Well health tourism is a thing and it costs money. If this helps pay for that, and perhaps even acts as a disincentive, then that answers the question that is allegedly being begged. And I already gave the answer to the part about them paying the same tax in the reply to Amazon Queen. I don't know if the specific level of it is reasonable, but I know that the principle is. The criticisms largely seem to be about the principle. Larger adjustments are surely more likely with new things. Established things like house prices, petrol prices, electricity, or even the cost of cod and chips can have some pretty large "adjustments" too. How it personally affects your budget doesn't seem to be relevant. Well it would literally be an adjustment, so yes. Whether or not I would think that adjustment was warranted would be another matter of course, but you know. I wouldn't immediately suspect a conspiracy without even looking into it though. I wasn't assuming they were all non-EEA migrants. The fact is EEA migrants are exempt, presumably for reasons of treaty. Whether or not you think that's fair is a different matter entirely, but since your own link suggests EEA migrants are a net economic positive that might also be a reason for exemption. The fact is it seems to be targeting the group that are creating the additional demand, which in principle seems fair enough doesn't it?