Addiction – Opinion – SAPO.pt

How to combat the hypocrisy of a country that is addicted to the revenue it derives from practices it condemns, or where balance or even change should be sought in terms of public policy? For politicians, who are increasingly forced to act in short periods of time and think in shorter electoral cycles, a constructive answer to this question is an increasingly difficult task, but it is not impossible.

In their constant quest for more tax revenue, some governments choose to trap their countries in a vicious cycle that involves taxing practices that are harmful to health or economic and social well-being when, in fact, they intend to promote those practices. The most obvious and representative example is tobacco. While tobacco generates millions of dollars in revenue through taxation, it also places a heavy burden on the health care system that needs to deal with the countless diseases caused by smoking. The time lag between the economic benefits generated and the damage caused is enough for some policymakers to say: “Let someone else pay for this.”

This symbiotic and perverse binomial changes only when the balance of costs and benefits becomes unsustainable or when regulatory, social and image pressures punish politicians at the polls. In the case of tobacco, high taxes on this consumption actually create as much state dependence on these revenues as smokers suffer from their addiction.

In an effort to break this paradigm, the UK passed a law banning the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after 2009. This means that long before they reap the economic benefits of health savings from fewer future generations of smokers, the decision will have the most immediate impact of reducing tax revenues, and the need for increased regulation to combat the parallel market, which will also cost more money.

A similar situation is emerging in the tourism industry. Many cities impose tourist taxes, reasoning that these resources can both mitigate the negative impacts of tourism and prevent overcrowding of spaces. However, the actual application of these ratios often reveals another reality.

In Portugal, some cities that collect a tourist tax use it for direct or indirect tourism promotion to create more events and attractions, thus reinforcing a cycle that exacerbates the very problem it was clearly designed to alleviate. Amsterdam, the city with the highest visitor rate in Europe, is an example of a very different approach: there is zero public budget for city promotion and marketing; there are no new hotel licenses in the city—they are only granted if existing hotels close; regulators are trying to reduce the total number of flights authorized at the city’s airports, but one thing is certain: there will be no increase in air capacity, let alone the construction of new airports.

All these measures are part of a long-term strategy that reflects a resolute and consistent vision that contrasts with the bipolar situation in Lisbon: by 2024 it will become the third city in Europe with the most new hotel openings; air capacity in the region will increase – either through works at existing airports or through the construction of a new large airport – but at the same time, a doubling of the tourist tax has been announced, increasing the dependence of the public budget on activities that the State needs to balance with its public policies, due to the weight of volume and growth in municipal revenues.

In fact, it’s as if all of us – tourists, businessmen, workers, residents and public administrators – are addicted to tourism, dependent on the revenue it generates at every level… and at the same time, we “fight” and talk about the long-term negative effects that the same tourism industry has and could have.

This vicious cycle of dependency reveals a huge lack of courage and long-term vision. The real focus is not on creating sustainability, but on creating and increasing tax revenue immediately at all costs. As always, when the addiction bill comes, “let someone else pay”… until when?!