>> charge significantly more for non-citizens (in India, in this case)
Out of curiosity, in India specifically, are the prices targeted at tourists truly exploitive, or are they simply in line with what we can afford in terms of currency exchange? There is a vast gap between "prices are ridiculous, even for tourists", vs. "the tourist is paying more than locals, but they're still getting a bargain or similar to what they'd pay back home".
As a tourist, I don't care if I'm being singled out and paying "reasonable prices based on my wealth". I'm smart enough to "nope out of" paying $100 USD for something that should be $20 USD, but I'm not going to complain because a native is trying to earn a decent wage in their poor economy (eg: $100 USD vs. $70 USD).
At last check, visiting (say) the Taj Mahal cost tourists 10x more than locals - but it was still only around US$10. So "exploitative" would be a stretch.
Visiting Bhutan, on the other hand, incurs fees of at least US$150/day. While justified in terms of minimising impact etc, one politically convenient side effect is to ensure that tourists never interact with anybody not employed by a five-star hotel or visit places without them.
$10 to visit the Taj Mahal - oh my God, so exploitive! That's the sort of thing I was thinking of. It really isn't exploitative at all. Should it technically be free? Yes, but no first world visitor is going to be put out of their way for $10. shrug
Of course, there is a huge difference between making your own way to a tourist trap, vs. being "guided" there. One should always be prepared to be scammed if one is paying someone just to travel to a given destination, vs. paying to actually enter that location by the authoritative body at an official entrance. If you're not paying someone at a physical barricade to the location, you're being scammed. Not too hard to understand.
There's also the informal tax that a tourist would pay. I've even traveled there with someone that is a non-resident Indian (NRI) and he joked with me that while I was getting "ripped off" at one rate, he still wasn't getting the local rate, but "ripped off" a little less. Honestly, the ripped off part came to a few rupees here or there for the most part.
Out of curiosity, in India specifically, are the prices targeted at tourists truly exploitive, or are they simply in line with what we can afford in terms of currency exchange? There is a vast gap between "prices are ridiculous, even for tourists", vs. "the tourist is paying more than locals, but they're still getting a bargain or similar to what they'd pay back home".
As a tourist, I don't care if I'm being singled out and paying "reasonable prices based on my wealth". I'm smart enough to "nope out of" paying $100 USD for something that should be $20 USD, but I'm not going to complain because a native is trying to earn a decent wage in their poor economy (eg: $100 USD vs. $70 USD).