It has been a long time that countries all over the world are improving their tourism industry to boost their economy. So they are attracting foreign travellers to come and see their cultural and historical attractions. However, the implementation of additional payment to them more than the local tourists is unacceptable. This argument will be proven by looking at how improper this is because local government has subsidisation already and excursionists from other countries have made contributions already.
For one, imposing more charge to foreign visitors is objectionable because the local state has already subsidised its cultural tourism improvement. For instance, one of the new 7 wonders of nature in the world, the Puerto Princesa Underground River which is situated in Palawan, Philippines has been improved a lot through the help of not only the local administration of the province but also our national government. So all they have to do is to encourage more foreign tourists to come and see the place. Therefore, there is no need for them to pay extra fees to see the beautiful cultural heritage of our country.
In addition to this, travellers from other countries have contributed too much money already when they visit a certain country. For example, the Philippine Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) is collecting 1500 pesos as a travel tax for every foreign excursionist, an equivalent of 50 USD. This is actually a lot of contributions collected by the Philippine government from them. Thus, it is very undesirable to charge them more for improving the countries historical attractions.
In conclusion, it is disagreeable for the state of the Philippines to collect more fees from visitors of other nations due to the fact that it has subsidised its cultural and historical attractions and collecting airport tax already from them. So collecting more fees from these people is highly not recommended. 
It has been a long time that  
countries
 all over the world are improving their tourism industry to boost their economy.  
So
 they are attracting  
foreign
  travellers
 to  
come
 and  
see
 their  
cultural
 and historical attractions.  
However
, the implementation of additional payment to them more than the  
local
 tourists is unacceptable. This argument will  
be proven
 by looking at how improper this is  
because
  local
  government
 has  
subsidisation
  already
 and excursionists from other  
countries
 have made contributions already.
For one, imposing more charge to  
foreign
 visitors is objectionable  
because
 the  
local
 state has  
already
  subsidised
 its  
cultural
 tourism improvement.  
For instance
, one of the new 7 wonders of nature in the world, the Puerto  
Princesa
 Underground River which  
is situated
 in  
Palawan
, Philippines has been  
improved
 a lot through the  
help
 of not  
only
 the  
local
 administration of the province  
but
  also
 our national  
government
.  
So
 all they  
have to
 do is to encourage more  
foreign
 tourists to  
come
 and  
see
 the place.  
Therefore
, there is no need for them to pay extra fees to  
see
 the  
beautiful
  cultural
 heritage of our country. 
In addition
 to this,  
travellers
 from other  
countries
 have contributed too much money  
already
 when they visit a certain  
country
.  
For example
, the Philippine  
Ninoy
 Aquino International Airport ( 
NAIA
) is collecting 1500 pesos as a travel tax for every  
foreign
 excursionist, an equivalent of 50 USD. This is actually  
a lot of
 contributions collected by the Philippine  
government
 from them.  
Thus
, it is  
very
 undesirable to charge them more for improving the  
countries
 historical attractions. 
In conclusion
, it is disagreeable for the state of the Philippines to collect more fees from visitors of other nations due to the fact that it has  
subsidised
 its  
cultural
 and historical attractions and collecting airport tax  
already
 from them.  
So
 collecting more fees from these  
people
  is
  highly
 not recommended.