Mike Lister

The reference to Gift Tax is of course very useful but its credibility is undermined somewhat by the statements about income tax. It comes across as scaremongering, or maybe that's just the way I read it.

Yes, sorry Jerry, I didn't mean to imply this was your view. It just seems to be an odd statement for a company like XE to make.

"but the income tax almost always applies".......a sweeping generalisation that doesn't appear to have any basis in fact.

Every country has a body that is similar to TAT which markets inbound tourism. In the UK its Visit Britain, in the US it's the Travel and Tourism Board, in France it's the French Tourism Office, and so on. I think you don't understand the need for such bodies nor what they actually do and how useful it is, or how much income they generate for a country. If they didn't do that, they wouldn't exist!

If you're TAT, where and how are you going to spend your budget, on which countries?

Well I agree with you but when I tried to suggest that was the case recently, hoards of posters insisted that hotel rooms were dual priced. Personally, I've not seen any evidence of that in 21 years here but what do I know.

TAT is a marketing function, it sets out it objectives and targets but nobody would expect them to share publicly their detailed plans for execution, why should they. TAT has an advertising budget that it must spread across a large number of countries to advertise Thailand as a holiday destination, unless they hit the number precisely they will be ridiculed for under performance, if they exceed their targets they will be accused of lying, they are in a no win situation with most AN readers and a perfect scapegoat to be kicked.for those wanting to vent about Thai incompetence.

So how did those 70,089 visitors get here, did they walk!

Yes

If Thailand could attract 39 million in 2019 and this year, the first year of covid economic recovery, a year when the global economy is only just beginning to recover, they can attract 28 million, even without the support of the Chinese mass market, what does that tell you about the volume of people who want to visit.

Even in 2019 at 1 million, as percentage of 39 million, that's still only the same 2.5%. In relative terms, the UK contribution to tourism is not meaningful. The ranking number means nothing, the number of visitors tells the story.

Once again, cars and real estate are collateralized loans, personal lending is unsecured. How many people in Western countries don't borrow to buy a car or a house, that level of lending is typical middle class and is much less of an issue than lending to the impoverished poor. And whilst you may guess that lending is spread evenly, I guess you would be quite wrong, as far unsecured lending is concerned.

I am aware but it still doesn't mean we should go along with it.

I think people need to wise up before abusing antibiotics at the first indication of anything being wrong, they'll pay a price for that down the road.

Back on my list you go, goodbye.

My point is that UK tourists spending on Walking Street doesn't count for anything as far as the Thai economy or international tourism is concerned. Your observation is anecdotal and myopic at best. But yes, 28 million international tourists is not as many as pre-covid but it's still an extremely respectable number.

See my late edit in previous post, UK tourists represent 2% of all tourists.

You need to realise that UK visitors to Thailand aren't even part of the equation, their numbers are so small as to be economically irrelevant. Malaysia: 367,530 visitors China: 328,375 visitors India: 131,230 visitors Russia: 115,743 visitors South Korea: 95,229 visitors Vietnam: 84,221 visitors United States: 70,977 visitors United Kingdom: 70,089 visitors Laos: 68,204 visitors Hong Kong: 67,771 visitors https://www.thailand.go.th/issue-focus-detail/009_165 In 2020, UK tourists accounted for 2.4% of total visitors. https://trail.bananabackpacks.com/thailand-tourism-stats/

What is? Consumer borrowing is 84%. https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/thailand/household-debt--of-nominal-gdp

See the BOT link above, just because loans are 100% of GDP, doesn't mean that 100% of the population is indebted. There is also a big difference between collateralised and uncollateralized loans.

You don't know any more than I do, which segment of the Thai population is most over indebted but we can guess. Is it the rural poor or is it the middle classes that have jobs and assets, hmmm, tricky that one! Here's the breakdown on that Consumer debt, note that which is not collateralized: https://app.bot.or.th/BTWS_STAT/statistics/BOTWEBSTAT.aspx?reportID=891&language=ENG

There is now a sizeable middle class in Thailand and they have money to spend. It's that group that TAT is targeting, not the rural poor.

Long haul airfare prices are the primary one, higher than usual hotel costs is the second but even this can be overcome by downgrading. The scams and rip offs don't count, they are part of the landscape, they can't be fixed and even if they were, it would change the economics. Recessionary spending in visitor countries is a key problem,. tourists don't have oodles of spare cash to visit a destination that used to be cheap but is now pricey in some areas. Thailand's reputation in China needs fixing, that's a tough one.

Taxi's refusing to use their meters in tourist areas; dual pricing on hotel rooms, foreigners vs locals; dual pricing on tourist attractions and parks, and probably a bunch more.

Tit for Tat.