levy

Families face paying extra £100 on UK holidays in new Budget tourist levy affecting hotels and holiday parks

UK holidays could soon get much more expensive after new overnight tourist tax rules were announced in today’s Budget.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham has opened the door to the ‘tourist tax‘ which will impose an extra charge for families on a staycation – and it could cost families an extra £100.

The ‘tourist tax’ could be introduced on overnight stays across the UK Credit: Alamy
It could raise the cost of a Great British holiday by £100 Credit: Alamy

Set out in the Autumn Budget, Andy Burnham once again spoke about what’s officially called the ‘overnight visitor levy‘ which is set to be in place by 2028.

It would allow local authorities in England to charge visitors an additional fee on overnight stays at hotels, B&Bs, holiday lets and even holiday parks.

The fee would be officially uncapped – however, Labour’s regional mayors in England have pledged to cap a it at five per cent.

According to UK Hospitality, it could still add up to £100 to a two-week family stay based on £2 per person per night.  

HAPPY HOLLY-DAYS

The 8 UK holiday parks opening for Christmas this year with £6.62pp stays


BAG IT

Cheap summer 2027 holidays you should book NOW for under £60pp – before prices go up

The money gained by the tax would be invested back into local communities and infrastructure.

Talking about the levy, Jon Hendry Pickup, CEO of Butlin’s said: “The Government still hasn’t explained how a Holiday Tax will work in practice or whether it will actually achieve that objective.

“If local areas are going to retain significantly more business rates revenue, alongside a share of income tax, the case for adding another tax on British families taking a holiday in their own country becomes even harder to understand.

“We’ve consistently warned that making UK destinations more expensive risks deterring the very visitors whose spending supports local economies.

“Giving regions the power to invest can have a positive impact, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of UK families booking a holiday.”

However, there are ways to get round the visitor tax, as some places might not implement it at all.

The Butlins CEO has slammed the new levy Credit: Butlins

England is split into 14 regions with different mayors looking after each – and the tourist tax will be added at their discretion.

It’s likely that all Labour mayors will add the tax, and some of the places where there is support are Greater London, the West Midlands, Liverpool City Region, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, York and North Yorkshire and the North East.

Cities within those regions like Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester and Newcastle are likely to introduce the extra charge – as are surrounding towns.

However, where there are Reform UK and Conservative mayors, the levy may not be introduced at all.

Certain places like Leeds are likely to introduce the tourist tax Credit: Alamy
Cornwall doesn’t have a local mayor – but it set to set up a local authority by 2028 Credit: Alamy

For example, Dame Andrea Jenkyns who is the mayor of Greater Lincolnshire has said that she won’t be introducing a tourism tax as it could “drive out” people from visiting the region.

Conservative Mayor of Tees Valley Ben Houchen also ruled out introducing any tourist tax last year.

Paul Bristow, the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, wrote on X that “this is not the time to put extra costs on staying overnight in #Cambridgeshire and #Peterborough.”

Meanwhile, there’s a question mark on the places that do not have an elected regional mayor – for example Cornwall which draws in thousands of visitors every summer.

Cornwall does not have a mayor for the whole county, but is looking for a way to set up a foundation strategic authority (FSA) – this could be set up by 2028.

Where the levy is introduced could also change depending on local elections and if the ruling party switches.



Source link

Mailers promoting a socialist candidate in Ohio’s U.S. Senate race have links to MAGA super PAC vendor

Campaign mailers urging Ohio voters to support a socialist U.S. Senate candidate over Democratic nominee Sherrod Brown are being underwritten by a newly incorporated PAC with ties to President Trump’s MAGA Inc., public filings show.

The mailers are sponsored by Enough Promises Ohio PAC and began arriving in voters’ mailboxes in recent days. They promote independent candidate Greg Levy over Brown with messages such as “Join the Revolution” and “Send a Worker to the Senate.” Levy describes himself as “Socialist running for the U.S. Senate to represent Ohio in 2026” on his X account.

Levy condemned the fliers for falsely impersonating his campaign and engaging in “dirty tricks” designed to mislead voters. He said he is considering legal action.

“This is a highly undemocratic practice and does a disservice to voters in Ohio and throughout the country,” he wrote on X.

According to Federal Election Commission filings, Enough Promises Ohio was founded on Sept. 29. It has not yet had to disclose its contributors, but additional federal filings lay out a trail of associations linked to Republicans.

Enough Promises paid the firm Seven Farms more than $397,000 on two dates last week for printing, postage and mail services either supporting Levy or opposing Brown. Seven Farms, also a new entity, lists as its address the same South Carolina business suite as the one used by Whistlestop Strategies LLC.

Whistlestop is a direct mail outfit operated by Big Dog Strategies LLC, the strategy firm that advises Trump’s MAGA Inc. super PAC and that managed Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno’s successful campaign against Brown in 2024.

Messages seeking comment were left with Enough Promises Ohio and Big Dog.

MAGA Inc. and affiliated groups began pouring huge sums of cash into midterm races in September, after party officials had been urging Trump to begin spending some of the fortune he had amassed to help embattled Republicans before it was too late.

Smyth writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Jill Colvin in New York contributed to this report.

Source link

Billionaire tax is dividing California healthcare system it’s designed to support

A proposal to tax California’s billionaires has fractured Democratic politics, repelled some of the state’s richest residents and exploded into a costly battle that’s overshadowing even the gubernatorial election.

Known as Proposition 40, the ballot measure is also dividing the very industry it’s supposed to help. The healthcare workers union behind the initiative, which would authorize a wealth tax on billionaires, says the levy would raise sorely needed funds to shore up health coverage.

By contrast, leading California hospital and doctor groups are opposing the measure ahead of the November vote. They say the one-time 5% levy on the state’s wealthiest is a risky gambit with an uncertain path to victory — as well as a distraction from other proposals to shore up healthcare.

“This is an experiment on a taxation scheme that’s not been done before, and it puts healthcare in a more vulnerable position as a result,” California Medical Assn. Chief Executive Dustin Corcoran said at a recent briefing in Sacramento. “It’s not a healthcare ballot measure.”

Less than six weeks before election day, polls show a divided electorate. But whatever the outcome, the fight is exposing a broader problem confronting California: how to preserve one of the nation’s largest expansions of publicly funded healthcare as a big chunk of the money that helped pay for it disappears.

Over the last decade, California increased access to publicly funded healthcare by broadening eligibility for Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program, and other types of insurance, allowing millions more residents to gain coverage. The number of people without insurance fell to 2.4 million in 2024 from about 6.5 million in 2011.

Now, that trend is expected to reverse. According to the Congressional Budget Office, President Trump’s budget bill last year will lead to $1 trillion in healthcare-related cuts over a decade. Earlier this week, the Trump administration said it recently removed 760,000 people from Obamacare plans across the nation, alleging that some were enrolled improperly and others don’t exist.

Combined with strict work requirements, more frequent eligibility checks and a pullback in state spending pushed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, the changes are projected to push California’s uninsured population under the age of 65 to 4.6 million by 2030, according to the UC Berkeley Labor Center.

“Without trying to be melodramatic, when millions of people lose coverage, it is entirely predictable that thousands will die unnecessarily because of foregone treatment,” said Dave Regan, president of SEIU-UHW, the healthcare-workers union pushing the billionaire tax.

“There is an absolute consensus on what the problem is, and there’s a consensus that there’s no other solution on the table,” he said in an interview at Bloomberg’s San Francisco offices.

Even before the budget cuts start to bite, financial strains are mounting at institutions such as Martin Luther King Jr. Community Hospital in South Los Angeles.

MLKCH’s waiting room is now mostly used for treating patients, with 16 wooden cubicles functioning as care rooms. Sick or injured people are also cared for in the hospital’s front hallways and in what used to be the meditation chapel and the gift shop.

The hospital opened in 2015 with an emergency department built for 25,000 visits annually. In 2024, it handled 130,000. Dr. Elaine Batchlor, its CEO, said further funding reductions “would threaten the sustainability of the hospital.”

Batchlor isn’t taking a position on Proposition 40 and has been looking for other sources of revenue. SEIU-UHW’s Regan argues there’s no other way to raise the money needed to fill the massive gap.

The California Budget & Policy Center estimates the state stands to lose roughly $30 billion in federal Medi-Cal funding each year. Asking California lawmakers for that amount is a “fool’s errand,” Regan said. “And on top of that, the only people the legislature will tax are ordinary people.”

The union estimates the levy would raise $100 billion over five years, with 90% earmarked to shore up health coverage amid impending budget cuts.

Critics dispute the projection. The state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office says the tax would probably raise tens of billions of dollars, but potentially reduce income-tax revenue in the long run, as some ultrawealthy residents depart the state.

Recent polls show an increasingly contested path for Proposition 40. A recent UC Berkeley-Politico poll found 45% of likely voters in favor, but opposition has increased since early this year and now stands at 43%. A separate Public Policy Institute of California survey put support at 52% and opposition at 46%.

Led by Sergey Brin, wealthy opponents have poured almost $230 million into funding Building a Better California, according to a filing late Thursday. That’s helping them flood the airwaves with anti tax advertising. There are also two competing ballot measures designed to torpedo Proposition 40 if they pass.

Billionaires aren’t the only detractors. Critics have also assailed Proposition 40 for carving out an exception to California’s constitutional funding rules to steer most proceeds to healthcare. While the state generally earmarks at least 40% of General Fund revenue to public schools and community colleges, the billionaire-tax proposal excludes the new levy from that calculation.

Corcoran, the medical association chief, argues that even if Proposition 40 passes in November, legal challenges would potentially delay its implementation for years.

“There’s a lot that we can do looking ahead to 2028 when these cuts start taking greater effect that frankly would provide more immediate relief than Proposition 40 would,” he said. His group and others are pushing instead for large corporations to help cover the cost of public insurance for their workers.

Regan called that proposal “the worst public policy on planet Earth,” saying costs will be passed on to consumers and that it essentially acts as a payroll tax on low-wage workers.

He also disputed the notion the billionaire tax would lead the ultrawealthy to leave the state, pointing to Nvidia Corp. CEO Jensen Huang, who earlier this year said he would be “perfectly fine” with the levy. As for legal challenges to the billionaire tax, Regan said he believes they can be resolved in 12 months.

The uncertain funding picture has many hospitals bracing for cuts.

James Suver, CEO of Ridgecrest Regional Hospital, about 150 miles north of Los Angeles, said he’s not betting on proceeds from the billionaire tax. He’s weighing options that include pausing maternity care again, cutting physician recruitment and reducing emergency-room service.

“Our future under the most likely scenario is not looking very good,” Suver said. “We’re beyond doing minor nips and tucks to be able to offset some of the changes that I suspect may be happening in the future.”

Clanton writes for Bloomberg. Kara Wetzel of Bloomberg contributed.

Source link