adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Investment

Saudi Arabia to Contribute $3 Billion to Iraq Investment Fund – Yahoo Canada Finance

Published

 on


The Daily Beast

‘It’s Not Personal!’: ‘Top Chef’ Judge Gail Simmons Tells All

NBC UniversalWhen I admit 30 seconds into my Zoom call with Gail Simmons that I have just finished bingeing all 17 seasons of Top Chef in preparation for this week’s highly anticipated 18th season premiere, she is simultaneously delighted and disturbed.“Oh god, I am horrified and I’m grateful,” she responds. “The hairstyles alone, I mean, it’s like a journey through time.”Along with head judge Tom Colicchio, Gail Simmons has been a vital part of the increasingly elaborate cooking competition reality show since its inauspicious premiere in 2006. (Padma Lakshmi famously joined the show as host and later executive producer in Season 2 after Top Chef’s first host Katie Lee was let go.)If Colicchio is the show’s intimidating father figure and Lakshmi is the fun mom with the unenviable task of telling every contestant but the winner to “pack their knives and go,” Simmons is the warm, loving Jewish aunt. She’s not afraid to tell the chefs when they mess up. But she is always there for a comforting hug and words of encouragement when they are sent on their way.Those hugs are just one of many staples of the show—along with frantic Whole Foods runs and “Restaurant Wars”—that will be missing in this new, ambitious season, which was shot entirely during COVID lockdown in Portland, Oregon. The summer shoot was also plagued by life-threatening wildfires and galvanized by the massive Black Lives Matter protests.All of this plus the return of several previous Top Chef winners and all-stars, who joined the production bubble as rotating guest judges, promises to make for the show’s most compelling season yet. And Simmons—who describes herself as, above all, a “professional eater”—breaks it all down below before Season 18 premieres tonight, Thursday April 1 at 8 p.m. on Bravo.With Season 18 about to premiere, can you talk about how different it is going to be from past seasons?Season 18 will be, in some ways I hope, a little bit of comfort food. And I do hope that it feels that way to our viewers, like coming home. It’s still the same high quality, it’s still the most amazing talent, it still showcases the city we’re in in a unique and beautiful way. But at the same time, obviously we’re facing this last year head on. We are so proud of the fact that we really have given a voice to the restaurant industry and we will show it in all its forms. And this year was an unprecedented year. It was a dark and difficult year in the world, obviously, and for the restaurant industry especially. The biggest thing you’ll notice is obviously that anyone that’s around us besides the talent and the judges are in full PPE. We created this show in a complete enclosed bubble in terms of the way that we operated for two and a half months in Portland, Oregon. And that was an amazing feat. And we’re really proud of it, not a single case of COVID along the way. Such a big part of our show is always the guest judges that come into every episode with the quickfire and the elimination and bring their perspective and their talent to the show. And we couldn’t do that in the same way this year, because the show has to be enclosed and we can’t have people coming in and out every day when we’re shooting. So we created this panel of alumni all-stars, 15 of them that are with us for the whole thing. They are our diners. So we’re never cooking for 200 people anymore.That must be a relief for the chefs.In some ways, yes. But in some ways it made it more challenging too, because every single diner that they’re cooking for is a professional chef this year, every single time. We did do a drive-in episode that allowed us to have people alone in their cars at the drive-in movie theater. But otherwise every time they were cooking, they were cooking for experts. And not just experts, but experts who had been in their shoes, which in some ways brought empathy in a way, but it also made sure that we were examining and cross-examining every bite in a really intense way. But I think it lends a lot to the show, not just because we got to eat meals with our friends all the time, but I just think it adds a richness to the show that will bring a lot. So it was a way to tackle that challenge, but make the show even better for it.The thing that’s apparent immediately this season is how this past year has affected the chefs who are on as contestants in that they have a lot more to gain and less to lose. Usually people have to leave their restaurants to come on the show, putting their career on hold to take a chance on this other thing.There is almost more at stake this year because the restaurant industry has been so challenged. And so, quite frankly, devastated, on the brink of collapse, that to have a shot at and have the opportunity to show what you can do to such a wide audience and the chance at rebirth, it’s a bigger opportunity even, right? Because most of these chefs lost their jobs, lost their restaurants, or the restaurants were closed, or they were furloughed, or they had to furlough a hundred people before they came on the show. I mean, there’s so much trauma in the industry. It’s not a trickle down of how this affected the industry, it’s a waterfall. So I think in some ways you’re right, there’s even more at stake for our contestants, because there’s so much on the line in their livelihoods to do well. It will give them opportunity that really doesn’t exist right now. At the same time, I think it allowed them a freedom in a way that they hadn’t had before. Because now there are so many different routes. You don’t have to go back and open a traditional restaurant. We were able to have them cook at a time when there’s just so many different ways to be a chef. And this year has proven that our industry is so creative and innovative in that way. So I think you’ll see that on the show too. And I hope that our viewers take that away from it, like you did, and notice that. Because I don’t know if civilians outside the industry really understand the extent to which restaurateurs and chefs have been tested this year.The fact that you’re all in this bubble together and you’re not really interacting with a lot of other people, how did it change the vibe on set? Was there a little bit more camaraderie, maybe even between the contestants and the judges than there have been in other seasons?I think there was an empathy, more than there’d been in past seasons. There’s no camaraderie. We are not hanging out with those contestants any more, for sure not. But there’s more of a camaraderie between them, this shared experience after being in isolation. And same with us because we had these 15 people with us. It wasn’t just Tom, Padma and I. Then on our nights off, we wouldn’t just go see other friends or go live our life. We had no one but each other. In some ways that was amazing because we got to actually eat together. And I will say, that was the most interaction with people any of us had had in months leading up to the show. So it was incredible to be able to sit down with friends at a table and eat a meal every day and be outside together and explore Portland and Oregon together, go to wine country, go to the coast and experience it with a big group of people. I mean, it was far more people than I’d been with for so long. We all were craving companionship and that’s what made it special. For the contestants, too, they’d all been alone in their own lives. And they got to then really form relationships. More than ever, I think you’ll see that this year it’s a group of incredibly diverse, interesting people who come together in unexpected ways.Yeah, it’s so fun to see the past contestants as judges. Richard Blais was the first former contestant to become a judge and now you have this huge panel, including him. Does it change the way you get to know these chefs, when they were contestants versus when they then become judges and you are more peers?Yeah, absolutely. Over the years, especially with some of them who were from earlier seasons, someone, like [season four’s] Dale Talde for example, I’ve gotten to know in our industry. I was a regular at his Brooklyn restaurant, I went to visit him in his new restaurant out in Tarrytown, New York. And so many of them, [season 10 winner] Kristen Kish, [season 14 winner] Brooke Williamson, we’ve spent a lot of time over the years getting to know them personally after their shows. But this was another level because we don’t necessarily all get to work together and have them on our side of the table, so to speak.I think it actually freaked a lot of them out because they thought that they’d just roll into it and it wouldn’t feel different, but their empathy and the way they identify with the experience in real time, when they’re sitting at that table—you could see them, all they wanted to do is jump over the table and get into the kitchen and tell the chefs in hindsight what they could do better. They were so invested in the outcome and in the success of these chefs. And I think it actually really lifted our contestants up to know that there was someone on the other end of the table who’d been in their shoes and could really understand that experience. Because otherwise their experience is very isolating and it’s so intense and so challenging on a good day. And this year has just been one giant, not so good day.One thing that I definitely noticed rewatching the show from the beginning is that the skill level of the chefs has just gotten better and better over the years. It seems like every finale, someone is making a comment like “this is the best dessert we’ve ever had.”It’s true. Every year we’re just like, we didn’t think it could get better.So it seems like the Judges’ Table for the finale must be the most difficult one that you have to do. What are those deliberations like, especially for the finale?So I have never gone back and watched the show’s previous seasons. I think that would just be like a slow knife in my heart. But I think it would be so interesting now to see, because the first season had a few sort of semi-amateurs. Someone just came out of culinary school, someone was like a home cook and caterer. And very early on, we realized that our audience wants the show to be about professionals. Let’s just call it that and make it that. This is not a show about aspiring cooks. This is not a show for people who want to get into the industry. Every person on our show has been working as a professional chef and this year, there’s not even sous chefs. They’re all executive chefs or owners. And that allows the level of conversation, the level of quality of the show to first of all be totally different than anything else out there, but also allows us to have this level playing field. Everyone’s coming in with the same years of experience. And that allows us to push them so much harder. So that has been amazing to see. Just every year, the casting of our show has gotten stronger and stronger.And when it comes to Judges’ Table, we have also evolved our production along the way. Our show has gotten a lot bigger since those first years. There used to be years where Judges’ Table would take through the night into the morning. Especially finales. I can count at least three or four finales where we would finish eating at like eight o’clock, nine o’clock at night, go to Judges’ Table, let’s say, starting at 10 o’clock at night. And we would debate until seven in the morning. In Puerto Rico, season four, we had to stop production during the finale Judges’ Table because the light was coming up, the sun was rising, the roosters were crowing, and we had to shut down so that our lighting department could switch around the lighting because it was lit for nighttime and it wasn’t night anymore. There are pictures of me literally taking a nap at the Judges’ Table. So they used to be agonizing and they’re still incredibly hard. And they do take hours and hours when they’re boiled down to 15 minutes of airtime. But we’ve gotten a lot more efficient at it because we all are sort of on the same page about what we’re looking for and the challenge. So what used to be eight hours or seven hours of Judges’ Table at finales now is four or five. But we take it seriously. And we have never regretted a decision that we’ve made because we make sure we’re unanimous and we talk it out. That’s the best part of the show is just an honest, real conversation about food. The finales are definitely difficult, but that’s a great problem to have. It would be really boring if it was like, “That guy was terrible and it’s an easy decision.”You said you’ve never regretted a decision, but were there any close calls that still haunt you?Oh yeah, many, many close calls. I don’t necessarily want to name them because it’s probably a sore point for the person who didn’t win. But there were many times when it really came down to the nuance of technique or the nuance of the dish or an overall experience. It’s never just one thing. There’s no black and white rules to how to judge. We don’t give three points for this and six points for this and it’s a clean, perfect mathematical equation. That’s not what eating is. Eating is an emotional experience. Eating transports you. It’s about taste memory and technique and science, kind of in equal measure. So every time we sit down, we judge a little bit differently in terms of what we’re looking for and what we get.There’s this really great moment that happens in almost every finale episode, where the camera catches you specifically going up to the runner up and consoling them in some way. It’s this really sweet moment and I don’t know if you’re aware that this happens in nearly every finale.I guess I’m not. I mean, I can remember a few. It’s a show to us, but it’s life to them, right? They’re really going through this. And it’s an enormous piece of their livelihood and the trajectory of their careers. And they work so damn hard to get to that last meal. They pour their emotions out. It is so physically taxing on them. And at the end of it, they just want to collapse, win or lose. And you connect with that and you can’t help but want to make sure they understand how much you appreciate that, how grateful I am to these people. We’ve taken this adventure with them and we are so proud of their work. And by the way, just because one person wins, as you know now, so many of them have gone on to great success. And actually some of whom have become bigger, more successful and more well-known than the winners themselves. So you just want to make sure they understand that while that other person’s dish or menu was better on this one day, they are extraordinary in what they accomplished along the way. I didn’t even remember who won a bunch of the seasons because that’s not what you remember. You remember these individual moments and stand-out dishes along the way.Oh, that’s nice to hear. I was watching the first episode of this season just the other night with my husband and he was trying to get ahead of it. And he’s like, so who goes home this first episode? And I could not remember. And to your point, I’m so glad that you as a viewer felt that way, because I was there. And I know the end result. But I also don’t remember who goes home, because that person who went home was just as memorable to me as so many of the others. And when that person was eliminated, I actually was like, “Oh, wait, I didn’t remember that, I’m so sad!” I mean, I remembered the dish and I agreed with the decision, like that needed to happen. But I was like, oh, damn, I really like that person. But it’s not personal! The decisions we make are strictly about the food that we eat and that’s the only fair way to do it.Before we go, now that we’re about a year into the pandemic, how have you handled this year without restaurants in a traditional sense? What has that been like for you?Painful, but not as painful as if I was a restaurateur, that’s for sure. So much of my life is traveling and eating out. It’s what gives me the greatest joy. I’m a restaurant industry cheerleader. That’s my job, because I love restaurants so much. I love cooking, of course. But championing restaurants is what I’ve always done and wanted to do. And so it’s what I crave and miss the most for sure. I’ve done a lot of takeout. I’ve been cooking and taking out in equal measure. It’s not quite the same, but I think there have also been some really bright points of innovation in the takeout space that I’m excited about. So I’m just supporting the industry the best I can, whether it’s by making sure people are doing takeout—and not just takeout, but takeout on the right apps so that the restaurant is not paying exorbitant fees to have that service. And at a government level, this is a bigger conversation that we all can get behind locally. And thank goodness relief is on the way, thanks in large part to Tom Colicchio. I think it has made everyone realize that we can’t imagine a world without restaurants. They are such an integral part of the way we live and commune and connect and unify in so many ways. They are the hub of neighborhoods. They are the place we go for celebration, for drowning our sorrows, for reunion. And I just can’t wait to get back.What’s the first restaurant you’re going to go eat at when you are able to again?Oh, I don’t know, that’s not fair! It depends on whether I’m with my kids or not. But I’ll definitely be paying my friend Tom Colicchio a big visit. But there’s just so, so many. I can’t wait to travel again and eat at new restaurants. I just hope that as many as possible are still standing.Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

300x250x1

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Investment

TFSAs, RRSPs and more could see changes in allowed investments – Investment Executive

Published

 on

By


“It’s a useful and probably much needed exercise,” said Carl Hinzmann, partner with Gowling WLG in Toronto. “If they can get the [qualified investments definitions] down to a singular definition, I think it would be significantly easier for the investment community that’s trying to provide advice and develop products.”

Holding a non-qualified or prohibited investment can lead to severe tax consequences: the plan would incur a 50% tax on the fair market value of the non-qualified or prohibited investment at the time it was acquired or changed status, and the investment’s income also would be taxable.

300x250x1

The consultation asked stakeholders to consider whether updated rules should favour Canada-based investments. Hinzmann likened this to the debate about whether pension funds should invest more domestically.

“I don’t think tax legislation is the appropriate way to tell pension funds to invest their money, so why [do that to] ordinary Canadians?” he said.

To achieve the goal of favouring Canadian investments, Hinzmann said the government could either require a certain percentage of domestic investments or treat domestic investments more favourably within a plan. Canada had a foreign content limit for RRSPs and RRIFs from 1971 to 2005, which ranged from 10% to 30%.

The budget acknowledged that the qualified investment rules “can be inconsistent or difficult to understand” due to their many updates since their introduction in 1966.

For example, different plans have slightly different rules for making investments in small businesses; certain types of annuities are qualified investments only for RRSPs, RRIFs and RDSPs; and certain pooled investment products are qualified investments only if they are registered with the Canada Revenue Agency.

“There’s no good policy reason” for the inconsistencies, Hinzmann said, adding that the purpose of the rules is to ensure registered plans hold stable, liquid products and that the planholder does not gain a personal tax advantage.

By having unwieldy, inconsistent rules, “all you’re really doing is increasing costs for the people offering these investment services to Canadians,” he said.

The budget asked for suggestions on how to improve the regime. In addition to questioning whether the rules should favour Canadian investments, the budget asked stakeholders to consider the pros and cons of harmonizing the small-business and annuities rules; whether crypto-backed assets should be considered qualified investments; and whether a registration process is indeed required for certain pooled investment products.

Hinzmann said the consultation’s highlighting of crypto-backed assets suggests the government may be questioning whether investment funds that hold cryptocurrency should be included in registered plans, though he acknowledged the government also could wish to expand the types of crypto products allowed.

Cryptocurrency itself is a non-qualifying investment in registered plans.

The qualified investments consultation ends July 15.

Qualified, non-qualifying and prohibited investments

Registered plans are allowed to hold a wide range of investments, including cash, GICs, bonds, mutual funds, ETFs, shares of a company listed on a designated exchange, and private shares under certain conditions. These are called qualified investments.

However, investments such as land, general partnership units and cryptocurrency are generally non-qualifying investments. (A cryptocurrency ETF is qualified if it’s listed on a designated exchange.)

A prohibited investment is property to which the planholder is “closely connected.” This includes a debt of the planholder or a debt or share of, or an interest in, a corporation, trust or partnership in which the planholder has an interest of 10% or more. A debt or a share of, or an interest in, a corporation, trust or partnership in which the planholder does not deal at arm’s length also is prohibited.

A registered plan that acquires or holds a non-qualified or prohibited investment is subject to a 50% tax on the fair market value of the investment at the time it was acquired or became non-qualified or prohibited. However, a refund of the tax is available if the property is disposed of, unless the planholder acquired the investment knowing it could become non-qualified or prohibited.

Income from a non-qualified investment is considered taxable to the plan at the highest marginal rate. Income earned by a prohibited investment is subject to an advantage tax of 100%, payable by the planholder.

A non-qualified investment that is also a prohibited investment is treated as prohibited.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Investment

Bill Morneau slams Freeland’s budget as a threat to investment, economic growth

Published

 on

Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland’s predecessor Bill Morneau says there was talk of increasing the capital gains tax when he was on the job — but he resisted such a change because he feared it would discourage investment by companies and job creators.

He said Canada can expect that investment drought now, in response to a federal budget that targets high-end capital gains for a tax hike.

“This was very clearly something that, while I was there, we resisted. We resisted it for a very specific reason — we were concerned about the growth of the country,” he said at a post-budget Q&A session with KPMG, one of the country’s large accounting firms.

Morneau, who served as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s finance minister from 2015 to 2020 before leaving after reports of a rift, said Wednesday that Freeland’s move to hike the inclusion rate from one-half to two-thirds on capital gains over $250,000 for individuals, and on all gains for corporations and trusts, is “clearly a negative to our long-term goal, which is growth in the economy, productive growth and investments.”

300x250x1

Morneau said the wealthy, business owners and corporations — the people most likely to face a higher tax burden as a result of Freeland’s change — will think twice about investing in Canada because they stand to make less money on their investments.

“We’ve created a disincentive and that’s very difficult. I think we always have to recognize any measure that creates a disincentive for investment not only impacts us within the country but also impacts foreign investors that are looking at our country,” he said.

“I don’t think there’s any way to sugarcoat it. It’s a challenge. It’s probably very troubling for many investors.”

KPMG accountants on hand for Morneau’s remarks said they’ve already received calls from some clients worried about how the capital gains change will affect their investments.

Praise from progressives

While Freeland’s move to tax the well-off to pay for new spending is catching heat from wealthy businesspeople like Morneau, and from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, progressive groups said they were pleased by the change.

“We appreciate moves to increase taxes on the wealthiest Canadians and profitable corporations,” said the Canadian Labour Congress.

“We have been calling on the government to fix the unfair tax break on capital gains for a decade,” said Katrina Miller, the executive director of Canadians for Tax Fairness. “Today we are pleased to see them take action and decrease the tax gap between wage earners and wealthy investors.”

“This is how housing, pharmacare and a Canada disability benefit are afforded. If this is the government’s response to spending concerns, let’s bring it on. It’s about time we look at Canada’s revenue problem,” said the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

The capital gains tax change was pitched by Freeland as a way to make the tax system fairer — especially for millennials and Generation Z Canadians who face falling behind the economic status of their parents and grandparents.

“We are making Canada’s tax system more fair by ensuring that the very wealthiest pay their fair share,” Freeland said Tuesday after tabling her budget in Parliament.

WATCH: New investment to lead ‘housing revolution in Canada,’ Freeland says

New investment to lead ‘housing revolution in Canada,’ Freeland says

23 hours ago

Duration 1:04

Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland said this year’s federal budget will pave the way for Canada to build more homes at a pace not seen since the Second World War. The new investment and changes to funding models will also cut through red tape and break down zoning barriers for people who want to build homes faster, she said

The capital gains tax, which the government says will raise about $19 billion over five years, is also being pitched as a way to help pay for the government’s ambitious housing plan.

The plan is geared toward young voters who have struggled to buy a home. Average housing prices in Canada are among the highest in the world and interest rates are at 20-year highs.

Tuesday’s budget document says some wealthy people who make money off asset sales and dividends — instead of income from a job — can face a lower tax burden than working and middle-class people.

Morneau, who comes from a wealthy family and married into another one, is on the board of directors of CIBC and Clairvest, a private equity management firm that manages about $4 billion in assets.

According to government data, only 0.13 per cent of Canadians — people with an average income of about $1.4 million a year — are expected to pay more on their capital gains as a result of this change.

A wood cottage.
A cottage at Go Home Lake, located about two hours from Toronto. (Ivan Arsovski/CBC News)

But there’s also a chance less wealthy people will pay more as a result of the change.

Put simply, capital gains occur when you sell certain property for more than you paid for it.

While capital gains from the sale of a primary residence will remain untaxed, the tax change could affect the sales of cottages and other seasonal and investment properties, along with stocks and mutual funds sold at a profit.

A cottage bought years ago and sold for a gain of more than $250,000 would see part of the proceeds taxed at the new higher rate.

But there’s some protection for people who sell a small business or a farming or fishing property — the lifetime capital gains exemption is going up by about 25 per cent to $1.25 million for those taxpayers.

Freeland said Tuesday she anticipates some blowback.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Chrystia Freeland gets a shout-out and an applause from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau during a caucus meeting
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Chrystia Freeland gets a shout-out and applause from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau during a caucus meeting on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Wednesday, April 17, 2024. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

“I know there will be many voices raised in protest. No one likes paying more tax, even — or perhaps particularly — those who can afford it the most,” she said.

“Tax policy is not only, or chiefly, the province of accountants or economists. It belongs to all of us because it is how we decide what kind of country we want to live in and what kind of country we want to build.”

Morneau had little praise for what his successor included in her fourth budget.

Morneau said Canada’s GDP per capita is declining, growth is limited and productivity is lagging other countries — making the country as a whole less wealthy than it was.

Canada has a growth problem, Morneau warns

The government is more interested in rolling out new costly social programs than introducing measures that will reverse some of those troubling national wealth trends, he said.

“Canada is not growing at the pace we need it to grow and if you can’t grow the size of the pie, it’s not easy to figure out how to share the proceeds,” he said.

“You think about that first before you add new programs and the government’s done exactly the opposite.”

The U.S. has a “dynamic investment culture,” something that has turbo-charged economic growth and kept unemployment at decades-low levels, Morneau said. Canada doesn’t have that luxury, he said.

He said Freeland hasn’t done enough to rein in the size of the federal government, which has grown on Trudeau’s watch.

The deficit is now roughly double what it was when he left office, Morneau noted.

“There wasn’t enough done to reduce spending,” he said, while offering muted praise for the government’s decision to focus so much of its spending on the housing conundrum. “The priority was appropriate.”

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Investment

Saudi Arabia Highlights Investment Initiatives in Tourism at International Hospitality Investment Forum

Published

 on

Article content

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — ​The Saudi Ministry of Tourism is currently taking a prominent stage at the International Hospitality Investment Forum (IHIF), presenting a unique opportunity for global investors to dive into the thriving tourism landscape of the Kingdom. With the spotlight on the Tourism Investment Enablers Program (TIEP), that was recently announced, Saudi Arabia is aggressively pushing towards its Vision 2030 goal of being a top global tourism destination for investors and tourists alike. ​

Article content

This strategic presentation comes at a time when Saudi Arabia’s tourism sector celebrates an incredible milestone of 100 million visitors in 2023, seven years ahead of schedule, marking a significant stride towards economic diversification and emphasizing the sector’s growing contribution to the national GDP. The flagship Hospitality Investment Enablers (HIE), one of TIEP’s initiatives, aims to leverage this momentum, planning an investment infusion into the hospitality sector of up to SAR 42 billion in key destinations, which alone is anticipated to create 120,000 new jobs by 2030.​

Article content

300x250x1

The IHIF audience is getting a close look at Saudi Arabia’s plans to expand its accommodation capacity dramatically. The Kingdom is targeting an increase in hotel rooms to over 500,000 and aiming to welcome 150 million visitors annually by 2030. The HIE stands at the core of these ambitions, designed to energize the hospitality sector by introducing a new wave of supply in targeted tourism hotspots, significantly enriching the Kingdom’s diverse tourism offerings.​

The initiative is supported by a suite of strategic enablers, including access to government-owned land under favorable terms, streamlined project development processes, and regulatory adjustments aimed at reducing barriers to market entry and operational costs. This comprehensive approach is expected to catalyze a significant socio-economic transformation within the Kingdom, with private sector investments projected to reach SAR 42.3 billion and a forecasted annual GDP increase of SAR 16.4 billion by 2030.​

Saudi Arabia’s active participation in IHIF aims to showcase the Kingdom as an enticing investment frontier for international investors, emphasizing the lucrative opportunities within the tourism and hospitality sectors. This global stage provides the perfect platform for the Ministry of Tourism to forge lasting partnerships and highlight the Kingdom’s commitment to elevating its tourism industry standards, fostering sustainable growth, and offering robust support to investors.​

Through this engagement, the Saudi Ministry of Tourism is not just showcasing investment opportunities; it is inviting the world to be a part of Saudi Arabia’s ambitious journey towards redefining global tourism norms. Investors are encouraged to seize this unparalleled chance to collaborate with the Kingdom, as it paves the way for a new era of tourism excellence aligned with Vision 2030’s transformative objectives.​​

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending