$10 fee on visitors to the United States. (CDNs excepted)

[C 2 C]

I believe quite a few countries already impose a tax/fee of some sort and this is not a new concept. I specifically recall paying a departure tax/fee on several cruises which finished up outside of the U.S. at the related airports.

 

The only one I'm aware of is in Chile, a fee of about $130 at the airport.

Certain countries have reciprocal visa requirements. I believe Schiphol airport charges a pollution fee for flights terminating in the Netherlands (but not for connecting flights). Which are the other countries where you have been charged?

[spanisheyes]

When is this supposed to start? Do we then have to pay twice if we fly into the US and then are on a Panama canal cruise? This will mean that it will take even longer to go through immigration.

[broberts]

No, I don't think we have forgotten what it means to be a "Guest". :)

And I sincerely hope that your country, or indeed any other country in the world, never has to experience what we did on September 11, 2001. My husband was supposed to be at the Pentagon that morning, and my brother was very close to ground zero in NY. I understand the frustrations with bureacracy and red tape when it comes to travel these days but if it keeps my family safe, then I support it.

 

I'm afraid you hit one of my hot buttons.

 

You do realize that the US was not the first country to experience terrorist attacks?

 

9/11 was the single most horrific terrorist act, but the US certainly has not lost the most citizens to terrorist activities.

 

Many, many countries lost people in 9/11.

 

Most of the world suffered right along with the US and I find it very insulting when posts like yours suggest that the US is the only country to suffer from terrorism, then or now.

[C-Dragons]

I'm afraid you hit one of my hot buttons.

 

You do realize that the US was not the first country to experience terrorist attacks?

 

9/11 was the single most horrific terrorist act, but the US certainly has not lost the most citizens to terrorist activities.

 

Many, many countries lost people in 9/11.

 

Most of the world suffered right along with the US and I find it very insulting when posts like yours suggest that the US is the only country to suffer from terrorism, then or now.

 

I'm sorry if I've offended you, that was never my intention, but where do you see in my remarks the suggestion "that the US is the only country to suffer from terrorism"? The point of my previous post was to say that yes there are a lot of rules and regulations now involving travel to my country, but they are there for a reason, which I understand and will defend. Unfortunately the events of 9/11 changed everyone's lives forever, and I for one am deeply saddened by that.

[anniversay/grad trip]

I live in Northernmost Wisconsin -- most folks on this side of the border consider most Canadians to be more American than some others from the US. Apart from the differences in how we pronounce words like "about" and "schedule", and how we spell words that end in "or" (or should that be "our") -- I feel I have much more in common with Candians than with US "coasties" (East/West/South). Now had you just "lent" us a few better curlers for the US women's Olympic team (half were born in Canada) perhaps I'd have even warmer fuzzier feelings toward you guys.

 

Well I don't know if I would like to be considered "more American" than an American....lol...Sorry but, I have met several that are rather..let's say... not as nice as the average Canadian....But, I have also met a large majority that I truly like....so to stereotype an entire country is wrong, I know.... I am 100% Canadian and very proud of it.Yes. we are by nature a "Nice" country.It's how we are raised, but to get back to the point, The US needn't do us any favours or treat us special, because for the most part Canadians are not all warm and fuzzy about Americans IMHO....We may not wear our patriatisim (sorry sp?) on our sleeves, but the 2010 Winter Olympics should give you some indication of how patriotic we are. $10 well....not a big deal to me....but I hope it's well spent, on security etc

[anniversay/grad trip]

Canadians should pay double.

 

I may be a glutten for punishment but WHY?

[alicam]

Canadians should pay double.

We do...it's called "currency exchange"...

[RodPat]

I remember a few years ago when leaving Canada at the airport I had to pay to leave. At least if you have to pay to get in, you can refuse, but to leave and go home you have no choice.:)

 

Pat

[Seanster]

I believe the purpose of the $ 10 fee is to pay for the advertising to attract more tourists (Come to America campaign). There is no reference to using this fee for a safer visit.

 

The purpose of the fee is for the current Administration to suck more money out of people who are unable to avoid the fee. Most Americans are tapped out at this point, so why not tax unwitting foreigners. Unfortunately, there's not enough $10 tourists in the world to get this Administration out of the economic hole it's digging for itself. The last Administration was no gem either in that regard.

[Seanster]

I'm sorry if I've offended you, that was never my intention, but where do you see in my remarks the suggestion "that the US is the only country to suffer from terrorism"? The point of my previous post was to say that yes there are a lot of rules and regulations now involving travel to my country, but they are there for a reason, which I understand and will defend. Unfortunately the events of 9/11 changed everyone's lives forever, and I for one am deeply saddened by that.

 

There is no purpose for this fee other than to raise additional revenue, notwithstanding the "line" being given by the White House. Security fees for 9/11 are already being charged by the airlines, so this is by no means a security fee. In terms of it being a tourism promotion fee, wait and see which organizations get the money to promote tourism: groups that make significant campaign contributions to the Government. The main countries charging these fees are banana republics. I guess the U.S. is becoming more like a banana republic every day.

[swigso]

If you stop to compare the high charges made to leave the UK with the very low ones to leave the USA

 

The $10 visitors every 2 years is a drop in the bucket

 

The UK Government has taxed everything so high now its eye watering

 

The airlines are all on their as it is without the UK Government turning a HUGE screw in the way of Departure Tax that is sure to be way way higher than anywhere else in the world

Tottally agree.

The tax on flying from the Uk is a joke,

the tax on my last flight to the USa from the UK was£380 or $580 pp.

Another huge stealth tax.

[alicam]

I remember a few years ago when leaving Canada at the airport I had to pay to leave. At least if you have to pay to get in, you can refuse, but to leave and go home you have no choice.:)

 

Pat

Was that at Vancouver? Everybody had to pay a few years ago for upgrades (userpay)

[VistaRio]

It sure doesnot give a "welcome" idea to many tourists.

Those same tourists spend a lot of money - hotels, rentalcars, meals etc, so I really wonder if this extra tax is necessary.

 

Ine, what kind of Visa do you get when entering Mexico? How much does it cost?

[jd1966]

Take a look sometime at the port fees that you are forced to pay.

[spanisheyes]

Have found the answer to my questions in the british press. It's going to be 5 months to a year before we have to pay. The charge will be on the Esta (which is free now), and has to be applied for at least 72 hours before travelling to the USA. The Esta lasts for 2 years, so charge is $5 per year. That's not so bad.

[The_Big_M]

It's a very poor article and I can't help but think it was written for some other purpose. It's light on fact, but high on sensationalism. It certainly doesn't tell me the most important facts about the fee that I want to know, namely:

1) when will it be introduced?

2) how will it be applied (charged)?

[FinelyCruising]

For many, a $10.00 fee will be a thousand times better than obtaining a visa. This is aimed for the visa exempt countries and it capitalizes on that ease.

 

Just for fun, has anyone ever tried to get a visa for France for example???

[Seanster]

For many, a $10.00 fee will be a thousand times better than obtaining a visa. This is aimed for the visa exempt countries and it capitalizes on that ease.

 

Just for fun, has anyone ever tried to get a visa for France for example???

 

A visa is no longer required for U.S. citizens to visit France for tourism. I think you're referring to a situation which in the '80s and '90s. Or perhaps you're referring to a work visa?

 

I don't see how assessing visa-exempt visitor a fee which currently does not exist can be said to be "better" for them. The current rate is zero.

 

And I wouldn't expect the fee to stay at $10.00 for long. If it generates revenue in a way that doesn't directly impact voters in THIS country, it will rise to $25.00 or $50.00 3 or 5 years from now, take your pick of a number. Also, expect other first world countries to reciprocate, so that next time you fly to take that European cruise you'll pay a new, additional "tourism" fee at the airport of entry.

 

Net-net, the current Administration cannot get enough revenue from taxing its own citizens to death, so they are now resorting to additional international taxes under the guise of "fees," with all the revenue to go to the bureaucracies, quasi-governmental tourist boards, and private enterprises that "donate" to Presidential and other political campaigns.

 

Face it: It's a new pay-to-play merry-go-round with foreign visitors, who often have no choice but to visit the U.S. (for business, familial reasons, etc.), footing and being held hostage to the bill.

[Seanster]

It could be worse. How about that lovely $50 per passenger tax that Alaska hung on the cruise industry. I was going to finally do an Alaska cruise, but will put it off until that tax goes away.

 

By the way, many countries have added much higher fees than the paltry $10 the U.S. is adding.

 

Happy cruising to all!

 

Bob

 

Perhaps you also believed the cruise fuel surcharge could have been "much higher" when it was first introduced? Well, you got your wish, because the charge that started at $2 or $3 pp. per day soon jumped to $10 or $12 pp. per day, as fuel prices went up.

 

You will also get your wish with this fee, because it will go up over time. And developed nations (not merely the largely banana republics which charge departure taxes today) will reciprocate with similar charges which you will pay next time you enter for your European cruise.

[Schplinky]

Was that at Vancouver? Everybody had to pay a few years ago for upgrades (userpay)

 

Most airport have airport improvement fees these days but they are blended into your ticket price.

[Schplinky]

It could be worse. How about that lovely $50 per passenger tax that Alaska hung on the cruise industry.

 

They do seem greedy, don't they. They said that the tax would be used partly to improve passenger facilities but the first thing they built was a concert hall that has shows after the ships have left each day.

 

I'm glad that passengers have responded with their wallets to this tax. Likely, it was being used to pay for all the ethics charges against Alaska's ex-governor, or the family trips that sparked them.

[Seanster]

They do seem greedy, don't they. They said that the tax would be used partly to improve passenger facilities but the first thing they built was a concert hall that has shows after the ships have left each day.

 

I'm glad that passengers have responded with their wallets to this tax. Likely, it was being used to pay for all the ethics charges against Alaska's ex-governor, or the family trips that sparked them.

 

People have had a choice to respond to the Alaska tax with their wallets, as you put it, because a cruise is recreational and discretionary. Conversely, with the respect to the Administration's new $10 tax, the impacted travelers extend well beyond those who come to the U.S. to recreate. Such travelers are frequently engaged in business or volunteer activities, visiting sick relatives, etc. Therefore, such visitors cannot simply choose to avoid this tax (dressed up as a "fee") by not visiting the U.S.

 

As such, I don't believe a port or cruise fee like Alaska's is comparable to an entry tax that applies to all visitors. While $10 today (or $25 or $50 tomorrow) PER PERSON may not be a lot of money for to any of us who visit this board, it can be a burden on larger families, elderly visitors, and student groups, just to name a few.

 

As an aside, I volunteer to assist student groups on European educational trips for college credit, and an additional $10 per head today (or $25 or $50 tomorrow) adds up to a lot of cash when one is taking about a group of 30 or 40 students. Most of these kids pay for the trips themselves (as they should) by working while going to school and/or during the summers. While the students are lucky to have the opportunity to travel at all, these kinds of taxes and fees, including the huge fees embedded in airline fares, have made it nearly impossible for us continue these trips, particularly in rougher economic times.

 

The current Administration has said that it will help improve America's image in the world. I don't see how these fees, by nickling and diming visitors for additional cash right as they enter our country, will do anything to achieve that lofty goal. It's merely more "stimulus" for the Government and travel industry, which has come out all in favor of the tax. It merely screams: "Welcome to America: Now Open Your Wallet!" That sort of message may be fine for a poor third world country, but it's pretty ridiculous for the U.S.

[FinelyCruising]

A visa is no longer required for U.S. citizens to visit France for tourism. I think you're referring to a situation which in the '80s and '90s. Or perhaps you're referring to a work visa?

 

I don't see how assessing visa-exempt visitor a fee which currently does not exist can be said to be "better" for them. The current rate is zero.

 

And I wouldn't expect the fee to stay at $10.00 for long. If it generates revenue in a way that doesn't directly impact voters in THIS country, it will rise to $25.00 or $50.00 3 or 5 years from now, take your pick of a number. Also, expect other first world countries to reciprocate, so that next time you fly to take that European cruise you'll pay a new, additional "tourism" fee at the airport of entry.

 

Net-net, the current Administration cannot get enough revenue from taxing its own citizens to death, so they are now resorting to additional international taxes under the guise of "fees," with all the revenue to go to the bureaucracies, quasi-governmental tourist boards, and private enterprises that "donate" to Presidential and other political campaigns.

 

Face it: It's a new pay-to-play merry-go-round with foreign visitors, who often have no choice but to visit the U.S. (for business, familial reasons, etc.), footing and being held hostage to the bill.

 

A visa is required in France for students to study there. It is a miserable process. Italy no longer requires it for short stays nor does Ireland. I don't feel bad about having the US assess the fees and if they raise it to $50.00 in a few years so be it. Better for us. It seems to me that with our concerns about potential European Tariffs....have you ever purchased Euros??? Have you taken cruises and had port charges included in your fares?

 

Maybe I have a different idea about what that money can and will be used for which benefits all countries. You seem to be taking a very narrow and jaded political path, but it was certain sooner or later some one would.;)

[02143]

The US needn't do us any favours or treat us special,

 

Yeah, and I'm sure the exclusion for Canadians has everything to do with it wreaking absolute havoc with the volume of trade and huge number of border crossings, including some that people make every day. I have a friend who grew up in Fort Erie and crossed the bridge to Buffalo every day for high school--imagine him paying $10 each time for that privilege.

 

Not that the U.S. hasn't been willing to make that border crossing more difficult in the past, but adding a toll would be a disaster.

[02143]

As such, I don't believe a port or cruise fee like Alaska's is comparable to an entry tax that applies to all visitors. While $10 today (or $25 or $50 tomorrow) PER PERSON may not be a lot of money for to any of us who visit this board, it can be a burden on larger families, elderly visitors, and student groups, just to name a few.

 

Whatever the merits or lack thereof of this tax--and I find it deeply lame--I think it's a stretch to say it's a burden for anyone who is already spending several hundred or more than a thousand dollars to fly here, even if they're elderly or students. If it went up to $50, yes, it would be, but that's one reason the airlines would never, ever allow that to happen. They have lobbyists, too.