Tax incentives pondered to promote domestic tourism

By Thai PBS

 

 

The Ministry of Finance is pondering tax incentives to promote domestic tourism by Thais.

 

A well-informed source said Tuesday that the Finance Ministry was considering tax deduction of up to 30,000 baht per head for Thais who travel in secondary cities in the country and up to 50,000 baht per head for travelling during three-month period of off-season tourism.

 

The tax incentives will be deducted from taxable income of the taxpayers so that they pay less tax, said the source, adding that the measure is expected to come into effect in the first quarter of next year.

 

Full story: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/tax-incentives-pondered-promote-domestic-tourism/

 

-- © Copyright Thai PBS 2017-11-22

5 hours ago, webfact said:

tax deduction of up to 30,000 baht per head for Thais who travel in secondary cities in the country and up to 50,000 baht per head for travelling during three-month period of off-season tourism.

This will surely (not) motivate low-income (below Bt100,000/yr) and below poverty (below Bt30,000) peoples to take more vacations.

I don't understand. The TAT reports large and steady increase in

both tourist numbers and dollars spent. Why does the government

have to further stimulate domestic tourism. I read 80% hotel

occupancy rates, record revenues from international travelers. Surely

they are better off using the tax revenues to subsidize the rubber

farmers.

Pondering and mulling the situation over in order to ' Lure' more tourist's into spending more baht per head.

18 hours ago, Ulic said:

I don't understand. The TAT reports large and steady increase in

both tourist numbers and dollars spent. Why does the government

have to further stimulate domestic tourism. I read 80% hotel

occupancy rates, record revenues from international travelers. Surely

they are better off using the tax revenues to subsidize the rubber

farmers.

Yes, why do you have to incentivize something that's already "booming"?

 

1 hour ago, hawker9000 said:

Yes, why do you have to incentivize something that's already "booming"?

 

As an economic hedge?

For example if export growth recedes to 2015 levels and the industries sector growth is relatively flat, the services sector currently at about 55% of GDP must grow to contribute (by my estimate) to about 70% of GDP.

The services sector consists of tourism, banking and financial services. I would guess that of the three, tourism would be the easiest and quickest sub-sector to grow., especially by targeting domestic tourism that avoids increased ethnic and cultural conflicts.