How do you feel about overcharging foreigners officially?
The prime example is the difference between local/foreigner price to Taj Mahal. Something like 2/700 rupee.
Same crap happens in most of Africa.
I hate that. Spent 3 months in Egypt and did not enter any of these paid archeological sites exactly because bastards wanted to charge me 5× more than a local.
Gave in only once, at Vic Falls in Zimbabwe, and paid $40 instead of $10.
What do you think about starting to charge Africans and Indians 5× higher prices in Europe?
What? In pretty much every western country there's one entry price for tourist sites. There are discounts for students, kids, and retirees but all adults pay the same.
OP, you just have to accept it. Don't look at the prices for locals because it will just make you rage. I don't believe that you went to Egypt and didn't pay to enter anything because no one is stupid enough to travel to another continent only to not see anything.
I no longer feel bad about these price differences, at the end of the day the locals have to stay in their 3rd world shitholes while I return to an economically powerful country where I have a coushy job, healthcare, a nice play of my own, lots of clothes, the ability to eat so much that I would shit out more calories than those niggers consume... Life is fucking fantastic for me even if I am ripped off by being charged more than locals.
>No different than in many USA tourist attractions there are local prices and tourist prices.
Completely false. There is only one price for adults/children, and yes, occasionally student or senior breaks. By "local" discount, you might be thinking of annual passes, or proof of local municipality address. This is directly not a discount or "local" price, it's simply that locals are paying taxes to support the park and it's their city resident benefit to use it unlimited, and not on a fee basis, like other people who did not contribute property or city taxes.
Ex. Coral Gables FL (very high property taxes), gets to go to Venetian Pool for free, as well as
use the county golf course and country club, but hey, if you're a tourist? Might be $75.
>I don't believe that you went to Egypt and didn't pay to enter anything because no one is stupid enough to travel to another continent only to not see anything.
Actually there's a lot to see and experience in Egypt outside these archeological sites. Just to mention the desert landscapes, oases, Sinai mountains, Cairo, Nile Valley villages, Alexandria coast, etc. I still enjoyed my stay without buying any tickets.
This illustrates everything wrong with the low budget/backpacker must-travel-now-before-I-have-money nonsense I hear all the time in this forum from real travelers.
Money makes travel better. You don't justify or defend decisions when you make them from a point of having the ability to do the best things about a culture and country, and the fact you did or didn't do them wasn't based on something like what you can afford, but actual worth of the cost. I see people shit on the idea of Blue Lagoon in Iceland....I'm sure it's a price thing when I read things like that.
Speaking of a tourist vs local price, when you are visiting some shit poor country where locals make some of the lowest wages in the world, I don't see why tourists should only pay one-fourth of a penny becuase it's all a local could conceivably ever afford. Some prices should be a little international, when upkeep uses fossil fuels and other tangible goods. The only thing that needs to be entirely local in prices is usually human services, and sometimes food, though it should have international value as well. Egypt and India are certainly in the category where the populace can be far below international poverty levels. This isn't as much a Western world disparity, and hence no need to create two prices.
They charge tourists more because they know westerners are usually to scared to haggle. We're used to just paying for whatever the price tag says because that's how much it must cost, right?
Learn how to negotiate and you can get a better price on just about anything.
This doesn't work in places where the price is written like entrances to famous sites.Haggling only works in markets and street shops where usually the price isn't written down. The wealthier Indians for example who shop in supermarkets don't go in and haggle over a sack of onions.
Well they should if they wanted to be as Alpha as >>945269
Op I agree with the other guy if you could afford the trip why be such a cheap ass broke nigga? You're spending a lifetime of locals savings for your selfish pleasure (because traveling is a very selfish, intimate enjoyment) why don't you at least support local economy?
You are a spoiled brat and in the end you are the one missing out on what a country has to offer.
Not going because you don't want to =\= not going because you can't afford.
>Op I agree with the other guy if you could afford the trip why be such a cheap ass broke nigga?
This is not about whether I can afford something or not. Usually I can.
This is about morality. For me, charging someone more or less because of nationality is immoral and I'm not going to support such habits with my money.
>So how is this different from non-tourist/local taxes abroad? Same shit.
Your argument is that there are two prices which are very obviously different in India as being the same as taxes abroad. The difference is that locals in the Western world can clearly afford either price. Locals in India can't afford tourist prices, from everything from hotels, cars, restaurants, and there are two walks of life in countries like that, where middle class citizens from abroad have money of a megarich local. When locals are 3rd world poor, it's kind of local governments not to charge them at all, or else some kind of pittance of a price, that it is simply a formality that you can't hang out for free all day every day, or that you have to pay for your own brochure/pamphlet/map/schedule of events and whatever toilet paper you use and a janitor replaces, just so it doesn't operate at a loss.
If you want an example you can understand, citizen and locals don't pay to use the Smithsonian institution, and neither do tourists. Citizens and foreigners pay the same rate to enter federal parks that charge admission, and frankly, it's consider an upkeep donation. It's literally just there to cover some of the costs of trash collection, personnel booth, air conditioning in the visitor center, and publications. Salaries of park employees are covered, just like museums staff, by taxes. They are distributed not by how profitable a park is, but by actual need. Same deal with foresty, marine, and other federal employees. Tourists pay local taxes by landing fees in airports, hotel fees, alcohol taxes, and simply buying stuff in stores and restaurants. So though they don't participate in the local govt budget by property taxes, it comes into a community that needs it most in other ways.
At some point, government is wrong charging such a disparity in price, not for the discount to locals, but overcharging a tourist. It indicates to me, they haven't thought out the impact.
You're a fucking idiot. You didn't see the pyramids or any of some of the world's most famous archaeological sites because paying more than an impoverished Egyptian makes you "rage?" Give me a break. I was annoyed at having to pay 750 rs to get into the Taj Mahal when my Indian companion only had to pay a fraction of the price, but my ticket let us skip the entire line to get into inside the Taj itself. When I make more in a month or two delivering sandwiches part-time than a college-educated Indian will make in twice the same period of time, I'm sorry, but I don't feel very angry about subsidized pricing. I'm by no means a rich guy, but the price of entry into the Taj Mahal - about $12 - is less than what I'd pay for a plate of food at an American restaurant. Even if I'm on a budget, I'm not going to miss out on shit like that because bawww, mah shoestring.
You're a little fucking bitch.
> bawwww mah morality
Yeah, it's annoying. You're not going to go into the Taj Mahal because you have to pay more than Rakesh Kumar, though? Foreigners get a fuck-ton of advantages in India. Baww a bit harder about not getting the $.20 local price for entry when you probably spent the better part of $1,000 on airfare just to get into the country.
>So, do you demand free healthcare in countries where healthcare is paid for entirely out of taxes that you haven't paid?
Not that guy...
But, I see threads in here often about people who go to Germany for free college. WTF? They should stop giving it to non-euros, if they don't have some higher purpose of educating the world. I am assuming politicians and decision makers are doing what taxpayers want in that respect, or it would end.
I've seen threads about people going to England and getting free care, for things like the flu or norovirus, very life threatening and sudden, or broken limbs from car accidents, as well. But, not sure if you can get anything else done without a card.
I don't understand either of those socialized ideas anyway. I feel everyone shouldn't be refused emergency care based on a valid insurance card or even having ID on them....but at some point, the bill should be paid by them, when they recover and get out of the hospital..at whatever rate the hospital thinks is fair or legal. A payment plan, and some international treaty should handle that it doesn't cost England for some scammer to get his preexisting condition treated so he can go on vacation minus travel insurance_ on purpose_.
I do like the idea that people go to central or south america for cheap plastic surgery, or to Poland for cheap dental care. It's practice for the doctors, every patient counts, and they have internationally same recognized skills, but it's up to that doctor to charge higher or same prices, I guess.
I find it as unethical as stealing an identity to partake in a citizen's free this or that, if it's not meant for that in the first place. It's fine to enjoy Chapultepec Park in Mexico DF, but if locals have to pay for the castillo or the modern art, so should you, and not much more, if they get the same tour or service.
A lot of museums, art galleries, zoos, and historic sites are getting around the two prices thing, as well as discouraging co-mingling of tourists and high-paying types, by having scheduled "free" days. First monday of the month for Students, Second saturday for locals, or brokering deals with banks like Bank of America to offer coupons for free admissions, or getting tickets printed out at the DMV, local library or such, once a year. Anytime, but only once a year. It keeps locals feeling some goodwill, and it also encourages people taking their out of town guests for some local outings without it breaking their bank each time.
This whole thread is whining about why things should be different in Egypt and India, however. These are shitholes that no would be visiting at all without those famous sites unless they had family they simply had o visit.
It's not racist, it's nationalist--tourist sites in Thailand that use two-tiered pricing almost all charge non-Thai Asians the same prices as Western visitors.
Anyway, I'm past getting offended by it. With few exceptions, foreign visitors (who have generally paid thousands of dollars just getting to their destination) have more money than most locals. Visiting foreign cultural patrimony is a privilege, whereas visiting your own cultural patrimony could be considered a right. You can afford it.
Kind of disappointed in this thread. Surely you must realize that the people of a particular country are also funding the archaeological sites through their taxes? This is why it's often cheaper to get in if you're, say, Italian, or even cheaper, if you're Roman (talking about the Roman sights here, obvs.). Also, for sights like Petra (look at the pricing structure there) - the people who actually live there are just a lot poorer than us Westerners. I think we should pay up and stop whining about it.
>You're a fucking idiot. You didn't see the pyramids or any of some of the world's most famous archaeological sites because paying more than an impoverished Egyptian makes you "rage?"
You seem to be a nervous fag.
I saw the pyramids from outside the fence and had enough. Those "impoverished Egyptians" made them dirty, surrounded by ugly city and crowded with hawkers, beggars and other annoying people. Fuck, they even don't talk the same language as ppl who built these pyramids.
This is not my fault that Egyptians cannot get their shit together and have a poor country. I'm not gonna pay more because of that.
Yet, a couple of streets away, another Egyptians are friendly, smiling and don't expect me to pay exorbitant prices for some shit. I spent three months in small villages and in the desert oases and dare to say I know much more about Egypt than someone dashing pyramids-Luxor-beach route. Don't miss the Karnak Temple for example, because I spent that time in front of the entrance talking with guys who sell tacky shit to white tourists.
>Also, for sights like Petra (look at the pricing structure there) - the people who actually live there are just a lot poorer than us Westerners. I think we should pay up and stop whining about it.
Why there's no reduced price for Somalis? Somalia is a poor country, these ppl cannot pay the price designed for westerners. What about them?
> you seem to be a nervous fag
What does that even mean? A nervous fag? Nervous how? You're not even making sense.
Aside from briefly trying to insult me, you've completely failed to address my points. Your entire rebuttal to the mentioning of a nation's poverty is, "I'm not going to pay more because they can't get their shit together?" So your thought process is essentially this: you will teach the Egyptian nation a lesson by refusing to pay their entry fees. Wow, what a hero.
I've lived and worked in several third-world countries. There are cities in South Asia I know better than my hometown. Yet renting an apartment in Delhi or staying with local families for free in Kashmir didn't stop me from visiting the Taj Mahal. You seem like one of those off-the-beaten-track tourists who thinks they're having a truly unique and remarkable experience because they refused to see the same sights as other foreign visitors, when, in actuality, they're missing out on valuable pieces of human cultural history by being cheapskates.
>Aside from briefly trying to insult me
Actually you are the fag who started insulting by calling me a "fucking idiot". Are you so retarded to forget that?
> You seem like one of those off-the-beaten-track tourists who thinks they're having a truly unique and remarkable experience
You seem to have some fantasies about me which have nothing to do with reality.
I just don't pay prices which are unequal based on nationality, skin color or sex. Period.
>you will teach the Egyptian nation a lesson by refusing to pay their entry fees. Wow, what a hero.
Much better are those who pay $5 for coke, $50 for a camel ride, $100 for other shit. Wonderful lesson they give.
Did you realize that around these overpriced tourist attractions there are crowds of beggars, thieves and other bastards who live off the tourists in some nasty way?
Same shit happens in Africa around national parks.
Truly, a great lesson of a generous gesture of a white man!
I know I started it, because you are a fucking idiot. "Fucking idiot' is an intelligible and easily understood insult, whereas "nervous fag" makes hardly a lick of sense. Name-calling aside, my "fantasies" are grounded assumptions based off your whining. The fact that you spent three months in a series of inconsequential desert towns does not negate the collective experiences of those who opt for the "pyramids-Luxor-desert" route. Package tours exist for a reason, and that reason is the routes they follow offer a number of appealing items.
I'm sure you experienced lots of local culture and interacted with ordinary people more than many who visit Egypt; good on you. I can respect that, because I also enjoy meeting strangers abroad. However - putting aside the insults, because I just say things to be annoying rather than because I'm actually mad - you essentially neglected an entire facet of "Egypt" by refusing to visit monuments with two-tier pricing arrangements. For some archaeological sites in India, the proceeds from the visitations of foreigners are used to assist in the upkeep of the monument; it makes sense form a certain angle that Indians, most of whom are quite poor, should be able to visit the heritage of their native country without breaking the bank. Considering that even backpackers typically have greater economic leverage than middle-class Indians, there is little to complain about when it comes to a two-tier pricing system in India. You can apply the same principles to Egypt.
I can't speak with much authority on Egypt, but I think it's safe to say that many people who complain about pricing disparities happily use and abuse the privileges given to tourists. Does is it suck that visitors to India have to pay way 37.5 times as much to get into the Taj as Indians? Yeah? Don't take a fucking train trip using the Foreign Tourist Quota, then.
> how do third-world countries work
> why do poor brown people flock to areas where thousands or millions of exponentially richer people visit annually
You can easily shop around to find varying prices on Coca-Cola or camel rides. A person who wants to visit the pyramids or Taj Mahal cannot walk down the street and ask if there are any life-sized replicas available. Passing up on the opportunity to see a place you'd otherwise love to visit because you have an ethical qualm with subsidized pricing is ridiculous.
And please, don't pretend as if price gouging only happens outside of landmarks with "foreigner" and "local" entry fees. You'll find huge price disparities anywhere in the world that brings in huge crowds of wealthy visitors, from Times Square in New York City to Mexico to Kathmandu to international airports (will you refuse to eat on a long layover because airport vendors take advantage of trapped travelers with high prices?).
If teaching the governments of countries like India and Egypt a lesson is so important to you then fine, go ahead and refuse to pay entry fees. I'll stop caring as soon as I walk away from my computer; the governments of those countries won't care because most tourists are willing to pay; and you'll have saved enough extra money to buy two or three cheeseburgers at your hometown McDonald's.
>The fact that you spent three months in a series of inconsequential desert towns
You are implying that I visited "a series of inconsequential desert towns", despite the fact you know fucking nothing about my route and its' purpose in Egypt. Which means you are a moron, besides being a nervous fag.
> you essentially neglected an entire facet of "Egypt" by refusing to visit monuments with two-tier pricing arrangements
Which is utter bullshit, as there are many sites without entrance fee. Just to mention St. Catherine Monastery or most of the left bank in Luxor.
I really don't have to enter the Karnak Temple and see this particular facet of Egypt. I walked around it and experienced another facet where 4000 years old sculptures on the outer wall were pissed and shat on (literally) by inhabitants of surrounding neighbourhood. Or had faces chopped off by some muslims who considered depiction of humans blasphemous. And this experience I value much more than visiting the temple itself, where everything is clean, preserved and arranged to make tourists smile and spend their monies.
> proceeds from the visitations of foreigners are used to assist in the upkeep of the monument; it makes sense form a certain angle that Indians, most of whom are quite poor, should be able to visit the heritage of their native country without breaking the bank
So what? Doesn't it work like that in Europe? The upkeep in India or Egypt is correlated to the price of labor, which is lower. And so should be the entrance prices for everyone. You must be very naive to trust all that money goes to preserve these sites. If that had happened, with such amount of westerners paying high prices every fucking day, these sites would have been shining more than Louvre does. Still, most of them don't. Why? Because some bastards steal that money. But this is another long topic.
> Don't take a fucking train trip using the Foreign Tourist Quota, then.
And what the heck is that?
> will you refuse to eat on a long layover because airport vendors take advantage of trapped travelers with high prices?
Do they charge holders of Peruvian passport more than those of Zimbabwean citizenship? Or require blacks to pay 5× the price for whities?
Tourists bitch about that in the U.S.A. all the time.
OP, I sincerely hope you don't take any medications. The HIV drugs that Amerifags pay US$100,000 per year for is given away free to African niggers. Even nigger-Americans have to pay that US$100,000. They should pull the "I'm an African!" card on the healthcare scammers, huh?
Not to mention that you Yurapeons pay considerably less for your drugs than Amerilards are stuck paying. This is why, for example, it's well worth it for many Amerilards to take a trip up to Canada to fill their prescriptions once a month.
>tourist sites in Thailand that use two-tiered pricing almost all charge non-Thai Asians the same prices as Western visitors.
If you do some digging on ThaiVisa, you'll learn that resident aliens in Thailand -- smelly English teachers and other farangs who have married Thais and live there -- can show their national ID cards and pay the local price.
At least in Thailand, the price is based on whether the person (even a honkie or nignog) is a resident, and therefore paying taxes in Thailand.
>This is about morality. For me, charging someone more or less because of nationality is immoral and I'm not going to support such habits with my money.
Your entitlement level is off the grid
you are completely unaware of your privilege and you shouldn't be travelling to third world countries with this mindset imho
Calm down, m8, I'm just giving you a hard time. I'm sure you had a great trip and I'd love to have done the same in Egypt.
At any rate, I'm not normally this much of a dick on 4chan, let alone on /trv/. I'm going to stop now because I think it's counterproductive and I generally enjoy that this board tends t o be more helpful and civil than others.
I do think a conversation about the ethics of two-tiered pricing systems is worth having. And, as somebody who's lived in the third-world, I'm very aware that money isn't always used for its intended purpose. I suppose what this whole discussion boils down to is that you feel view the problem as one of morality, while I view it as an annoyance and economic conundrum. It's a simple difference of opinion, despite all the insults I've thrown around; clearly I find visiting certain sites to be more worthwhile and rewarding than you do.
Stop trying to figure out the guy with poor logic. You can't reason with someone who doesn't never learned laws of logic. It's like trying to teach math to someone in 30 seconds. He is (making repeated attempts at) justifying his actions, or his words, through contradictory means, but he's not going to believe you that he's so transparent that everyone has figured out he can't logic. He's not just a cheapskate, he's got a chip on his shoulder about being poor. Ex. Somalis who want to go visit Giza aren't the same as people who can't leave their own nation but want to enter a museum at home. He's beyond ability to reason or forming analogies of worth, of course.
I have skipped experiences like seeing Blarney castle for sheer need of making choices for time when planning a route, and knowing full well I'd have several more visits in my lifetime *shrug* I also make choices when traveling with others. And, when I give and take, I'd never suggest someone skip the key sight in a city for my wishes, and vice versa. When you make a choice out of finances, sometimes you can act all sour grapes about the price. I have not heard once that the pyramids are a "ripoff" before. I have heard several people comment on the trash everywhere, and the game of panhandling to tourists. This is what happens when people have preconceived expectations and are overly judgmental. He wanted it sanitized for foreigners, yet in the same sentence complained that the interior of a building would have been cleaned for them. *boggle*
I do kind of agree with this guy, though. I don't want to bring the conversation back around to insults, but it's hard for me, personally, to feel discriminated against when my financial power as an American college student and sandwich delivery driver is far above that of an educated, third-world professional. Isolated instances in which I'm forced to pay what could considered a "tourist tax" to get into a monument or fortress don't bother me, so long as the abuse isn't systematic and widespread. I can't speak for Egypt, but I know that foreign tourists are often given preferential treatment in poorer countries. In India, foreigners can stay at hotels that have "no Indian" policies, reserve tickets on trains the day before their departure via the Foreign Tourist Quota (when ordinary Indians had to book months in advance), and make use of certain services and utilities that are typically a hassle for ordinary people. Just as there are benefits, there are disadvantages, too.
People in India and Egypt, on average, make much less money and have much less convenient lives than I do as an American. I'm not going to fret over paying a "foreigner entrance fee" (and do pause to consider that the price increase is for ALL foreigners, with the discount being given only to citizens of the country) when the difference between what I'm paying and a rickshaw-cart puller is paying is the same amount of money I'll feel comfortable paying for a sandwich back home.
>Do they charge holders of Peruvian passport more than those of Zimbabwean citizenship? Or require blacks to pay 5× the price for whities?
Actually airport employees have reduced prices. So, yea, locals get a much better price.
>pay US$100,000 per year
It's about $1500/mo, actually. That's a little more like $15,000/yr. So, if you don't have a decent job, a semi-professional. Or if you didn't start saving for retirement in your 20s, so that in your 30s and sick you don't have savings? It's kind of the same boat everyone else is in. Heck, some people pay $1100 or more for family coverage of medical insurance.
you're aware that this differential in purchasing power theoretically gives the poorer nations an industrial advantage. the fact that their prices are lower reflects the fact that their labor is inefficient and unreliable.
we have the hospitality to let them into our countries via immigration, give them welfare, free educations, etc.
white people aren't privileged. they've worked to have what they do. even indians will typically hire white people for certain jobs because they don't trust other indians.
I agree that the guy who can't stand paying higher prices is a fag.
but so are you. take this white privilege bullshit back ti lgbt.
>When you make a choice out of finances
Fuck. You still don't get it.
It is not about high prices and being cheap bastard. Usually I can afford the entrance fee (although 50+ EUR for Petra sounds like a robbery).
It is about having to pay a different price because of nationality. A fucking discrimination that is.
LOL. No man, we do understand how you think. We get it. We understand you and the intellectual problems you grapple with...oh well. See? You don't get it. Stop being frustrated. Try not to use the F word when that happens. We didn't expect you to. We see that you cant and won't. You're a Real Traveller ™ And, we pity you.
It's the term for the masses of people who think like you, and talk about their firm rules for travel within /trv. (Some people here laugh at you, but most people here recognize your type, whether they find it funny or unoriginal.)
Pretty much agreeing with this guy. Everybody has their own rules of thumb and preferences when it comes to traveling, and that's perfectly okay. There's just something particularly annoying about the sort of guy who thinks of himself as something special because he's fighting the good fight against discrimination by refusing to shell or a couple bucks extra.
You know, I get where you're coming from, but I can't appreciate the perspective. Poor people from third-world and developing countries should have a right to their own heritage that supersedes the rights of foreign visitors. Sure, not every broke country has a two-tier pricing system, but I'm not gonna cry about it when they do.
>guy who thinks of himself as something special because he's fighting the good fight
I'm not thinking about me as someone special, at least not in this matter. Perhaps I have some rules that others don't, but still I don't consider myself better because of that.
My opinion won't change anything in India or Africa or anywhere else away from my home. I'm not fighting here but making the basic customer's choice of whether paying someone for their service or not.
>Poor people from third-world and developing countries should have a right to their own heritage that supersedes the rights of foreign visitors.
I agree but the picture is incomplete. There's also something like world heritage and it is even sanctioned by international laws. Ancient Egyptian sites, Petra, Alhambra, Hagia Sophia are good examples of that — people who live there, take care of these places and sell tickets have as much in common with the creators of these masterpieces as I or you do. Peoples moved, cultures changed, borders shifted and languages have been replaced. Everyone should have right to that heritage.
Anyway, charging foreign visitors different price has nothing to do with a "right to heritage". It is just making money.
PS: "Third-world" itself sounds pretty racist in 2015.
I fail to understand how "third-world" could be considered a racist term in this context. Although "third-world" was originally intended to describe non-aligned countries during the Cold War, the usage of the term has shifted and is now primarily used to describe underdeveloped countries on different continents.
I agree with your argument that some sites should be considered world heritage sites. Indeed, as you mentioned, buildings like the Hagia Sophia and even entire complexes have been granted the status by international bodies. It's also worth bearing in mind that many governments tend to favor the economic convenience of their own citizens over that of foreign visitors. I'm not sure how the Archaeological Survey of India uses admissions money - or if they even receive the majority of it - but in theory, a high volume of low-priced ticket sales coupled with a low volume of high-priced ticket sales can enable the organization to turn a profit and fund other works. Does that happen in practice? I don't know; I'm sure it depends on the site, organization, and country enforcing the allotment of revenue.
However, it does make sense to me that certain tourist sites should cost less for locals to visit, even if they're internationally recognized as being important to global notions of evolving human civilization. Let's pretend that I'm an Egyptian who lives in Cairo. The pyramids are in my country; indeed, they're emblematic of my country. I, as an ordinary Egyptian, make a relatively low wage. In order to see the pyramids, I have to spend a not-insignificant amount of money traveling from, say, Alexandria to Cairo. Should I have to pay just as much as foreign tourists in order to enter a complex that's maintained, in part, by my tax money? Should the Egyptian organization maintaining the pyramids or the Egyptian government, which ultimately wields power over them, deny me, as a citizen, the right to visit a public site in my own country?
Likewise, I can understand how the government of a generally impoverished country might rationalize charging foreigners higher fees. As has been written in this thread several times, a foreign tourist has demonstrated their economic capabilities by possessing the means to travel abroad and purchase accommodation, food, and transportation, as bare minimums, for the duration of however long their vacation might last. This is a major contrast to the average inhabitant of a poorer country. In India, for instance, a lower- or lower-middle class person might have to perform a cost-benefit analysis to decide whether or not they can realistically afford to take their spouse and children to see the Taj Mahal several hundred kilometers away.
Bear in mind that, at least in the case of the Taj Mahal, the inflated "foreigner entry fee" gives a ticket-holder the huge benefit of being able to skip the entire line into the building. I'd have to imagine there are occasionally perks like this at other sites and in other countries (not to mention that tourists in poorer countries are usually afforded many other benefits that locals do not get).
There are many things in the world that are not fair, and many of those things affect the people in poorer countries much more than they affect either you or me. The issue of higher ticket prices is so insignificant on a per individual basis that I can't find much room to spare for thought.
If you want to be pedantic about it (and I usually do) the term Third World doesn't apply to anywhere anymore. The term was actually coined during the Cold War to describe countries not strongly affiliated with either the US (first world) or the Soviet Union (second world), it was coincidental that many of these countries were also impoverished and/or pre-industrial so many people took it to mean that.
As for the topic at hand, I acknowledge OP's righteous indignation but understand that thongs work differently in different societies and fail to see the point in getting ones undies in a bunch over it. Especially when, as other anons have pointed out, that higher price often gets you better access.
Also, it's hard to take OP seriously when he misuses words like racist and immoral to make things sound more serious and dramatic than they are.
Oh, and for what it's worth, many world heritage sites such as the Hagia Sophia, Machu Picchu, Taj Mahal, and more, have historical and cultural connections to the populations of the countries in which they're located. For instance, the Turks converted what was once a Byzantine Cathedral into a mosque, before said mosque was secularized by Ataturk and turned into a museum. The Taj Mahal, on the other hand, is still held up as a great achievement of ancient India, despite the fact that no living Indians helped construct it. Simply put, it's a part of the national ethos and presumably occupies a closer place to the hearts of Indians than it does to most foreign visitors.
>OK so we have determined that X site in your country will now be a part of what's known as "world heritage" as sanctioned by international law. This means that this site belongs to every citizen of earth, which in turns grants them entry into this world heritage site. However, we have also determined that it is you and your taxpayer's responsibility to maintain this world heritage site as well as provide sufficient infrastructure for those citizen's of the earth that choose to visit their site.
Get the fuck out of your ivory tower and realize that you are a guest in their country, you are not entitled to anything there, you are not even entitled to be there. You don't have to pay the entry fee and it's not as if they are charging an American fee and a rest of the world fee. It's literally a special fee for the citizens and one for foreigners, nothing wrong with that as they are the ones that support not only the site you are travelling but also the roads, airports and necessities that you enjoy.
> by contemporary Egyptians' tax money
Without their monies they would have collapsed, for sure.
> Get the fuck out of your ivory tower and realize that you are a guest in their country, you are not entitled to anything there, you are not even entitled to be there. You don't have to pay the entry fee
Get the fuck out of this forum if you cannot understand written words.
Yes, I'm a guest there.
Yes, I'm not entitled to do anything.
And yes, I do not enter their whatever sites if I don't like the pricing system.
> support not only the site you are travelling but also the roads, airports and necessities that you enjoy.
Actually I do pay my share in the price of tickets.
Its nice when it works in my favor
>Japanese Guys: 2000 Yen
>Japanese Girls: 1000 Yen
>Student Girls*: FREE !! (limited time promotional offer)
>Foreign Girls*: FREE !! (limited time promotional offer)
>Foreign Guys*: 1000 Yen
>implying the UN is at all relevant in 2015
>implying the UN should be determining preservation of "sites" at all when they just stated they are making as many as possible when then suddenly realized they focused on the Western World
It's not "international law" whatsoever. World Heritage is actually a bit of an insulting term in itself. Like the Egyptian stated, very eloquently at that, it's Egyptian heritage, and imho, at no point became something to do with the rest of the world except that it is from ancient man. That's a thin connection at best. It's a site that's been raped of antiquity treasures by foreigners, as well, some of the treasures only returned this past year to the country (and I'm sure if truths were advertised, there's some treasures that went missing during the Tahrir Sq. events). One of the larger collections of Egyptian treasures in the world is in Mexico City by god.
Anyway, this entire thread is surely interesting, but at the heart of it all? Some dude with Real Traveler failure to logic. He's not going to get it, people, not now, maybe never. I wholeheartedly support that he does travel, and that he does shop with a conscience, but the flaw is the screwed up (let's hope simply immature) thinking. In fact, I'd like to know if he bothered to visit anything that had admissions when in Egypt. I wonder if he went to the 60x priced for foreigners Egyptian Museum in Cairo.
admission price for foreigners to see the taj mahal is about 15USD/individual
that's about the price for a 12 - 24y old's admission price for lift to the top of the Eiffel Tower at the current exchange rate.
you're right, foreigners are charged more based on appearance and this doesn't look good; it's bad for business.
but for most 'official' attractions, the admission price is still sort of reasonable. it's not like they're doing some serious price gouging once they've got the tourists to come over.
when my sister went to india she was charged 2X as much as she should have been for the taxi from the airport; not good, but it was still a fraction of the price of a taxi in the US traveling that same distance.
Again, not an excuse, but it's still not so bad as people say usually.
Ooooh, I fucking hate that.
And not in the "tourist places", generally everywhere.
I was in Tbilisi last year, I went to the shop to buy some juice. The woman said "4 lari" and turned to her computer. I looked over her shoulder and I saw how she quickly changed 1.20 to 4, so that the new price would be printed on the receipt. Same in another shop, the landwhale said "2 lari". I pointed to the price counter that was showing 1 lari, but she replied "no, it's 2 lari". I didn't even bother to put it back in the fridge as I was leaving the shop.
My friend had the similar problem in Armenia. She went to the exchange, since she didn't have any drams. The man took her money, took down the table with the exchange rates, put up the new table and exchanged her money according to the new table. As you can predict, the new exchange rate was much smaller.
People at the Caucasus are fucking pricks when it comes to money. Three (!) different guys wanted 100 lari (>40€) from me when I was hitchhiking. I live in Eastern Europe, 40€ is my weekly travelling budget. I don't think I'll ever come back to Georgia.
It's most egregious when you're buying something from the supermarket or a train ticket and they charge you more for the same service.
As far as seeing monuments go, if it's reasonably more expensive for foreigners I can sorta understand because it's like, many of the monuments were built centuries or even millennia ago. Citizens of the region have been living with their families for 1000s of years as part of these civilizations. And then all of a sudden the government decides it's going to charge everyone admission price; taxpayer money already goes to maintaining the monuments, and they've been sort of 'inherited' by the people of the nation, including the very poor. I think I can sort of see a justification for that.
But in general I agree; charging foreigners one price for goods and services in general is underhanded business behavior.
>when my sister went to india she was charged 2X as much as she should have been for the taxi from the airport
This happens everywhere but the final price depends on your haggling skills. You just pay for your education at the beginning of the stay and quickly manage to negotiate the same prices as locals do.
In some popular places, however, it looks much worse. Egypt again comes as an example.
> be in Luxor
> all restaurants by the river display two menus
> long one is in Arabic, short one in English
> English one shows only "western" foods
> prices on English one are of course 5x higher
> go two streets away
> see local bar
> see long Arabic menu
> after short discussion order some ful, falafels, tea
> total is some 8 pounds for two
> eat and want to pay
> guy comes and says 15 pounds
> i point these foods on Arabic menu, reading prices loudly
> guy's jaw drops
> usually at this stage I pay the local price and go
> the guy regains his composture
> says "you're not Egyptian and you pay 15"
> have 20 pound note in my hand and no change
> tfw someone wants to fuck you in the ass in public
> have a quick run to shop next door
> return with change
> slam 8 pounds on the table
> tell the guy to fuck oneself
> implying that Pyramids have anything to do with Arabs living now in Egypt
>People at the Caucasus are fucking pricks when it comes to money.
This is strange. I was in Armenia a couple of years ago and never had such problems. Quite contrary. I found the locals very friendly and almost every day I was invited somewhere or given fruits from their gardens, home-distilled vodka, etc.
Never visited Georgia but heard that overcharging tourists is something new, since it became popular last years with lowcost airlines connecting Europe.
Yea, you know nothing about the population of Egypt, ancient and modern DNA is virtually the same. It's been debated for centuries, but genome sequencing finally got to the bottom of the race questions.
Eh. Honestly, I have much more of a problem with rip-off taxi drivers and the like than two-tier pricing systems. The latter is set by the government and is a non-negotiable standard, whereas the former is an individual abusing the ignorance and relative wealth of a stranger in their land. Having worked in a third-world country for low wages myself, I can understand the desire an exceptionally poor person might have to lie and gain a bit of extra cash. Nevertheless, so many people manage to remain honest and impoverished that it's difficult to justify the immoral behavior of cheats.
But I do agree with you. The foreigner admission for the Taj Mahal is much, much lower than general admissions for similarly noteworthy tourist sites in other countries.
What's funny when it comes to India is that so folks who work in the tourism industry could make so much more money if they WERE honest. Every tourist office in Delhi's Paharganj neighborhood seems to take unreasonably high commissions. If an honest businessman set up shop, attracted customers, and made sure they had an enjoyable experience without fucking milking out every last fucking penny, they'd probably get a good reputation and wind up making more money than the thieves.
I can read Hindi script, Arabic, and Cyrillic, and I've always wanted to catch some dickhead street vendor like this. So many opportunities, but the guys in India who fuck you don't tend to even put up price lists.
> implying it's not their fucking country
Yeah, I liked people in the Caucasus, too. Me and my German friend didn't have any problems in Tbilisi, either. He actually wound up hitchhiking to Abkhazia and then on to Yerevan and Iran, and he's never mentioned any instances wherein a driver asked him for money.
>he guys in India who fuck you don't tend to even put up price lists.
That is the definition of "buyer beware" and having travel smarts. I wouldn't sit down in a restaurant in any city if the menu had no prices. That's your first clue that you are dining somewhere a crook operates.
You know where I've encountered the most restaurant ripoff opportunities like that? Italy. And, I'm sure you'll learn about it in any Rick Steves video. It's common knowledge. I also don't get into a taxi without asking the price upfront, if I didn't actually bother to ask a hotel staff or other local what it should cost from A to B, before I even thought about hailing a taxi. That's just something a smart person does, you know the set fees from airports, if there's a tariff system for it, and you understand miles and rates, rush hour rates, and so forth. You look stupid if you operate like you don't give a shit about money or being taken advantage of. I will not say you deserve, but that you can bring out the worst in someone not drawing some level of respectability.
>The latter is set by the government and is a non-negotiable standard, whereas the former is an individual abusing the ignorance and relative wealth of a stranger in their land.
Well, I can understand the individual and usually I'm pretty aware that he will spend that money for his family's good. And you can always haggle and choose another one if it doesn't work.
The governments are different story. You can't haggle, have no one to tell to fuck himself, no competitor as alternative. And the money usually will be stolen by some corrupt politician who is already rich.
Of these two, I prefer to be overcharged by an independent businessman than a soulless state machinery.
>You know where I've encountered the most restaurant ripoff opportunities like that? Italy.
> be last autumn
> visit Paris on my way from Morocco
> after two weeks be used to haggle to death
> be used to double-check all prices
> somewhere within sight of Eiffel tower
> feel thirsty, enter a shop, pick some juice
> check out
> guy says 2,50€
> check for price tag again
> tfw see 1,50€
> almost kill the guy with my sight
> hear some "excusemoi mensyeur, erreur" or whatever French
> 100% sure he wanted to do it
inb4 immigrants: he was white, looked as French as Frenchman can do
99% of the locals in the Caucasus are fine.
Then there's this one asshole in a hundred people that changes your point of view, right?
That's also kinda enlightening, because I also had very good memories. People were very hospitable, gave me food and vodka, fruits and stuff. I just realized I'm remembering mostly the unpleasant situations. This is bad, so I'm not going to relive the annoying moments. Thanks anons!
I've actually haggled entrance fees to parks and museums down to free. Usually just by acting like i didn't know there was a cost, and saying i don't have cash and looking distraught. Also have gone close to closing and said it'd not be worth paying with the time alotted. Or said I was waiting for someone and could I look around while I waited.
Asking a hostel or hotel admin how much a flat fare usually costs is a great way to set yourself up for disappointment and negative feelings when the cabby charges you something different. Better to do as you said before that and ask the cabby up front, then decide if it seems worth it to you.
I think one point hasn't been thoroughly examined here though. It's the amount that's different for the locals and foreigners.
I've experienced my share of "racist" pricing when I was in Russia. For the State Historical Museum in Moscow the locals pay 100 rubles while foreigners pay 300. But 300 rubles is only about $5. That seems like a decent price for a great museum.
On the other hand, those shitskins charge 750 rupees for the Taj Mahal ($12) while locals pay 20 rupees... National Museum in New Delhi, 10 Rs for Indians, 300 for everyone else...
I don't mind paying a little more if I know I'm in a country where the cost of living is significantly lower than where I'm from. But some of these examples are just price gouging. There's a huge difference in paying 3 times as much or 30 times as much. But I guess everyone going to India excepts them to be scheming crooked bastards, even in the officially regulated places.
Whine a bit more, will you? When I went to a call center interview series in Noida, there were dozens of people - all of whom were college-educated and spoke remarkably proficient English - clamoring over one another to get jobs that would pay $500 per month, with incentives ranging up to another additional $150-$250. Even without bonuses, a salary of INR 30,000 per month would be considered impressive by many lower- and middle-class Indians. In other words, a faggy backpacker like me, who worked as a sandwich delivery driver, can earn almost twice as much in a month working 15 hours per week than a college graduate in India working full-time. Why do you think so many of them want to emigrate to the United States and other Western countries? An IT professional's salary can go up to fifty times what it was in an Indian city.
What's my point? Consider that a salary of INR 30,000 is "good" for an educated, urban-dwelling, middle-class Indian man. Now think of how fucked people are who live in rural communities and smaller towns.
Given, twenty rupees isn't a lot of money to very many people in India, but that small amount of change can work out to a quarter of a day's income for some folks. That $12.50 I have to pay for the Taj Mahal? I make that in less than an hour, as a 21-year old who hasn't even finished university yet. Yes, the price difference is enormous, but you're gripe can be summarized as such: "why do I have to pay more pocket change than Indians to see what's been called the most beautiful building in the world? I, with my higher income and comparably vast savings, should be allowed to get in for $.40, too!"
You've read my post and you know what I mean. I don't mind paying more as long as it seems reasonable. The average wage shouldn't play into this even if I just happen to be from a western country where I make $25/h and in under a week make their monthly wage, what about tourists from other parts of the world, that could be a significant amount of money for people.
I think the price for foreigners should be more reasonable. If it's 20 Rs for Indians, why not make it 100 or 200 for foreigners? That seems a lot more reasonable than 750...
>That $12.50 I have to pay for the Taj Mahal? I make that in less than an hour
It doesn't fucking matter.It is not about money.
It is about you being charged differently (no matter whether higher or lower) because of your nationality.