newnative

Should have rescued the car.

All your arguments regarding western dual pricing being fair, while Thailand's in many cases are not, are based on someone establishing local residency to avoid the dual pricing. A foreign college student could become a local resident. Yes, they could. In Pennsylvania, though, for example, that takes a full year. So, the first year the foreign student is studying, he or she is paying the foreign nationality rate--dual pricing by nationality. A foreign national in this country and a foreign national in that country could become a local resident, you say. Of course they could--and, as I keep saying, that's a whole separate issue. The fact that some countries offer eventual local residency to get around dual pricing does not erase the fact that they have dual pricing in the first place. The subject of the thread is dual pricing and tourist backlash, not local resident backlash. I fully-understand that local foreign residents in Thailand, and thereby not tourists, in many cases must pay foreign tourist prices, without the opportunity to become local residents, which is unlike many western countries where they have the opportunity to eventually become local residents and secure local resident pricing. What Thailand does with its local residency laws and with its dual pricing, though, is also a separate issue from dual pricing elsewhere. I've given plenty of examples of western dual pricing initially by nationality alone but you asked for another one in your above post, so here is one below. You'll note that Switzerland, Norway, and some other non-Euro nationalities are singled out to get the reduced entrance fees, while other nationalities, such as the USA and Thailand, are left out. So, Swiss national, reduced rate, USA national, not reduced rate. That's dual pricing based on nationality alone, and with the added distinction of some non-EU nationalities being favored over other non-EU nationalities. The reason Swiss nationals and the selected other countries are given the reduced fee makes sense to me, by the way. I'm just pointing it out as an example of western dual pricing solely by nationality. The example: Many Italian museums offer reduced entrance fees to citizens of Switzerland, often along with other non-EU countries. Specifically, the Uffizi Gallery in Florence and the Pinacoteca di Brera in Milan are examples of museums that provide reduced rates for Swiss nationals, along with other non-EU countries like Norway and Liechtenstein.

That's strange there is no field for province. I've found the post office is pretty good--I've had some mangled addressed mail arrive. If Jomtien worked in the past it likely will again, with the street address and the postal code. Good luck.

I never use Pattaya, Jomtien, etc., in the address. With my current address, it's house number, Moo number, street name, Nongprue, Banglamung, Chonburi 20150. Mail and packages have been arriving fine. Sometimes you need to get a little creative with where you put N, B, C--I might put Nongprue and Banglamung both in 'city', for example, to get all 3 in.

So a tourist from another country is going to establish local residency at all those places to get the same price as locals? As I addressed in my other post, local residency is an entirely separate issue and not relevant to dual pricing for international tourists, who do not become local residents on short tourist visits to countries.

You're trying mighty hard to get that square peg to fit into the round hole. Residency in a country is a completely separate issue but you keep trying to make it relevant to dual pricing for non-residents and non-citizens, when it absolutely is not. Western dual pricing gets a pass in your book because there's a possibility, however remote if not impossible, for the tourists to become local residents. As I said before, ludicrous. You continue to ignore basic reality--non-Euro citizens--say an American and a Thai--going on a short trip to Paris are not going to establish local residency in order to get the same local resident admission price to the Louvre. So, both the American and the Thai will pay a higher price, not because they are American and Thai, but, rather, because they are not citizens of the EU. It's not dual pricing aimed at any specific country, rather, it is one price for citizens and another price for all non-citizens, whatever country they are from. That is, plain and simple, dual pricing based solely on nationality, in this case neither of them being of EU nationality. And, of course, being short-term tourists, not residents. I think you are incorrect when you say western dual pricing is never based on nationality alone. The example I gave on college tuition is certainly based on nationality alone. You're a non-citizen from a foreign country, you pay a higher price at some US colleges--that's based on nationality alone. Not American nationality? You pay the foreign rate. Cut and dried. It's true that there's the possibility of establishing residency--but that's a totally separate issue from the initial dual pricing by nationality alone--and if a foreign student doesn't establish residency or is unable to, the dual pricing remains by nationality alone.

If you're feeling 'exploited' I suggest you vote with your pocketbook and avoid places with dual pricing.

I think you're just getting tangled up in semantics. It's two different prices, whatever you want to call one of them. However you slice it, one person is paying "X" amount based on certain criteria and another person is paying "Y" amount, also based on certain criteria. That's dual pricing. And, if you add a third person paying "Z" amount, that's triple pricing. And so on.

You're simply deflecting, and rather ludicrously, with your emphasis on 'local residency'. How many American tourists on a one-week jaunt to Paris are going to be able to qualify as local residents? Or Asian tourists on their short visits? Slim to none, I should think--I'm an American and I know I'm not a 'local resident', and neither is my Thai spouse. If I show up at the Louvre in 2026, with my non-EU nationality and, of course, no local residency, I will be charged a higher price than a citizen of the EU, as will my Thai nationality spouse. That's dual pricing by nationality--EU nationality, or local resident, one price, any other nationality, and not a local resident, a higher price. Can't get much simpler. Are you 'X' nationality? You get this price. If you're not 'X' nationality, you get a different price. Dual pricing by whether you do, or don't have the nationality, as a visitor, to obtain the lower price. Ditto for the Canadian ski resort example. Canadian nationals are charged one price, USA nationals living in the US and visiting the resort, a higher price. That's also dual pricing based on nationality--you're either Canadian nationality or you're not. And, dual pricing by nationality is certainly not 'very rare'--in the west or anywhere else. In one of my posts I mentioned higher prices for foreign students at the college where I worked--quite common in the US, especially with state universities. Again, leaving aside the 'local residency' deflection, you again have dual pricing based on whether you have a qualifying nationality. If you're not of American nationality, you pay a higher price. I don't have a problem with most dual pricing, though, for the reason I gave in my earlier post.

I couldn't find any references to what the dual pricing would be at the Louvre. The most recent info on Google that I saw stated that the new pricing would be announced in early 2026. But, in any case, it is not a 'false comparison'. Dual pricing is dual pricing. It remains that the Louvre is planning to charge dual pricing based on nationality. The poster I was responding to stated that it would be difficult to find any dual pricing in western countries based on nationality, with the implication that this was something pretty much limited to Thailand, and perhaps some other Asian countries, such as Japan. I found it was not difficult at all. I remain unconvinced that there is anything wrong with the concept of dual pricing by nationality. To me, it is fair and makes perfect sense when it is applied to public things, such as museums, parks, etc. that are maintained through the taxes of the citizens. Why shouldn't the citizens get a smaller entrance fee that recognizes the monetary support that they contribute on a yearly basis, while Joe International Tourist, who has not provided any financial support at all, is asked to pay a higher fee as his contribution to maintaining something that is there for his enjoyment? That's basically why the Louvre is proposing dual pricing based on nationality--maintenance. It is faced with a massive renovation that is needed in order to keep the museum open and functioning. In order to pay the huge price tag for the renovation, non-Euro citizens will be asked to pay a higher price for admission. I see nothing wrong with that--nor a higher admission for non-Thai citizens for it's citizen-maintained public things. Someone likely will post that local non-Thai citizens do contribute, too, through different taxes that they pay year-round, such as sales taxes. Totally true, and in a perfect world they should also get a reduced admission. I think some facilities do recognize non-Thais who present a pink card. For the rest, file it in the very large 'life isn't fair' folder.

It really isn't 'difficult to find comparable examples' of dual pricing by nationality in other countries. It only took me a couple of minutes to find examples of dual pricing in some Italian museums, based on nationality. The Louvre museum in Paris is planning a higher entrance fee for non-Euro citizens in 2026--that will be based on nationality, as well. According to Google, some Canadian ski resorts have one price for Canadians and a higher price for Americans--that's also nationality based. I'm sure I've just scratched the surface with my quick search and there's other examples out there. Although many posters seem to think dual pricing only happens in Thailand, clearly that is not the case. But, take heart, folks! At least we aren't in Venice, where apparently there is even dual pricing to go to the toilet.

Get over it. As I said, dual pricing is not unique to Thailand. The state community college where I worked in Virginia has not just dual pricing but triple--one price for in-state students, a bigger price for out-of-state students, and a still bigger price for foreign students. With your flawed reasoning, Virginia is a RACIST state, although race has absolutely nothing to do with the pricing. Rather, it's solely based on legal residency, no matter what race you may be. The MRT in Bangkok has a lower price for senior citizens. Racist? No. Not based on race, but age. I currently have a senior MRT card so it is also not based on nationality--at least for now. Should that change, it would then be based on nationality and age. Still not racist. Examples of dual pricing with senior discounts can be found everywhere, not just Thailand. Also student discounts and discount prices for children. Should I blow my stack and cry RACIST! that a child is getting into X for a cheaper admission price than me? Or, should I say, good, that makes sense. Thailand's proposed casinos might charge a steep entrance fee for Thai citizens, while foreign passport holders would get in free. Racist? No, dual admission prices based on nationality--in this case being of Thai nationality would cost you much more, rather than less. Would this dual pricing be fair? In this case I would say no, but it's Thailand's ball so they make the rules, and I do understand the idea is to keep Thai citizens who can't afford to gamble out of the casinos. Some museums and other attractions give a cheaper rate for groups touring than to individuals. For example, the UK Parliament charges 27 pounds for a single adult admission. But, if you're an adult with a group, you pay 23 pounds. Racist? No. Admission price based on numbers. Both Disney World and Universal Amusement Park have discount rates for Florida residents. Racist? No, again based on state residency--perhaps they're getting a price break for putting up with all those tourists. One can choose to see dual pricing as discriminatory and get all hot and bothered about it but I've found there is usually, in most cases, a reason for the way the pricing has been done. Dear 'ol Dad used to say, "Don't sweat the small stuff." Good advice, and dual pricing in Thailand definitely qualifies as 'small stuff', in my book. But, feel free to wallow.

Nothing is going over my head, and certainly not your incorrect, lame argument. Thai is not a 'race'. Thai is a nationality. A Thai citizen, whether they are local or 'from the other end of the country', gets a break on the price of admission at the national park near you. Non-Thai citizens, of whatever race, whether local or 'from the other end of the country', are charged a higher price, not because of their race but because they are not Thai citizens. Not racist. Not a big deal. Got it now?

Hope their slogan doesn't turn into "Not done, not doing, not continuing" but I suspect that will be the case.

500 baht is a total joke. Add at least two zeros to that figure and apply the fine whether a patient dies or not. All the fines are ridiculously low and don't serve as any sort of deterrent.

No. Only short-term rentals of less than a month are illegal.

I have no idea but, for sure, not Sterling Cooper.

I agree. As you point out, it's certainly not just found in Thailand. There are lots of examples in the US-- everything from reduced park rates for state residents to higher tuition for foreign students to discounted tickets to Disney World for Florida residents. Standard practice and no big deal.

Just one reason of many why I hate organized religion.

Dial--and, yes I wish everybody did.

Did not bother to seek out the video but I think it's likely that 'antics' should replace 'chaos' and 'amusement' should replace 'outrage' in the headline. Pity I was not at the restaurant--sounds like it was a fun evening.

And, thank goodness for that.

Yes, hit 'em in the pocketbook.

Guilty on all counts.

The answer is very few--which is why traditional pensions--at least in the US--have been largely eliminated, as companies realized these pensions were costing way too much money, with people living much longer than they used to. I am one of the lucky ones who has a traditional pension, from the state of Virginia. I'm sure, at age 73, that I have already collected far more than what I contributed, since I retired at age 54 with 30 years of service. I remember, years ago, my Dad showing me his retirement benefits. He was a US federal employee with really a gold-plated traditional pension that even included medical care. He showed me his retirement statement that showed what he had contributed to his pension in the years he worked. At that time, he had only been retired for 5 or 6 years when he had exhausted his contributions. He went on to live into his 95th year and was actually retired for more years than he worked. When he died, my Mom still received 50% of his benefits as he had selected that option when he first retired. She lived until 101. I think earlier in this thread someone suggested that pensions be eliminated and we all fund our retirements privately with 401s and the like. I thank my lucky stars that I am not privately funding my retirement, as I likely would have run out of any retirement money I socked away long ago.