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 Pauls Cathedral. These two sites charge the same price regardless of
nationality, and this helps to promote the nations 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.

In terms of the tourism business, there are certainly some differences between foreign visitors
and local visitors, including the charge of attending cultural and historical attractions. As serving
foreigners in these places has distinct difficulties at many aspects, such as culture barrier or
security issue, therefore, in my opinion, a higher price for them is totally comprehensive in this
case.

To begin with, having foreigners in these destinations maybe not suitable as cultural features
from both sides are not matched. Besides, visitors from other countries hardly know the history
or traditions of the place they visit as they come to the showplay merely for entertaining
purpose. Thus, this may cause some misunderstandings in the origin, structure and meaning of
the heritages because visitors find it hard to accept what go against with their original thoughts.
This leads to difficulties for the tour staff in helping them to enjoy and appreciate the place in a
proper way. In contrast, visitors who never know the site in advance may unintentionally do
damage to its state, or they may not be tolerant to obey the crucial regulations, such as taking
photo in the banned place or touching divine things on display, which can trigger dissatisfaction
from local people. Therefore, a greater amount of fee will make them consider before deciding
to give it a go or not and it will make up for their faults if any damage really happens.
In addition, ensuring their safety is also a heavy task in these types of sites. There are always
historical and cultural areas that are hiding plenty of dangers and mysteries. If anything serious
occurs to them, the government have to suffer from a lot of criticism and financial lost. For
instance, there was a severe case with foreigners involved in a cruise accident. They were
travelling on a cultural trip in a South-East Asian country and unexpected consequences are
deaths of these people. I believe that if they could pay more, they will enjoy safer and more
reliable service. This does not mean that lower prices give poorer care, but the more you pay,
the better your visit are prepared.

In conclusion, I strongly support the idea of charging the foreign tourists higher. However, it is
not due to economic advantages but I believe that it will provide the serving staff enough finance
and motivation to evaluate the quality of the place and the benefit of visitors

The incredible growth of tourism in recent decades has made a significant change in
destinations of travelers. Nowadays, a growing number of travelers have chosen to pay a visit to
foreign countries instead of native scenic spots. Some people claim that foreign visitors should
pay more money for their travel than the native, in order to reduce the negative influences from
international travelers. However, I totally disagree with this opinion and believe that the same
prices should be charged for both native and international travelers.

First of all, higher price is unfair for international travelers to enjoy those charming attractions,
which belongs to the all mankind. That means a plenty of travelers can hardly afford the higher
prices after paying for the expense on transportation. The young travelers, for instance, who
have not permanent jobs and much money in pockets, will miss the chance to explore the
wonderful world because of the huge expending on the foreign attractions.

Secondly, the life of the local will be affected negatively due to the high charge will make the
attractions not so attractive for international travelers. Numerous welfares, such as pension for
the old and the education quality, cannot be improved without enough revenues from tourism for
people living in the tourist cities. Consequently, some local people have to lose their jobs
because of the depression of the tourism. In fact, the problem of unemployment will lead to
more serious results, such as the increasing crime ratio, to local residents.

In conclusion, higher prices of the attractions will bring frustration to foreign travelers and also
reduce the benefits of the local. Indeed, the high prices will make a great contrition to the
protection of the local attractions, but compared with the depression of tourism, I still support
that traveler should enjoy the attractions with the same price wherever they come from.

There are some historical organisations in China who hold the view that foreigners should pay more to
visit theirancient sites than locals do. I am opposed to this because I believe it is unfair and can
create certain drawbacks. My reasoning for this is as follows.
Firstly, the higher charges will increase the budgets of foreign tourists wishing to visit China. If you take
the example of a family of four for instance; their costs will be even higher, and yet local families still pay
local prices. Not only does this discriminatory pricing affect the budget of the traveller, it can also make
them feel disheartened and unwelcome here.

There is of course some apparent wisdom to the reasoning behind the historical organisations that have
made these decisions. The higher costs and resulting increased profits will improve the quality and type of
tourists who visit here, while also enhancing their experience through improved conditions such as better
facilities and security. The increased profits will also be of benefit to local people, and confirm that it
is their privilege to have affordable access to the heritage that their ancestors left for them.

However, with the growing trend of globalization now overwhelming, travelling abroad has become
very popular andeasy to do. And with this in mind it is my strong view that international travellers should
be treated as equally as possible. There will then be more likelihood of a state of harmony existing
between all of us.

In many countries, foreign tourists visiting historic and cultural places are
required to pay more than local tourists. Some support this; others are against
it. In my opinion, asking foreigners to pay more is not ethical; however, it
makes great commercial sense.

Tourism is a major business. In many countries it is the biggest earner of

foreign exchange. So nations that have historic or cultural places that attract a
large number of foreigners have every incentive to charge them more. For
example, in India a local tourist can visit Taj Mahal for a negligible fee. A
foreigner, on the other hand, is required to pay a considerably higher fee.
There is yet another dimension to this. Foreign currency, especially the dollar,
pound and euro, has higher purchasing power than currencies of other
nations. Ten dollar means a lot when you convert that into Indian rupee, but it
is not a big sum for an American. So, nobody is really complaining. By
charging foreigners more, the government can also collect enough funds
towards the maintenance of cultural and historic places.

While foreigners are only interested in the architectural or cultural value of a

monument, a domestic traveler may have a deeper attachment to it. It could
be much more than a tourist place to them. The Sun Temple at Konark attracts
lots of foreigners who are primarily interested in its architectural brilliance. For
an Indian, it is also a place of worship and if the government charges a higher
entry fee it will amount to the violation of their right to worship. In addition, the
smaller fee encourages more and more domestic tourists to explore their
country. This fosters cultural understanding and instills in them a deeper
respect and love for their mother country.

To conclude, charging foreigners more makes great economic sense. Locals,

on the other hand, should be provided free or subsidized access to historic or
cultural places.