There is a common belief that tourists should pay more than residents to visit tourist attractions. I totally agree with this notion, asserting that it is completely accepting that local visitors must pay less than foreign visitors for viewing such places.
For a variety of reasons, I would argue that local residents must pay less money than foreigners for their local attractions. Firstly, being already engaged in upkeep and maintenance of historical sites through taxes, native people should pay less entry fee. Also, residental population visit such places frequently, because of being main places to be visited in their leisure time. Finally, if these sites required less fee entrance for foreign visitors, the cultural heritage of a particular nation would not be appreciated by them.
On the other hand, some individuals claim that travellers should not pay more than local people. The main reason, which they may base their view on might be losing a good projection of the tourist attractions. As tourists may destroy the good picture of that country after coming back home. However, I do not find this argument convincing, as such historical buildings and corresponding cultural rituals are more worthwhile to be destroied. For example, Takht Jamshid and Siose Pole in Iran, which are belonged to centuries ago, is a cultural identity that never will lose it’s worthiness in the eye’s of the world over.
In conclusion, it is my view that outside visitors should pay more than local society for historical and cultural attractions, because local visitors by paying taxes engaged in repairing and maintaining these sites. Moreover, less entrance fee may lose the value of these places.