otherwise trying to attract to extend his days of stay in Athens, if he is to stay for e.g. five (5) days in a 4* hotel in Athens, is asked to pay at least 50 euros extra, for “climate changes” – for an indefinite period. In some cases, the visitor may be annoyed (rightly) by the repeated “extra” costs and “adjustment” fees for his trip to Greek destinations. We should be interested in this – since the so-called “repeat” visitors are the “target customer” of a destination. Finally, the visitor to Athens is not only the tourist who can stay in a 5* hotel, he is also the one who will choose a hotel of lower category (4*, 3*, 2* and 1*) for his stay, he is also a professional who travels frequently, possibly he is also a student at a Greek school, a member of a sports team, etc.’
“Tourism and especially the Hotel Industry have proven over time their contribution to the Greek Economy, in the GDP and in the balance of the country and local communities. Increasing the overall “tourist package” of Athens and its islands, but also of the country as a whole, through various “remunerative” taxes and fees, without however noticing a constant change, a visible positive difference in the daily lives of citizens and visitors to the destinations, should concern us all and, from the HESAAA’s point of view, we have already highlighted this repeatedly.
The direction of tourism, mainly due to important international geopolitical, climatic and, by extension, economic developments, remains uncertain and worrying. One or two good or mediocre tourism years – for certain locations and for certain types of businesses – should not be a basic criterion from the State’s point of view, but also ‘another’ for a horizontal ‘collection policy’, constantly renewed and constantly expanding taxes, all kinds of. A long-term strategic approach and planning of tourism is needed, with a horizon of years and driven by sustainability, sustainability and quality above all – not just quantity and numbers”, adds the statement.
They are asking for a review
Finally, EXAA notes: “In conclusion, we would like the Government to reconsider the matter, or at least any “regular and extraordinary contributions”, both from us and our visitors, that are used – in the end – in a useful way and with absolute transparency.”