Time for Prayut to relinquish absolute power

[candide]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

I can only say I don't trust the world bank figures that much as they are too unspecific. I do think you might be right (partly at least) because for company tax it would make sense that its paid by the main office. But it still would not account for all of it. Also my figures are newer then the world banks reports. 

 

I just feel that there where most tax is paid most should be spend too (does not mean no money should go elsewhere) but there where most is paid most benefits should go to too. (Yea i know that is a right wing opinion but i feel if you pay a lot of tax its only fair you see most of it back in your own area)

I did further search with Google. Actually, the WB figures seem to be figures they got from Thai institutions. I found a wikipedia page showing the figures of Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board of Thailand in 2013, and they fit well the WB figures. The explanation of the strong discrepancy is that the 26% was about Bangkok alone (not Bangkok region), while your tax figure was about Bangkok region. In 2013, the GDP figure was around 30% for Bangkok (which is comparable with the previous figure of 26%), while it was 44% for Bangkok region (which does not contradict the 66% of tax figure, if the amount of corporate tax is considered).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Thai_provinces_by_GPP

 

Having said that, while you provide data showing how much tax is paid in Bangkok region, you don't provide any data supporting your claim that Bangkok gets too little public spending.

Edited November 7, 2017 by candide
link added

[Becker]

48 minutes ago, YouYouYou said:

Eh, who r uuu, who is steven? For uuu becker you may want see when my account was set up ...get off yer supermarket trolly beer boy.

 

So back to giving opinion on TV, my opinion which is fine to state and doesnt suck up to the OP story, is that Prayut may not be the ultimate solution for Thailand but alternatives could be a lot worse. For many that have lived here since dinosaurs roamed the earth, you may remember, or want to forget the amount of excrement the reds created ... shut down this and shut down that, deaths, corruption untold and so on. Really you TV guavas do you want to see a return to shinawaster rule? I don't and IMO Thailand is way too far from ready to have something resembling democratic rule. Love Prayut or hate him ...get ready for the next round of Reds excrement and then report back and tell me how bad it was under Prayut.

Just sayin, oh opinion on TV ...go on shoot me down or call me some other person to make your supermarket trolley point.

 

Love you. Youyouyou.

I've lived here since the early nineties and have seen "excrement" of all colors. It may come as a surprise to some of those more recently off the boat but the sh!t in Thailand didn't start with Thaksin, nor did it stop when yet another junta took power. Certainly that undeniable fact seems completely lost on you.

Today the "excrement" is green and it certainly doesn't smell any better then the red one. The main difference is, of course, that the present bunch cannot be voted out of office so I would much prefer whatever government the Thai electorate chose to form a government.

 

PS. What's the obsession regarding supermarket trolleys - some kind of fetish?

[chainarong]

Is this false news or surreal news.................................................

[Eric Loh]

16 minutes ago, Becker said:

Today the "excrement" is green

There was green shit since 1932 and just like the nugget that refused to be flush down in your toilet, it keep popping up and stinking the whole country. 

[YouYouYou]

8 minutes ago, Becker said:

... the sh!t in Thailand didn't start with Thaksin, nor did it stop when yet another junta took power. Certainly that undeniable fact seems completely lost on you

 

...I would much prefer whatever government the Thai electorate chose to form a government.

 

PS. What's the obsession regarding supermarket trolleys - some kind of fetish?

1) No it didn't ...but what is completely lost on you is the corrupt way the reds just place another family member at the helm ...Somchai and Yingluck and Toxin himself to perpetuate their family coffers ..don't get that? Oh well.

2) Choice lol. The majority, as I hope you know in Thailand seeings you have been here from the same decade as me, will vote for a red party ...the yellows or any other colour have no chance. So democracy or democratically elected governments in Thailand ends up with a single choice: the reds. So another point completely lost on you Becker is that Thailand is just not ready for democracy ...from one junta to the next junta in a decade there was more excrement than you could shake a stick at as I hope you saw out of your bubble outside BKK. Choice plain and simple: Prayut military rule style or Shinawaster Red style ...crap choice I know, but lets get real ...democracy ain't for all.

 

3) Supermarket trolleys, because some folk on TV try to prove their point by getting personal with others ..aka Steven who the hell is he? Is this how you win your arguments Becker when you don't like that someone has an opinion other than your own? So on the that note, get off your bar beer stool and go for a stroll on the beach and clear your mind of paranoia that old posters maybe this man you call Steven.

 

Love and peace, YouYouYou.

[Becker]

1 minute ago, YouYouYou said:

1) No it didn't ...but what is completely lost on you is the corrupt way the reds just place another family member at the helm ...Somchai and Yingluck and Toxin himself to perpetuate their family coffers ..don't get that? Oh well.

2) Choice lol. The majority, as I hope you know in Thailand seeings you have been here from the same decade as me, will vote for a red party ...the yellows or any other colour have no chance. So democracy or democratically elected governments in Thailand ends up with a single choice: the reds. So another point completely lost on you Becker is that Thailand is just not ready for democracy ...from one junta to the next junta in a decade there was more excrement than you could shake a stick at as I hope you saw out of your bubble outside BKK. Choice plain and simple: Prayut military rule style or Shinawaster Red style ...crap choice I know, but lets get real ...democracy ain't for all.

 

3) Supermarket trolleys, because some folk on TV try to prove their point by getting personal with others ..aka Steven who the hell is he? Is this how you win your arguments Becker when you don't like that someone has an opinion other than your own? So on the that note, get off your bar beer stool and go for a stroll on the beach and clear your mind of paranoia that old posters maybe this man you call Steven.

 

Love and peace, YouYouYou.

1. So you're saying that the reds having been lead by the guy (or one of his family members) that actually started the movement is a horrible thing? Why?? And just how is that worse than a non-elected army chief just taking power, tearing up the constitution, giving himself and his cronies the mother of all amnesties and suspending basic human rights. Tell me, are you on drugs?

2. Bla, bla, bla. The pesky voters keep electing the"wrong" people, ergo Thailand is not ready for democracy. Bla, bla, bla. That's been said a few times over the last 3+ years but I'll let you in on a little secret; it doesn't sound any more intelligent now than just after the last coup.

3. Still fail to see the connection to supermarket trollies, but if that's your thing then knock yourself out.

[Eric Loh]

14 minutes ago, YouYouYou said:

1) No it didn't ...but what is completely lost on you is the corrupt way the reds just place another family member at the helm ...Somchai and Yingluck and Toxin himself to perpetuate their family coffers ..don't get that? Oh well.

2) Choice lol. The majority, as I hope you know in Thailand seeings you have been here from the same decade as me, will vote for a red party ...the yellows or any other colour have no chance. So democracy or democratically elected governments in Thailand ends up with a single choice: the reds. So another point completely lost on you Becker is that Thailand is just not ready for democracy ...from one junta to the next junta in a decade there was more excrement than you could shake a stick at as I hope you saw out of your bubble outside BKK. Choice plain and simple: Prayut military rule style or Shinawaster Red style ...crap choice I know, but lets get real ...democracy ain't for all.

 

3) Supermarket trolleys, because some folk on TV try to prove their point by getting personal with others ..aka Steven who the hell is he? Is this how you win your arguments Becker when you don't like that someone has an opinion other than your own? So on the that note, get off your bar beer stool and go for a stroll on the beach and clear your mind of paranoia that old posters maybe this man you call Steven.

 

Love and peace, YouYouYou.

Not been here longer than you. Please enlighten me on why appointing someone from the family is corrupted. By the way, Samad is not family. No?

 

Why people has single choice. The last election in 2011 had 40 political parties taking part. I think you meant to say PTP campaigned well and was better received by voters while the others did not. 

 

PS. Nothing personal but just like to hear your opinion. 

[robblok]

52 minutes ago, candide said:

I did further search with Google. Actually, the WB figures seem to be figures they got from Thai institutions. I found a wikipedia page showing the figures of Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board of Thailand in 2013, and they fit well the WB figures. The explanation of the strong discrepancy is that the 26% was about Bangkok alone (not Bangkok region), while your tax figure was about Bangkok region. In 2013, the GDP figure was around 30% for Bangkok (which is comparable with the previous figure of 26%), while it was 44% for Bangkok region (which does not contradict the 66% of tax figure, if the amount of corporate tax is considered).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Thai_provinces_by_GPP

 

Having said that, while you provide data showing how much tax is paid in Bangkok region, you don't provide any data supporting your claim that Bangkok gets too little public spending.

That depends how you look at it, during the YL government people in BKK felt that way seing how massive amounts of money were spend on the rice program and how other expensive programs like giving away tablets (failed also). 

 

I think Bangkok gets now ENOUGH public spending, I am not advocating more spending for BKK. My area is greater BKK area and has improved hugely. (Nonthaburi Bangyai area). I am just saying that most people in BKK especially the middle class felt like they were paying for all of YL her schemes and had no say in it at all and did not like it one bit as they were financing it. Just stings extra when your paying the taxes and you got a government on a spending spree (just like the junta and did recently) and you don't agree with that government that makes it doubly harsh.

 

I was there during the protests and talked with those who came there for free and went there after work (salary workers middle class). They were the ones I was referring to.

 

I think personally that the world bank might then have used the 26% in its advantage while it took the spending of the greater BKK area and took the income of the smaller BKK area. (my opinion can't prove it but looks logical). Anyway no MORE money need be spend on BKK but I don't see that they should cut BKK spending. Its good that you got the top hospitals in the capital its that way in most countries people from all over the country get referred there. That is how it works in other places too. Spending per capita in Holland on Amsterdam is higher as on the small village where i lived (I admit nowhere close to BKK and villages difference). 

 

I still want the figures from the world bank to be more precise so I could see if they were right. Because I do think they have their bias too. (just like I got my bias) and you can do magic with numbers anyone who works with them knows that they can be manipulated to show what you want. (just think thai opinion polls whatever government was in power junta too the polls always seemed to agree with them while in reality it could be totally different).

 

Anyway OT .. i want Prayut to stop using his absolute power and I want elections just like most people. I don't expect anything from them because corruption is still too easy its still too profitable to be in government so there will be fighting to be in power again. Only way to stop that is to make sure politicians (and army) can't make money off being  in power. I have little hope that this will be done anytime soon because everyone wants to make money when they are in power so nobody is going to change it in a way that cant be done. At first I had high hopes of the junta corruption wise but we seen they were corrupt too so those hopes were destroyed. Still they did put some nice new anti corruption measures in place.. but not enough. I for one would have wanted to see that all government purchases were available to scrutiny by the public. Just look at the recent radar gun thing (junta corruption). If it was clear what brand and type was bought and what service contract was added too it we could see how corrupt it was. Same could be said about YL her tablets and (not sure could be junta or YL but I remember a clock scandal). These massive purchases of governments should be in the public view so they can detect corruption more. 

 

 

 

 

[candide]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

I think personally that the world bank might then have used the 26% in its advantage while it took the spending of the greater BKK area and took the income of the smaller BKK area

The World Bank has a top reputation among economists, hires the best ones and simply does not do things like that. Additionally, they were not the only ones to highlight strong public spending disparities between provinces.

Of course, I have no doubt that people in Bangkok prefer to keep these disparities.

[Srikcir]

10 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

I think it's highly significant that The Nation is speaking out so frankly, particularly in its use of the word "junta".

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

 

But The Nation still remained political correct by avoiding the word that is synonymous with "one-man-show style of governing."

[robblok]

2 hours ago, candide said:

The World Bank has a top reputation among economists, hires the best ones and simply does not do things like that. Additionally, they were not the only ones to highlight strong public spending disparities between provinces.

Of course, I have no doubt that people in Bangkok prefer to keep these disparities.

If you say so, i have my doubts here especially because the report is so unspecific it can hide everything. It should not hide 70% of the costs without giving people a chance to check the facts. If it was so good it would have given more insight in this. Nobody ever puts 70% of cost there unspecified, while specifying just a minor part. It is just not how you work when you make a report about financial activities. 

 

Have you ever read financial reports, i do so and make them myself almost every day for clients. Its just unheard of to have the largest part of costs unspecified. Just look it up its just not done. Without a better specification I can't say if this is truthful or not.

 

The worldbank is just an other NGO and has its bias and the report is based on quite old data without more specifications i really can't judge this report. I can understand that if it shows what you like you like to accept it blindly. I just can't I like to check data a bit because its my job when reports are that unspecific they usually hide something. 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 7, 2017 by robblok

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, robblok said:

My source says nothing about that but I am more curious how they divide stuff like agricultural subsidies and for instance the military budget (there are 4 armies 1 stationed in BKK so if they also put 70% of the army budget on BKK spending i can poke holes in their findings). By hiding it all like this i can't prove or disprove a thing. I believe that per capita there is more spend on health in BKK because the big hospitals are there and people from other parts of the country also get referred there. So even though its BKK based does not automatically means its all spend on BKK inhabitants.

 

Without more specification its real hard for me to believe them.

I could ask all kinds of questions about how the data was gathered in either set of data, but I trust the World Bank to be less biased and more interested in benefiting all Thai people, not just the "quality" people. 

 

Having the big hospitals might explain a difference some difference in per capita spending, but not this much.  Per capita spending on education being five times as high in Bangkok as the rest of the country, and on health being over ten times as high in Bangkok, is hard to explain away with any reason other than blatant favoring of Bangkok over the rest of Thailand.

Edited November 7, 2017 by heybruce

[jayboy]

If you say so, i have my doubts here especially because the report is so unspecific it can hide everything. It should not hide 70% of the costs without giving people a chance to check the facts. If it was so good it would have given more insight in this. Nobody ever puts 70% of cost there unspecified, while specifying just a minor part. It is just not how you work when you make a report about financial activities. 
 
Have you ever read financial reports, i do so and make them myself almost every day for clients. Its just unheard of to have the largest part of costs unspecified. Just look it up its just not done. Without a better specification I can't say if this is truthful or not.
 
The worldbank is just an other NGO and has its bias and the report is based on quite old data without more specifications i really can't judge this report. I can understand that if it shows what you like you like to accept it blindly. I just can't I like to check data a bit because its my job when reports are that unspecific they usually hide something. 
 
 
 
 

He has no idea at all what the World Bank is and in fact thinks it is “just another NGO”.How does one contend with this level of ignorance?

In fact it doesn’t really matter because exactly the same message about Thailand’s shocking inequality and skew of resources towards Bangkok is reiterated in countless reports from various international and domestic resources.Indeed if you listen to enlightened politicians like Korn Chatikavanij you will hear pretty much the same points on Thailand’s inequality crisis.






Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[kareona]

11 hours ago, robblok said:

For sure it was the middle class i was there too friends of mine (Thai) who are certainly not elite just middle class got tired of YL spending all the money on the rice scheme and the amnesty of her criminal brother. I understand that, they are the ones paying all the taxes and don't see much back of it and because they are not a majority have a hard time to do anything about it.

 

Its like being a farang and being invited to diner made to pay for it without having a say in what is eaten too. So I understand their grievances. 

 

I hope there are MANY checks that keep the new government honest. Any steps taken against corruption are to be applauded. The junta however did not take too many steps against their own corruption (one of their largest failures in my eyes as I am anti corruption).

 

But setting up special courts to deal with corruption is great... trying to speed up the judicial process is great too as its far to slow here. 

 

The junta did a lot of do as i say instead of do as I do. But still it made great changes and corruption will be harder for the next government. Too bad it can't eliminate it completely, it might not even make much of a dent but its better than doing nothing. 

Only about 20 percent of tax revenues comes from personal income tax paid by about 18 percent of the population. 80 percent of tax revenues is from VAT, corporate taxes, excise duty and some others which are paid by all Thais. So you are dead wrong that only the elite and middle classes pay taxes and have therefore an exclusive say on how to spend it. 

[robblok]

25 minutes ago, jayboy said:

 

He has no idea at all what the World Bank is and in fact thinks it is “just another NGO”.How does one contend with this level of ignorance?

In fact it doesn’t really matter because exactly the same message about Thailand’s shocking inequality and skew of resources towards Bangkok is reiterated in countless reports from various international and domestic resources.Indeed if you listen to enlightened politicians like Korn Chatikavanij you will hear pretty much the same points on Thailand’s inequality crisis.






Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

I am mistaken about the world bank I read up, I just don't believe the figures without some backing. You can't just hide 70% of the cost under a general description. I thought you went to Cambridge.. do you think its normal to do so ? Serious question here do reply to it because I know for a fact that anyone who did study economics or has some accounting experience know its not something you do in a report. 

 

70% of the total budget spend on BKK, I just can't believe that I am sorry not without some more specifications. I asked it before.. how did they divide the costs of the military.. that is spread out all over the country.. I am also sure BKK does not get much agricultural subsidies. There are so many other cost of the general budget that have to be divided over a whole country that the number is so absurd that i just won't believe it without a little bit more details.

 

As for inequality and that Bangkok gets more I believe that, just don't believe those numbers. I believe the likes of Korn, give me a link and I will look it up. 

 

Also are they talking about BKK alone or the greater BKK you probably know what I mean.

 

[robblok]

39 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I could ask all kinds of questions about how the data was gathered in either set of data, but I trust the World Bank to be less biased and more interested in benefiting all Thai people, not just the "quality" people. 

 

Having the big hospitals might explain a difference some difference in per capita spending, but not this much.  Per capita spending on education being five times as high in Bangkok as the rest of the country, and on health being over ten times as high in Bangkok, is hard to explain away with any reason other than blatant favoring of Bangkok over the rest of Thailand.

 

It was the world bank who said such a thing about big hospitals (though they said it explained part of it). The per capita on education is also normal and happens because education is often centered in big cities especially the capital. Just look up how many universities there are in BKK itself. 

 

BKK is favored I believe that, but I just don't believe the 70% without a better specification. I like to know how they divided the costs of the Army for instance.. that is a cost that should be spread out over the whole country as the army is not only based around BKK just part of it. (Its a big part of the budget). There are other parts of the budget that i like to know how they dived it it in their calculation. Because if you divide the army differently not all to BKK but spread over the country that would mean other posts spending would favor BKK even more. My whole rant is that I just can't do any comparison here without more data and the fiscal date from the government is far more comprehensive then the data in the wold bank report. The world bank report hides it actually without specifying, the fiscal data from the goverment does not.

 

It shows how much the greater BKK contributes, tax wise. It shows how much each department gets and specifies that even further. Now it does not show how much is spend per province (would be interesting to see how the government sees that). But with some calculations at least i could see if it matches up or not.

 

One of the world banks goals is to remove inequity so would they not benefit from making figures more shocking then they are to prove their point. Just like the government might be bias to spend more on BKK.

 

Sorry I just don't believe in total unbias figures been around figures too much too see how they can be changed. A report to get a mortgage would show more profit then a report to the tax man as more profit would mean more taxes. There are differences between commercial and fiscal figures and so on. My point being with figures you can bend them, that is why I don't accept figures blindly and like to see more of them so I can make up my own mind about them. 

[robblok]

44 minutes ago, kareona said:

Only about 20 percent of tax revenues comes from personal income tax paid by about 18 percent of the population. 80 percent of tax revenues is from VAT, corporate taxes, excise duty and some others which are paid by all Thais. So you are dead wrong that only the elite and middle classes pay taxes and have therefore an exclusive say on how to spend it. 

I consider the inhabitants of greater BKK as mainly middle class and elite and greater BKK is responsible for 60+% of all taxes so yea that is why i think they should have the greater say on how the money is spend. 

 

You do know that small companies are exempt of VAT so its not as if every purchase is taxed by VAT. 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

 

It was the world bank who said such a thing about big hospitals (though they said it explained part of it). The per capita on education is also normal and happens because education is often centered in big cities especially the capital. Just look up how many universities there are in BKK itself. 

 

BKK is favored I believe that, but I just don't believe the 70% without a better specification. I like to know how they divided the costs of the Army for instance.. that is a cost that should be spread out over the whole country as the army is not only based around BKK just part of it. (Its a big part of the budget). There are other parts of the budget that i like to know how they dived it it in their calculation. Because if you divide the army differently not all to BKK but spread over the country that would mean other posts spending would favor BKK even more. My whole rant is that I just can't do any comparison here without more data and the fiscal date from the government is far more comprehensive then the data in the wold bank report. The world bank report hides it actually without specifying, the fiscal data from the goverment does not.

 

It shows how much the greater BKK contributes, tax wise. It shows how much each department gets and specifies that even further. Now it does not show how much is spend per province (would be interesting to see how the government sees that). But with some calculations at least i could see if it matches up or not.

 

One of the world banks goals is to remove inequity so would they not benefit from making figures more shocking then they are to prove their point. Just like the government might be bias to spend more on BKK.

 

Sorry I just don't believe in total unbias figures been around figures too much too see how they can be changed. A report to get a mortgage would show more profit then a report to the tax man as more profit would mean more taxes. There are differences between commercial and fiscal figures and so on. My point being with figures you can bend them, that is why I don't accept figures blindly and like to see more of them so I can make up my own mind about them. 

"It was the world bank who said such a thing about big hospitals (though they said it explained part of it). The per capita on education is also normal and happens because education is often centered in big cities especially the capital. Just look up how many universities there are in BKK itself."

 

Yes, Bangkok has a lot of universities, it also has a lot of people.  If I remember correctly it has about 17% of Thailand's population, and probably about the same percent of Thailand's universities. 

 

That's why the per capita numbers are significant, and, once again, I can think of only one reason for Bangkok to have five times the per capita spending on education and ten times the per capita spending on health care as the rest of Thailand--the elite, supported by the military, want to keep all wealth and power in Bangkok, and if that means preventing democracy, they are happy to do that.

[wakeupplease]

My God webfact I have been banned for saying less, Well Done

[wakeupplease]

Only an accountant or so called one would say this

 

I consider the inhabitants of greater BKK as mainly middle class and elite and greater BKK is responsible for 60+% of all taxes so yea that is why i think they should have the greater say on how the money is spend.

 

Democracy even in Holland tries to make sure one and all has a say in how the taxes are spent, yet this Well lets say person thinks those who pay the tax should decide how its spent, just the way the so called elite have been doing it for years and the biggest problem here.

 

Thats one accountants address that has been put where it belongs in the rubbish bin.

[robblok]

8 hours ago, heybruce said:

"It was the world bank who said such a thing about big hospitals (though they said it explained part of it). The per capita on education is also normal and happens because education is often centered in big cities especially the capital. Just look up how many universities there are in BKK itself."

 

Yes, Bangkok has a lot of universities, it also has a lot of people.  If I remember correctly it has about 17% of Thailand's population, and probably about the same percent of Thailand's universities. 

 

That's why the per capita numbers are significant, and, once again, I can think of only one reason for Bangkok to have five times the per capita spending on education and ten times the per capita spending on health care as the rest of Thailand--the elite, supported by the military, want to keep all wealth and power in Bangkok, and if that means preventing democracy, they are happy to do that.

 

There is one other thing to consider, i was thinking about it last night. I wonder what population the count for BKK. Because we all know how things work here in Thailand there is a lower official amount and a higher unofficial amount.

 

This is because many people stay registered in their home town they can't get their name on their rented house in BKK. This is a considerable amount. That is why people have to go back for voting too. Many university students also are still registered in their hometown while following education in BKK. That skewers the calculations a lot too, because they cost BKK money on education but are not registered there and count as inhabitants of their home town while they are not there. 

 

That is also a factor that has to be taken into account. Its hard to say how much this all influences the numbers but my problem with the world bank is that they hide so many important things and don't put them in the footnotes like what population number they used, what years they used and hide 70% of the cost in a summary that I feel its not a good report not one that I can say is truthful or not. Reason being I like to check figures for myself to see how they hold up. The world bank has its bias too just like the Thai government and they could take the official figures for inhabitants as they work in their advantage making things look worse then they are. 

 

Same goes actually for the tax income, (my report side) the company tax skewers that one and maybe (i don't know) the import tax too. Because where is the import tax calculated (lot of stuff arrives at Lat Kabang). Does the tax go to the tax office where the product eventually end up and gets taken into those calculations or are they taken (wrongly) all in BKK.

 

Its just that I don't trust figures of anything without doing some digging because they can hide loads of things and by taking the figures you like and not correcting them the right way you can make things look different.

 

I as an accountant see this on a smaller scale a lot (when I have to look into companies that clients want to buy give figures). That is why I am naturally hesitant with figures.

 

OT I am for elections and for Prayut to stop using his absolute power. (just to make that clear because this is wonderfully off topic but fun discussion). 

Edited November 8, 2017 by robblok

[robblok]

4 hours ago, wakeupplease said:

Only an accountant or so called one would say this

 

I consider the inhabitants of greater BKK as mainly middle class and elite and greater BKK is responsible for 60+% of all taxes so yea that is why i think they should have the greater say on how the money is spend.

 

Democracy even in Holland tries to make sure one and all has a say in how the taxes are spent, yet this Well lets say person thinks those who pay the tax should decide how its spent, just the way the so called elite have been doing it for years and the biggest problem here.

 

Thats one accountants address that has been put where it belongs in the rubbish bin.

Its my opinion mate, i feel those who pay taxes should have more say then those who don't in how taxes are spend not in other cases.

 

Just look at it this way.. you as a foreigner are invited to diner must pay for it and are not allowed to choose where you eat. That is how people who pay tax feel if those who don't pay tax are in control.

 

This is NOT a problem in Holland until we met more people on welfare.. (if that group were to get big enough and form a political party that controls the government.. just imagine what will happen with the height of welfare and the taxes for those who have to pay for it). Maybe then you understand a bit what I am saying, in Thailand you got a large group that pays no taxes at all but has a vote and can decide how the taxes that are paid by others have to be used. 

 

In Holland the income is distributed better and thankfully we don't have enough people on welfare so that they can influence that but if it were to happen it would drive a country into ruins. Thailand has no real welfare so its not yet a problem..  just imagine if it has and the people keep voting to get it higher... that party will stay in power until Thailand is drained of money and others can fix the problems. 

 

It all depends what side your on.. the one paying for it or not. My views might not be your views and I can't say I care if you throw my address in the rubbish bin as your a Brit and I don't do UK taxes plus I got enough Dutch clients to keep me busy for a long time. I have always been a bit right wing when it concerns taxes and welfare and the likes and I will stay that way.

 

That does not mean I am against a better distribution here of wealth in Thailand.. But I feel the middle class salary-worker is getting screwed here. I could not care less if the elite get screwed over, I identify myself with the middle class the salary workers and the small to medium business people. (though in Thailand its the salary worker that gets screwed as business-people here have enough ways to hide their income and pay too little tax, and I am against that)

[spidermike007]

Kudos to the Nation, for speaking out. Yes, it is high time for this little man to move on. Nobody needs him anymore. He has outlasted his usefulness. And the very reason he claimed that he was staying on (a smooth transition) has now come and gone. So, move on little man. Find another line of work. The country is suffering under your tremendous lack of ability, intelligence, vision, leadership ability, and talent. 

 

However, as the days go by, the Army is showing how incredibly desperate they are to cling to power. And my guess is they realize this is the last peaceful coup, the country will ever see. There simply is no more moral authority to sanction another one.

 

 

[GarryP]

19 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Kudos to the Nation, for speaking out. Yes, it is high time for this little man to move on. Nobody needs him anymore. He has outlasted his usefulness. And the very reason he claimed that he was staying on (a smooth transition) has now come and gone. So, move on little man. Find another line of work. The country is suffering under your tremendous lack of ability, intelligence, vision, leadership ability, and talent. 

 

However, as the days go by, the Army is showing how incredibly desperate they are to cling to power. And my guess is they realize this is the last peaceful coup, the country will ever see. There simply is no more moral authority to sanction another one.

 

 

I hope your guess is right. 

[heybruce]

On ‎11‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 8:53 PM, robblok said:

 

There is one other thing to consider, i was thinking about it last night. I wonder what population the count for BKK. Because we all know how things work here in Thailand there is a lower official amount and a higher unofficial amount.

 

This is because many people stay registered in their home town they can't get their name on their rented house in BKK. This is a considerable amount. That is why people have to go back for voting too. Many university students also are still registered in their hometown while following education in BKK. That skewers the calculations a lot too, because they cost BKK money on education but are not registered there and count as inhabitants of their home town while they are not there. 

 

That is also a factor that has to be taken into account. Its hard to say how much this all influences the numbers but my problem with the world bank is that they hide so many important things and don't put them in the footnotes like what population number they used, what years they used and hide 70% of the cost in a summary that I feel its not a good report not one that I can say is truthful or not. Reason being I like to check figures for myself to see how they hold up. The world bank has its bias too just like the Thai government and they could take the official figures for inhabitants as they work in their advantage making things look worse then they are. 

 

Same goes actually for the tax income, (my report side) the company tax skewers that one and maybe (i don't know) the import tax too. Because where is the import tax calculated (lot of stuff arrives at Lat Kabang). Does the tax go to the tax office where the product eventually end up and gets taken into those calculations or are they taken (wrongly) all in BKK.

 

Its just that I don't trust figures of anything without doing some digging because they can hide loads of things and by taking the figures you like and not correcting them the right way you can make things look different.

 

I as an accountant see this on a smaller scale a lot (when I have to look into companies that clients want to buy give figures). That is why I am naturally hesitant with figures.

 

OT I am for elections and for Prayut to stop using his absolute power. (just to make that clear because this is wonderfully off topic but fun discussion). 

Go back to the World Bank Report and read the paragraphs preceding and following the charts you are questioning:

 

"32.  The  consolidated  general  government
dataset  developed  for  the  PFMR  shows  that 
there are significant disparities in spending at the
regional level. Figure 5 shows the per capita total
general  government  expenditures  by  regions 
–  including  for  health  and  education  sectors 
while  Table  3  shows  the  per-capita  spending 
by regions, including for health and education. "

 

and:

 

"34.  Some  of  the  reasons  that  could  explain 
this concentration of expenditures in Bangkok
include: (i) high administrative costs associated
with Bangkok being the administrative capital for
the central government with most of the tertiary
education institutions and large hospitals being
located in Bangkok; (ii) unit costs for provision
of services being higher in Bangkok than other
regions; (iii) agglomeration effects requiring more
social  and  infrastructure  services  in  Bangkok
relative  to  other  regions.  It  is  not  uncommon 
that  expenditure  in  large  capital  cities  is  five 
times  higher  than  other  regions  in  a  country. 
However  in  Thailand  the  difference  between 
spending in Bangkok as compared with other
regions is in the range of 1:10. Therefore not-
withstanding  these  possible  reasons  for  the 
observed expenditure disparities, it seems that
this  concentration  of  spending  is  still  skewed 
disproportionately towards Bangkok."

 

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/993671468118138134/pdf/674860ESW0P1180019006020120RB0EDITS.pdf

 

In other words, the objective of the chart was to emphasize overall disparities in government spending, with education and health picked out for emphaisis.  The World Bank also concedes that capital cities frequently have legitimate reasons for greater per capita expenditure than the province, but not a spending disparity as great as in Thailand.

 

You seem eager to avoid the obvious:  Thailand's government exists to serve Bangkok.  As bad as things were when this report was written, it was much worse before Thaksin.  If you were here in 2000 you know that Bangkok had expensive first world infrastructure projects, the skytrain and subway, while the rest of Thailand lived in third world conditions.  The middle class in Bangkok are wealthy compared to the farmers in the north and northeast, and want to keep it that way.  Substandard education in the provinces keep the peasants ignorant and easy to control, which is how Bangkok wants them.

 

There are good reasons why I sometimes refer to Thailand as the Bangkok Empire--all wealth and power is concentrated in Bangkok, and the military exists not to protect the country from outside threats but to control the population and protect the privileged class in Bangkok.  This junta isn't going to change that.

 

[jayboy]

Kudos to the Nation, for speaking out. Yes, it is high time for this little man to move on. Nobody needs him anymore. He has outlasted his usefulness. And the very reason he claimed that he was staying on (a smooth transition) has now come and gone. So, move on little man. Find another line of work. The country is suffering under your tremendous lack of ability, intelligence, vision, leadership ability, and talent. 
 
However, as the days go by, the Army is showing how incredibly desperate they are to cling to power. And my guess is they realize this is the last peaceful coup, the country will ever see. There simply is no more moral authority to sanction another one.
 
 

I am afraid the mainly urban middle class is broadly speaking behind the military government.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app