Savings

jayblue said:
If you include local bars and restaurants in your" tourism business owner " umbrella then I agree. I also think it's better for said tourist area to have holiday lets than holiday homes that only get used 2 weeks a year by their wealthy owners yet the government are making it harder for businesses to be viable. Most holiday let's if sold will be snapped up by wealthy people and turned into a holiday home turning most areas into ghost towns. This homes for local people is bollocks. No first time buyer is gonna pay close to half a million for a home near the coast in Anglesey. For one there's hardly any work there.
Click to expand...
You're right about houses being snapped up as holiday homes...we've lost quite a few clients who had rentals and they are now holiday homes, a big difference in income for the community in general
Any houses on the market now need to have planning permission to convert to a rental, CGT is to be increased on the sale of rental properties and if we as renters dont reach a 50% utilisation we will be hammered for council tax plus 150%, granted, we, at present, pay business rates which is 100% rebated so we cant really complain if we attain the utilisation figures....thems the rules at present. The government trying to destroy the only growth industry in Wales.
 
Tuearts right boot said:
You're right about houses being snapped up as holiday homes...we've lost quite a few clients who had rentals and they are now holiday homes, a big difference in income for the community in general
Any houses on the market now need to have planning permission to convert to a rental, CGT is to be increased on the sale of rental properties and if we as renters dont reach a 50% utilisation we will be hammered for council tax plus 150%, granted, we, at present, pay business rates which is 100% rebated so we cant really complain if we attain the utilisation figures....thems the rules at present. The government trying to destroy the only growth industry in Wales.
Click to expand...
Are Airbnb classed in that as well as I know they are changing the tax rules on them as well
 
Tuearts right boot said:
Again, the word Bollocks keeps springing to mind.

I employ 4 girls, one of which runs her own contract cleaners employing 6 staff, we all benefit and make a living from tourists. I buy my supplies and services from local firms, they benefit and make a living. The holiday rental provides an income for a cleaner, a window cleaner, a gardener, a log supplier, the local heating oil supplier, the local waste disposal firm, a handy man, they all benefit. And that is just the first and second layer, below that are the shop keepers, the pub and restaurant owners, the petrol stations, the farms selling farm produce, below that are the tradesmen that provide their services into the tourist trade....builders, roofers, sparkies, plumbers, fisherman, farmers, plus many many other peripheral businesses, all benefit.....
and you're still convinced that the only people who benefit are the owners...bollocks, the whole community benefits and if you cant see that, you have an issue.
Click to expand...
Ah the usual vested interest misinformation, all straight out of the tourism industry propaganda booklet... do they issue you with an actual booklet filled with all this pious, self-righteous bullshit when you become a tourism business owner?

As ever full of their own self importance about what an economic saviour tourists and tourism business owners are to local communities whilst simultaneously whining about how tough they've got it and demanding help and support for their "industry". Just a little contradictory perhaps?

All those local non-tourist businesses and tradesmen would still exist without your business, in fact they'd have more income and more regular income from permenant residents, I could give plenty of examples that I know of first hand, here's just one, my local shop says takings actually go DOWN during peak tourist periods because the centre of my village is so gridlocked that nobody, locals or tourists, can pull up and go into the shop.

I know tradesmen who refuse to do business with certain tourism business owners and holiday let owners because they know exactly how they'll be treated by them.

If you think your "girls" on their minimum wage, minimal hours, seasonal jobs are overall better off as a result of tourism and the huge rise in holiday home/holiday let uptake that we've seen in the last few years then you're even more thick and ignorant than you've already demonstrated yourself to be.

I'll say again for the hard of thinking, the socio-economic costs to local communities as a result of tourism far outweigh any of the minimal crumbs of "benefit" in the form of a few exploitative low paid jobs in the sector. All the tourism "industry" does is further exploit any lack of economic opportunities in those areas.

It's amazing how many people do swallow the propaganda, the facts are even in the most heavily infested tourist areas the figures clearly show that the tourism "industry" still only represents a very small fraction in terms of providing employment, GVA and any other economic metric you look at it. The "industry" just happens to have a very vocal and vociferous lobby group promoting and wildly exaggerating its own economic importance to the communities that it parasitises.
 
I actually encourage the increase in stamp duty on second homes as anything that makes housing more affordable for young people is a good thing. The big worry is if businesses can afford the Ni hike and increased minimum wage - although again the concept of an increased minimum wage seems inherently fair.

The big issue for me as ever which is the elephant In the room is labours link to the unions which sees the public sector burden grow and the ongoing issue of disparity between pensions in the public sector and the private sector.

But let’s see.
 
jacko74 said:
Ah the usual vested interest misinformation, all straight out of the tourism industry propaganda booklet... do they issue you with an actual booklet filled with all this pious, self-righteous bullshit when you become a tourism business owner?

As ever full of their own self importance about what an economic saviour tourists and tourism business owners are to local communities whilst simultaneously whining about how tough they've got it and demanding help and support for their "industry". Just a little contradictory perhaps?

All those local non-tourist businesses and tradesmen would still exist without your business, in fact they'd have more income and more regular income from permenant residents, I could give plenty of examples that I know of first hand, here's just one, my local shop says takings actually go DOWN during peak tourist periods because the centre of my village is so gridlocked that nobody, locals or tourists, can pull up and go into the shop.

I know tradesmen who refuse to do business with certain tourism business owners and holiday let owners because they know exactly how they'll be treated by them.

If you think your "girls" on their minimum wage, minimal hours, seasonal jobs are overall better off as a result of tourism and the huge rise in holiday home/holiday let uptake that we've seen in the last few years then you're even more thick and ignorant than you've already demonstrated yourself to be.

I'll say again for the hard of thinking, the socio-economic costs to local communities as a result of tourism far outweigh any of the minimal crumbs of "benefit" in the form of a few exploitative low paid jobs in the sector. All the tourism "industry" does is further exploit any lack of economic opportunities in those areas.

It's amazing how many people do swallow the propaganda, the facts are even in the most heavily infested tourist areas the figures clearly show that the tourism "industry" still only represents a very small fraction in terms of providing employment, GVA and any other economic metric you look at it. The "industry" just happens to have a very vocal and vociferous lobby group promoting and wildly exaggerating its own economic importance to the communities that it parasitises.
Click to expand...
I gave up after the first paragraph
 
Worsleyweb said:
I actually encourage the increase in stamp duty on second homes as anything that makes housing more affordable for young people is a good thing. The big worry is if businesses can afford the Ni hike and increased minimum wage - although again the concept of an increased minimum wage seems inherently fair.

The big issue for me as ever which is the elephant In the room is labours link to the unions which sees the public sector burden grow and the ongoing issue of disparity between pensions in the public sector and the private sector.

But let’s see.
Click to expand...
Then why don’t the private sector do something about their pensions? Why should the public sector reduce because the private sector don’t do enough? Again I look at the profit these huge companies make and I’m talking billions in the case of banks etc, why arent their employees getting better pensions. A friend of mines daughter just got a £5k bonus for beating her sales targets, I don’t know of any public sector worker who gets a bonus, maybe we should introduce that into the public sector, oh wait then we’d say why should they get bonuses for doing their job! Maybe instead of getting a bonus they should put that in her pension, she may have that choice but I bet as a 26 year old she won’t do it. The public sector pensions were reformed in 2006 by Labour!
 
SamTheGuru said:
Still cannot get my head around why so many voted Labour. The majority of people knew this was coming and whilst the whole system is a complete circus at this point, Rishi Sunak was correct in his last attempt in advising people to not vote labour just because you want conservatives out. To answer your question...waiting.
Click to expand...

Possibly because some people vote for a government not solely based on whether they’ll personally be very slightly richer or poorer if they win?
 
BimboBob said:
How interesting.

1.On cruise ship days they employ more staff, staff who wouldn't have been employed otherwise. Benefit.
2. The money that comes in from cruise ship days helps keep prices down during the rest of the year. Benefit.
3. Local craft firms, and its a heavily craft led economy, sell more items. Meaning they can pay wages. To people who work for them. Who produce more stuff. And maybe take more staff on. Benefit.
4. This also helps keep old traditions alive as well. Benefit.

Tourism comes in many forms though...if you buy Orcadian whisky from Amazon...then you are an Internet tourist and help keep the economy flowing on the islands. Money in equals secure jobs, secure jobs eequal confidence and increased spending. Big benefits.

It's a very good business model and one that has worked all over the world.

I could tell you about a mate of mine in Shetland who has a rather nice business dealing with wool, wool he gets from his sheep, wool that is quire popular around the world, wool that has provided an income to himself and the 20 odd people involved in the process. Some of which used to be unemployed due to fishing going down the pan. But I won't. I mean, it's obviously not going to help you understand or indeed change your mind.
Click to expand...
This cruise ship example you keep using is a bit pointless and irrelevant to the overall debate really as its a rather niche and specific example of tourism.

And certainly you're reference to someone buying Orcadian whisky off Amazon as a form of "tourism" is borderline bizarre.

Admittedly those people occasionally pouring off cruise ships do provide a temporary injection of cash and I'll even acknowledge that those cruise ship tourists aren't directly responsible for the predominant economic downside of tourism, that obviously being the huge increase in the cost of local accommodation thanks to the demand for holiday home/holiday lets.

Although the cruise ship visitors do still make a significant contribution to the many other peripheral socio-economic downsides of tourism in terms of the pressure and demand they place on local public services and infrastructure and the associated additional costs to the local tax payers.

BUT, even with your example of the cruise ship tourists the fact remains that the vast proportion of any money they do spend still goes directly into the pockets of the tourism business owners, the few crumbs that any employees in those businesses get go no way at all toward making up for the NET socio-economic disadvantages they suffer from as a result of wider tourism.

I admire your self confidence in attempting to join the debate even though you’ve clearly demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of even the most basic economic principles and laws of supply and demand if you genuinely believe that tourists spending in an economy somehow "keeps prices down"... I have to inform you the very opposite happens.
 
jacko74 said:
You gave up because you know I'm right.

No shame in admitting it mate.
Click to expand...
Sorry to but into your debate, but imo I think there are pros and cons to all tourism. People on holiday definitely spend more on gifts and eating out. Look at the Lakes, and the small towns there, like Ambleside, Keswick and Windermere all stuffed full of pubs, restaurants and all sorts of shops that certainly wouldnt be there but for tourism.

But without tourism housing would definitely be much cheaper and affordable especially for young people getting on the housing ladder.

Also, the local economy would undoubtedly be worse off as there wouldnt be the employment available. What is there to do job wise in the Lakes without tourism? Just farming and that co exists already alongside the tourism. I dont think you can allow for remote working, as there isnt the internet connectivity in large areas of the lakes to support this yet, same as many other remote rural areas.

You can apply the above logic to any tourist area to some degree.
 
Last edited:
Stephen230 said:
Possibly because some people vote for a government not solely based on whether they’ll personally be very slightly richer or poorer if they win?
Click to expand...
Isn’t that what has just happened. According to the forecasters the budget is going to make +/- half of 1% change in living standards over the next few years. Those who thought voting for any particular party was going to make a change in their individual circumstances was seriously delusional.
 
Stephen230 said:
Possibly because some people vote for a government not solely based on whether they’ll personally be very slightly richer or poorer if they win?
Click to expand...
Voting for me was about those parts of the country that suffer depravation at the level of no home, food banks, charity clothing. etc.
Through 14 years of conservative government the situation got worse.
The withdrawal of the WFP isn’t what I expected from the Labour Party while M.P.’s keep there WFA it could have been done so much better, thousands spent on the cabinets clothing while poor people go to the local charity shop
Striving against poverty who do we vote for ? it’s not Farage.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
Sorry to but into your debate, but imo I think there are pros and cons to all tourism. People on holiday definitely spend more on gifts and eating out. Look at the Lakes, and the small towns there, like Ambleside, Keswick and Windermere all stuffed full of pubs, restaurants and all sorts of shops that certainly wouldnt be there but for tourism.

But without tourism housing would definitely be much cheaper and affordable especially for young people getting on the housing ladder.

Also, the local economy would undoubtedly be worse off as there wouldnt be the employment available. What is there to do job wise in the Lakes without tourism? Just farming and that co exists already alongside the tourism. I dont think you can allow for remote working, as there isnt the internet connectivity in large areas of the lakes to support this yet, same as many other remote rural areas.

You can apply the above logic to any tourist area to some degree.
Click to expand...
Businesses in the Lake District struggle in finding staff to employ
 
Tuearts right boot said:
We have a holiday rental here in Wales and if we dont reach a rental figure of 50% occupancy we will get stung for 150% of the council tax. In laymans terms that will be between £5,500 to £7,500 per annum, the average rental doesn't make that...................Welcome to Wales, vote Labour and have a really lovely holiday. At our expense.
Click to expand...
my heart bleeds for you. not. people making money out of property is part of what's driven house prices to the point of being unaffordable for youngsters of today. nobody needs two houses. end of.
 
DiscoSteve said:
my heart bleeds for you. not. people making money out of property is part of what's driven house prices to the point of being unaffordable for youngsters of today. nobody needs two houses. end of.
Click to expand...
Quite agree and cant argue, it has driven prices up and I don't need a second property, I want one. I want one because it's part of my pension pot and the system allows me and many others to do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top