34 minutes ago, eliassfeir said:

She, as a foreigner won't get the visa / work permit if she doesn't pay her income tax. And the Thai employees (which there are over 2,000 of them) pay income tax as well, or they'll get fired. 

 

I still believe that's a barstool argument, regardless of what John J. Brandon says, he may have been high that day while writing the article...

Thai taxation office publishes similar figures.

All my wife's family are farmers, there's 100s of them and they've never paid any tax.

I'm putting you on ignore, not worth reading your posts.

Think of it as getting off my bar stool and walking away from you.

1 minute ago, steven100 said:

we can change the discussion and really confuse everyone ....   easy peasy. 

yeah but " those with the powers " would interfere in our fun i guess  ..... ????

2 hours ago, Neeranam said:

OMG, a country looks after its own citizens first. 

Can you answer the question?

6 hours ago, wadman said:

For goods and services that are subsidized by taxes (public funds), it's logical and reasonable that Thais should pay less.  Foreigners (unless they are paying tax) should pay a higher price.  I don't see a problem with that.

 

For goods and services that are NOT publicly subsidized it should be the same price. 

Most Thais pay no income tax. 
All working foreigners do. 
Everyone pays VAT. 
Foreigners pay MUCH higher taxes per capita than Thais. Arguing that tax-payers should pay less for tax-payer supported services would mean farangs should get DISCOUNTED rates.

 

1 hour ago, Mavideol said:

and contradictory as well.... in one hand they are trying anything and everything to get tourists back but on the other hand they do make statements like the ones the judge did

Well, in this place, the right hand doesn't know a left exists, and vice versa. Never mind knowing what each one does.

 

As for getting tourists back, all they want is for the tourists to deposit their hard-earned cash here and once that's done, they will no longer be 'tolerated'. Never mind 'welcomed'.

 

'Quality tourists' in their context means those who land, surrender all their cash and valuables, turn around and <deleted> off.

 

2 hours ago, recom273 said:

You just have to pity them really. 

 

Pity who? The members that have been here a few years, think they know everything and recycle the popular myth of the Thai people don't like us? Or the members that have been here a lot longer, appreciate that they will never, ever know everything but don't let the myths rent too much space in their heads?

5 hours ago, Neeranam said:

Could hardly be any clearer. 

You are not in Kansas now. 

 

So according to you this only applies to Thais...right so section 28 and all subsequent sections does not apply to foreigners in Thailand. 

 

We have no right to choose and practice our religion, choose our dwelling, travel within Thailand, have our consumer rights protected and be free from unlawful detention etc. We can be legally kidnapped???Your understanding of all people is not consistent with the law and the law is underpinned by...you guessed it the Thai constitution. 

 

If we take your definition on step further and your interpretation for "a person "as mean only Thai, then ...apply that to section 49.... I am not even gonna get into that one.  

 

 

This news should be spread throughout the world that Thailand is not foreigner friendly. Any dual pricing should be boycotted if possible. For those Americans effected by this I would consider contacting Tammy Duckworth a Thai in the U.S Senate. It is long overdue that perhaps it is time to shut off any future military aid for Thailand.

What did he expect from the court and system in thailand.Dual pricing has existed for decades and this will continue.if you can trust your other half in transactions ler her do it you don,t show up,hospital is something else of course.Before the thai driving license worked for national parks  and zoos,now it does not.They was a attraction in cnx festival mall  before i checked the price dual price as well.T hey did not hide it either.Did not book it of course,but it was a private owned attractions too.Not right dual pricing,the farang will never change it

6 minutes ago, VBF said:

@Neeranam You appear to be conveniently ignoring relevant facts.

What you say above concerning Sections 4 and 25 is almost certainly correct - not arguing with you there.

 

However if you look above at @jonclark's post, he said (I quote) 

 

Section 27 of the Thai  Consitution ...i guess even a foreigner is a person? 

 

All persons are equal before the law, and shall have rights and liberties and be protected equally under the law. Men and women shall enjoy equal rights. Unjust discrimination against a person on the grounds of differences in origin, race, language, sex, age, disability, physical or health condition, personal status, economic and social standing, religious belief, education, or political view which is not contrary to the provisions of the Constitution or on any other grounds, shall not be permitted.

 

Therefore, in my view you are correct regarding Sections 4 and 25 but in addition Section 27 appears to cover and protect non-Thai people's rights and liberties.

 

That is assuming that Sections 4, 25 and 27 are all extant. They are not mutually exclusive, rather they are additive.

So, perhaps you didn't read the rest of it?

And the hand wringing post of the day award goes to...

Just now, NanLaew said:

And the hand wringing post of the day award goes to...

How so?

For pointing out inaccuracies? 

6 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Pity who? The members that have been here a few years, think they know everything and recycle the popular myth of the Thai people don't like us? Or the members that have been here a lot longer, appreciate that they will never, ever know everything but don't let the myths rent too much space in their heads?

Well .. the people who made or influenced this judgement. I don't really subscribe to the myth that people don't like me or of price gouging due to my nationality, I only have good experiences - buying land, repairing motorbikes, taxis .. actually strangely enough, hospitals.

 

I try not to make sweeping generalizations about anyone tbh. I certainly don't class myself as reaching some higher level of understanding based on time spent "being here" .. is that TVF or Thailand? If so, could you let me know how long that is?

1 hour ago, cape said:

Strange finding. It's OK because it's always been OK / others do the same.

So nothing ever need change on that basis.

Reality is that these four categories are "sales channels". Another example is cheap haircuts for OAPs. But this sales channel is based on race. That's not so good.

In practise, you can discuss price with the consultant and often a doctor will work at different hospitals, each  with different pricing for the same intervention.

'Reality is that these four categories are "sales channels".' Cape.

 

A lot about these four payment categories. I have felt before that there might be another one. When the hospital knows you are insured prices seem to rise. True?

Genuinely interested.

7 hours ago, itsari said:

The court action from the man from the Netherlands concerning price for foreigners has now set a precedent.

Meaning all is ok to charge more for foreigners because it is good for the country . 

Sad decision 

 

7 hours ago, itsari said:

The court action from the man from the Netherlands concerning price for foreigners has now set a precedent.

Meaning all is ok to charge more for foreigners because it is good for the country . 

Sad decision 

https://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/Thailand1.html

4.5. Judicial Decisions

Thailand is not a common law jurisdiction and judicial precedent is not binding on lower courts. The Supreme Court of Justice is not bound to follow its own decisions, and lower courts are not bound to follow precedents set by higher courts. In practice, however, the decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice do have a significant influence on the Supreme Court of Justice itself and lower courts. Supreme Court decisions are printed on a regular basis and distributed to law libraries and private subscribers

 

7 hours ago, 2 is 1 said:

Other hand they want to drag as many farang's in country what they can.Then they slap you in face whit free hand. All these storys going forward to ear's of people who was still thinking spend holiday in Thailand. Thailand never ever going to see over 20 million tourist / year!

The reality is that the majority of those you quote above will probably never see the inside of a government hospital.

For those who are foolish enough to travel here or in fact to any other country without travel insure they deserve to pay.

1 hour ago, eliassfeir said:

Is it a coincidence that ones that complain most about dual pricing tend to be the sexpats?

Nonsense! Why do you make that assumption? Do you have figures to prove your statement? Perhaps you are one of those that like to get on the bandwagon of misconceptions and generalisations.

6 hours ago, itsari said:

All foreigners living in Thailand who object to the outcome of this case should consider a class action and appeal this decision . 

Sorry to disagree. In 2008 the UK government was taken to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) concerning their refusal to provide COL increases to UK retirees in certain locations overseas. In 2010, the Grand Chamber held that the UK authorities’ refusal to index-link pensions was not discriminatory. I would expect the same outcome on appeal in this case.

And Thailand want to attract wealthy foreigners and tourists because they won't manage without us foreigners .  it's a shame greed and a disgusting manor. Imagine if we would segregate Thais from native citizens in the country they choose to reside in. The law should be equal to everyone... 

Just now, Raphael Hythlodaeus said:

Sorry to disagree. In 2008 the UK government was taken to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) concerning their refusal to provide COL increases to UK retirees in certain locations overseas. In 2010, the Grand Chamber held that the UK authorities’ refusal to index-link pensions was not discriminatory. I would expect the same outcome on appeal in this case.

Not sure I see the parallel between location-sensitive COL increases, and an outright pricing difference based on race.

The former is surely based on differences in chosen locations, the latter on the same service provided to 2 people?

1 hour ago, Gandtee said:

Nonsense! Why do you make that assumption? Do you have figures to prove your statement? Perhaps you are one of those that like to get on the bandwagon of misconceptions and generalisations.

Out of a bunch of decent well off farangs, not sexpats, I am yet to hear one of them complain about dual pricing. 

 

You only hear it from the typical rather fat, old, relatively poor sexpats, the ones that sit outside 7-11s drinking beer waiting for the night to fall and go to Nana to find some "love"... 

 

Makes you wonder why, but again it seems a bit stupid to me that they burn thousands in prositutes, yet moan like crybabies about a few hundreds in "dual pricing".... 

 

Clearly something wrong with them minds. 

Surprised that the usual fallback position of "if you werent here it couldnt happen" .so its your own fault wasnt used.

 

That whole thing was doomed from the start. No way a Judge could or would make a positive call unless he wanted to retire !

1 hour ago, midzo said:

Most Thais pay no income tax. 
All working foreigners do. 
Everyone pays VAT. 
Foreigners pay MUCH higher taxes per capita than Thais. Arguing that tax-payers should pay less for tax-payer supported services would mean farangs should get DISCOUNTED rates.

 

All working foreigners should have health insurance.  

I think all retired foreigners need health insurance for their visa. 

 

Why doesn't beardy OP not have health insurance? 

6 minutes ago, eliassfeir said:

Out of a bunch of decent well off farangs, not sexpats, I am yet to hear one of them complain about dual pricing. 

 

You only hear it from the typical rather fat, old, relatively poor sexpats, the ones that sit outside 7-11s drinking beer waiting for the night to fall and go to Nana to find some "love"... 

 

Makes you wonder why, but again it seems a bit stupid to me that they burn thousands in prositutes, yet moan like crybabies about a few hundreds in "dual pricing".... 

 

Clearly something wrong with them minds. 

You 'As one of a bunch of decent well off farangs' You still haven't explained what proof you have of your assumptions. Do you know the sexual habits of your well off friends? Are any of them fat or old? You just continue to make your unfounded allegations. Fat. Old. Poor. What a poor specimen you appear to be. Isn't there now a law regarding fake news? 

2 hours ago, itsari said:

You appear to be a  condescending character from reading your posts Pedro.

Let me tell you this once - because it's only fair.

 

This posts and youe others (in the "waaah, it's not fair that people have nicer things than me" thread), where you are trying to get a reaction from me.....

 

...well

 

...the thing is

 

...that's me getting a reaction from you

 

Just in my case, I'm barely trying

20 minutes ago, eliassfeir said:

Out of a bunch of decent well off farangs, not sexpats, I am yet to hear one of them complain about dual pricing.

Not only poor people are sex addicts.

Some of the richest guys I know are sex addicts. 

8 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

The message is clear - the presence of foreigners in Thailand is tolerated rather than welcomed. 

Yes in the USA you could even enter illegally, get "free healthcare" be treated with lower tuition rates at colleges, get free education for your children, the hospitals are required to have translators available at no additional cost for every language on earth and be eligible for a pension when you turn 66 even though you are illegal and never contributed any money at all into the system.  And which country is showing a lack of common sense.  Certainly not Thailand.  If the government is in some way subsidizing the healthcare certainly extra charges for non-thai's is reasonable.  However for services that are not subsidized, it is clearly just a method of extracting extra money from those that they assume can afford it. 

7 hours ago, wadman said:

She is more likely to shrewdly negotiate your savings into her account.

Not if it's a joint account ???? Then negotiate away!

1 hour ago, Neeranam said:

Not only poor people are sex addicts.

Some of the richest guys I know are sex addicts. 

Couldn't agree more, poor people can't afford it. 

 

That's why I said relatively poor in the sense that they are cheap enough to care about 200 extra THB when visiting a national park, but relatively well off enough to burn a couple thousands in Nana prostitutes from time to time. 

 

Generally pensioners which have not much more than their pension and live day to day from it, they sort of hate Thailand, they can't stand Thai men, and they're only here because of the cheap sex. 

 

Outside of the group I described above, you seldomly hear anybody moaning about dual pricing. In fact, I am yet to meet a farang in real life and hear him moan about it. I only hear such things in this forum; which for some odd reason seems to appeal to many of those in that group of people.... ????‍♂️

28 minutes ago, eliassfeir said:

Out of a bunch of decent well off farangs, not sexpats, I am yet to hear one of them complain about dual pricing. 

 

You only hear it from the typical rather fat, old, relatively poor sexpats, the ones that sit outside 7-11s drinking beer waiting for the night to fall and go to Nana to find some "love"... 

 

Makes you wonder why, but again it seems a bit stupid to me that they burn thousands in prositutes, yet moan like crybabies about a few hundreds in "dual pricing".... 

 

Clearly something wrong with them minds. 

Probably unsurprising that you have not heard the rich complain.  They are way above your social level and wouldn't be seen dead talking to an aging poor person outside of a 7-11. Enjoy your beer. 

4 minutes ago, eliassfeir said:

Couldn't agree more, poor people can't afford it. 

 

That's why I said relatively poor in the sense that they are cheap enough to care about 200 extra THB when visiting a national park, but relatively well off enough to burn a couple thousands in Nana prostitutes from time to time. 

 

Generally pensioners which have not much more than their pension and live day to day from it, they sort of hate Thailand, they can't stand Thai men, and they're only here because of the cheap sex. 

 

Outside of the group I described above, you seldomly hear anybody moaning about dual pricing. In fact, I am yet to meet a farang in real life and hear him moan about it. I only hear such things in this forum; which for some odd reason seems to appeal to many of those in that group of people.... ????‍♂️

Only the uneducated deal in stereotypes.