Instead of giving visitors visa free access who hold strong passports, rather make them require a visa prior to entry (meaning they can't just pack their bags and go, now having to pre-plan in advance and line up for getting a visa & paying money for it, they're not alone since hundreds more are doing the same thing. There's also the guarantee whether they'll be eligible or get rejected on the spot).

It may cause strain on visa applications that'll lead to mass rejections due to overload. If I were a country that's suffering over tourism, just rescind visa free access for ALL nationalities (including those who have strong passports like US, UK, DE, FR, AU or CA to name a few) as in when they check visa requirements: it'll be rewritten as "visa required" rather than "visa not required" prior to entry.

Or, they can apply for a tourist visa many times as they'd like but reject them. (Basically a real life travel "shadow ban" if that's the right way to say it), leads to them giving up as they'll know a visa will never be guaranteed regardless of numerous attempts. However, would this move alone reduce over tourism? Since you can't just show up in someone else's nation uninvited (illegal immigration).

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 23 hours ago (3 children)

In some places, one needs licenses similar to or the same as a hotel to run an air bnb. In Tokyo, there have been problems with illegal ones, though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

    There's problems with illegal bnb's everywhere; because it's really hard to detect them as they are basically private houses with no difference from a non airbnb house.

    Hence why I say we should exponentially tax houses after the second one. Owning a second house shouldn't be a problem because I think we should be able to own a house where we like to spend our holidays if we decide to. Owning 3 or more is not needed and should be heavily taxed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 22 hours ago (1 child)

    i wonder how much there are corporate landlords owning airbnb, maybe tax those people harder,

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • That's my point. You don't need 3 houses, let alone 50. With the first house you don't pay taxes on property (as it's fair because you live there). With the second you should pay the normal tax. The third one should be 10x the normal tax. 4th 100x the normal tax, and so on. Owning more than 2 houses should be expensive AF to discourage hoarders.

  • source
  • parent