Dual Pricing in Thai Tourism: Economic Necessity or Hidden Bias?

[richard_smith237]

Just now, Tomtomtom69 said:

 

Thankfully, I didn't get indoctrinated at a woke British university that discriminates against British people.

 

You went to the school of hard knocks and university of life - thats quite clear in the manner with which you make up your own rubbish and present it as fact.

 

 

 

 

[UTH001]

5 hours ago, mdr224 said:

I feel like im the only one boycotting it. I never enter parks or buy things that are a different price for me. Gotta stand for something

You are not the only one, I do the same! Sick of being ripped off, especially now with the new tax “rules”!

[gejohesch]

7 hours ago, webfact said:

Visitors to popular destinations, such as temples and national parks, encounter this tiered pricing structure, which charges foreigners higher fees compared to local residents.

"Many visitors feel targeted due to nationality-based pricing, viewing it as an implicit form of discrimination."

 

Yes, I cannot help it, but I indeed feel targeted.

 

"Furthermore, the higher costs could deter some tourists, potentially affecting Thailand's competitiveness compared to neighbouring nations without such policies. Charges for foreigners can be significantly steeper, leading tourists to question the fairness of paying more for identical experiences as locals."

 

It certainly deters me. It's been years I have refused to visit any of those places that would charge me so much more than if I was a local. I do not like being treated like a walking ATM. And that by the way is not only in Thailand, but also in India for example. I remember the entrance to the park on the other side of the Yamuna River, opposite the Taj Mahal, charging sthg like 5-10 times more a foreigner than an Indian national - I did not enter. Or visiting the sites in Yucatan, Mexico - sthg like 30+ EUR or USD pp - what the hell do they think, tourists are loaded with millions? Those charges come on top of everything else and it ends up being a bit OTT.

[richard_smith237]

1 minute ago, gejohesch said:

"Many visitors feel targeted due to nationality-based pricing, viewing it as an implicit form of discrimination."

 

Yes, I cannot help it, but I indeed feel targeted.

 

"Furthermore, the higher costs could deter some tourists, potentially affecting Thailand's competitiveness compared to neighbouring nations without such policies. Charges for foreigners can be significantly steeper, leading tourists to question the fairness of paying more for identical experiences as locals."

 

It certainly deters me. It's been years I have refused to visit any of those places that would charge me so much more than if I was a local. I do not like being treated like a walking ATM. And that by the way is not only in Thailand, but also in India for example. I remember the entrance to the park on the other side of the Yamuna River, opposite the Taj Mahal, charging sthg like 5-10 times more a foreigner than an Indian national - I did not enter. Or visiting the sites in Yucatan, Mexico - sthg like 30+ EUR or USD pp - what the hell do they think, tourists are loaded with millions? Those charges come on top of everything else and it ends up being a bit OTT.

 

Indeed...     

 

One example is Koh Samet - which actively markets itself to foreigners, who then have to pay an elevated National Park Fee... thats insulting enough, but every tourists gets over it. 

 

Then...  we see tourists who 'walk out' of the national park to the 7-11 or to restaurants or a massage shop etc further 'up the road towards the pier'...   they can then be seen 'arguing' with Park Officials who are trying to charge them for 're-entering' the national park as they hadn't 'kept their ticket on them'....   OR, they are charged for a 'new day'... its  racket made by greedy park officials trying it on and pocket the profits... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mberbae]

Considering the BILLIONS of baht Thais spend on Alcohol , the " economic necessity is pure Bullsh#t.

This is simply a greedy grab for more money from tourists who are trapped at whatever location they

traveled to to see a temple or park. Thais in BMW's or Mercedes pull up and pay zero.  Others with

the latest iPhone or Samsung also pay zero.  It is a bad policy to double price.

[Neeranam]

1 hour ago, Tomtomtom69 said:

 

If you're really Thai, why do you need a retirement visa? 

I mean in the USA. 

 

[Tomtomtom69]

23 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

There are two facets to the dual charging: 

 

1) Where 'toursts' are ripped off - I think that is unfair and as you highlight, disrespectful to those who the nation so actively covets.

 

2) Where 'residents' are charged more - even though they can show residency, live here, have spent money here over decades, have paid taxes etc - yet are still treated with what can be interpreted as a degree of prejudice - its not enough to spoil my day or even bother about - but when there is a discussion, I have an opinion on how wrong this is.

 

Yet you would support a policy whereby Thai citizens who don't reside in Thailand pay more for their university education or whatever.

 

I on the other hand, believe citizens should always be treated as having more rights than foreigners.

 

With that stated, I do wish there was more residency based pricing in Thailand and have no issue with residency based schemes for university admissions etc just as long as citizens are always automatically treated as residents. 

[Tomtomtom69]

6 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

I mean in the USA. 

 

Ok I see.

[Tomtomtom69]

17 minutes ago, gejohesch said:

"Many visitors feel targeted due to nationality-based pricing, viewing it as an implicit form of discrimination."

 

Yes, I cannot help it, but I indeed feel targeted.

 

"Furthermore, the higher costs could deter some tourists, potentially affecting Thailand's competitiveness compared to neighbouring nations without such policies. Charges for foreigners can be significantly steeper, leading tourists to question the fairness of paying more for identical experiences as locals."

 

It certainly deters me. It's been years I have refused to visit any of those places that would charge me so much more than if I was a local. I do not like being treated like a walking ATM. And that by the way is not only in Thailand, but also in India for example. I remember the entrance to the park on the other side of the Yamuna River, opposite the Taj Mahal, charging sthg like 5-10 times more a foreigner than an Indian national - I did not enter. Or visiting the sites in Yucatan, Mexico - sthg like 30+ EUR or USD pp - what the hell do they think, tourists are loaded with millions? Those charges come on top of everything else and it ends up being a bit OTT.

 

All of Thailand's neighbors have dual pricing. Even Singapore practices it.

 

Myanmar, India and Bangladesh have widespread dual pricing policies. Some hotels in Myanmar, mainly those in border areas, have special pricing for Thai and Chinese citizens that are lower than what farang pay. Burmese pay around 50% of the Thai/Chinese rate.

 

Laos, Cambodia and even Taiwan all impose dual pricing. In the case of Taiwan, it's relatively limited and some categories of foreign residents may be entitled to the discount too.

 

Mainland China is the only country in the region without any dual pricing; however, some venues may give a discount to local residents meaning Chinese citizens from other regions pay more. Foreigners however pay the same rate as "out of town" Chinese. China used to practice widespread dual pricing but this was eliminated more than 20 years ago now.

 

Vietnam is the same; some occasional dual pricing at certain tourist attractions, but it's relatively rare.

 

Meanwhile, Myanmar still imposes higher charges for foreigners flying domestically.

 

I think Myanmar practices dual pricing the most; Thailand is probably second in the region in terms of how extensive the practice is. 

 

[Tomtomtom69]

36 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

You went to the school of hard knocks and university of life - thats quite clear in the manner with which you make up your own rubbish and present it as fact.

 

 

 

 

 

I hold a Master's Degree and 2 Bachelor's Degrees.

 

You on the other hand must have attended the university of leftist propaganda, where everyone is the same, there are no countries and citizenship is meaningless.

[Surasak]

Cut out the discrimination and charge Thai's 300/400Baht, same as foreigners. Problem solved.

[Tomtomtom69]

42 minutes ago, Gcart said:

Right, the taxi and tuk-tuk drivers probably learned their pricing tactics from the government. How can they be condemned for charging foreigners higher prices when government-run places do the same? There's no consideration for resident taxpayers. Getting into a national park or other venue with my Thai ID card or driving license is harder than convincing a Bangkok taxi driver to use his meter

 

 

You're not Thai that's why. If you hold an actual Thai citizen ID card then you'd have no issues getting in for the Thai price. Of course, ideally you would also speak fluent Thai, with a degree of fluency that resembles that of David William. 

[sabai-dee-man]

Never understood those who support dual pricing. You must have a very low opinion  of yourselves!

 

It's most certainly not the cost; it's just a few hundred baht at most... it's the principle.

[impulse]

Personally, I'm pleased that Thailand operates for the benefit of the Thai people.

 

Dual pricing makes absolute sense if you understand burden absorption and incremental revenue.  Otherwise the parks couldn't be maintained to a high standard.

 

Only one time in Thailand, I didn't go into a national park (around Hua Hin) because of the entry fee.  But it's only because I was just driving past and only planned to spend a few minutes checking it out.  Every time I intended to stay more than an hour or so, I sucked it up and spent the $8 or $15. or whatever.

 

Reminded me of living in Wyoming, where state parks had dual pricing, depending on whether your car had Wyoming plates.  That was before blogs and I'm sure tourists are incensed nowadays if they still do it...

 

 

[Tomtomtom69]

44 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Foreigners don't have 'more rights'...    repeating that mantra does not make it right, it just means in arguing with you I'm getting dragged down to the level of inane bias and stupidity and you'll beat be into submission with experience...  

... in fact you already have - only sensible and intelligent discussion is worthy of a response from here on in.

 

Clearly they do, if a foreigner can get a university education just because they've resided in Britain for a few years but a British citizen who resides abroad is treated like a foreigner. 

[MrMo]

I don't have a problem with charging tourists visiting from more affluent countries a premium for national, public amenities.   I do have for foreigner living here though.   Many such facilities will apply the locals rate if you can show a Thai driving licence.

I do have an issue with the use of medical facilities.   Those tourist who do not take out medical cover, that is their choice.

 

But using government medical facilities even with insurance coverage is a problem as the government hospitals do not claim direct from the insurer.   And they can take a couple of weeks, following discharge, to provide the insured with the documentation necessary for a claim to be made.

 

Another aspect of government charging scales is that they are often higher than private hospitals'.   Room rates, X-rays and CT Scans are examples.   Normally up to 50%.   But by how much depends on the colour of your passport.

 

 

[richard_smith237]

21 minutes ago, Tomtomtom69 said:

Yet you would support a policy whereby Thai citizens who don't reside in Thailand pay more for their university education or whatever.

 

I'm not suggesting I support it - but I understand it and argue that its is not 'dual pricing' as the policy is applied equally regardless of nationality.

... meanwhile Neeranam uses such information to distort the debate, those who then don't the nuanced difference between nationality and residency then run with the arguments without recognising the flaw in the points they attempt to raise. 

 

 

21 minutes ago, Tomtomtom69 said:

I on the other hand, believe citizens should always be treated as having more rights than foreigners.

 

I believe rights should be equal - and they are: If you paid taxes in the UK for 3 years, your children could receive their woke indoctrination at the same cost as the British.  Thailand does not offer such benefits to residents. 

 

21 minutes ago, Tomtomtom69 said:

With that stated, I do wish there was more residency based pricing in Thailand and have no issue with residency based schemes for university admissions etc just as long as citizens are always automatically treated as residents. 

 

This has been my whole argument in these 'dual charing' debates over the years. 

 

Thailand 'dual charges' based on nationality, which IMO is wrong, whereas many more 'developed nations*' do not and instead operate their policies based on residency. 

 

I too would much prefer it if 'as a UK citizen' my son would get UK pricing, but having lived my Adult life outside of the UK and having hardly paid any tax there, there are plenty of non-British residents who have paid far more into the system than I have.  

If I wish for my Son to pay UK University fees, we have to move to the UK - I can't argue with the fairness / unfairness of that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

2 minutes ago, Tomtomtom69 said:

Clearly they do, if a foreigner can get a university education just because they've resided in Britain for a few years but a British citizen who resides abroad is treated like a foreigner. 

 

Its not my sons Automatic right to get cheap university when I haven't paid UK tax....   Thus, the system is based on residency, which IMO is not unfair....       you can keep clinging on to this issue like a dog with a bone... BUT - it is not an example of 'dual charging'....   Its an example of allowing foreign residents the same rights as a British residents. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Andycoops]

If you can't afford it, don't go.

 

Vote with your satangs and visit all the lovely free places available.

[sabai-dee-man]

13 minutes ago, impulse said:

Personally, I'm pleased that Thailand operates for the benefit of the Thai people.

 

Dual pricing makes absolute sense if you understand burden absorption and incremental revenue.  Otherwise the parks couldn't be maintained to a high standard.

 

Only one time in Thailand, I didn't go into a national park (around Hua Hin) because of the entry fee.  But it's only because I was just driving past and only planned to spend a few minutes checking it out.  Every time I intended to stay more than an hour or so, I sucked it up and spent the $8 or $15. or whatever.

 

Reminded me of living in Wyoming, where state parks had dual pricing, depending on whether your car had Wyoming plates.  That was before blogs and I'm sure tourists are incensed nowadays if they still do it...

 

 

 

Totally different!

 

I worked in Florida in the 90s, and all the parks (and many clubs) charged out-of-state visitors (and us foreigners) more. I simply simply popped into the DMV and got a Florida ID card, and never once paid "outsider" prices again.

 

They didn't charge extra based on nationality/skin colour, it was simply "from out of state? Pay full price".

 

If Thailand employed similar standards, it wouldn't be an issue. (Any) tourists paying more than "locals", including foreigners living/working in the same province, wouldn't be a problem for me. 

 

Thai prices should go up a little, and foreigner prices down a little, in my personal opinion. If you have a valid form of Thai ID (and are local to the attraction), you pay local price.

[Tomtomtom69]

17 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I'm not suggesting I support it - but I understand it and argue that its is not 'dual pricing' as the policy is applied equally regardless of nationality.

... meanwhile Neeranam uses such information to distort the debate, those who then don't the nuanced difference between nationality and residency then run with the arguments without recognising the flaw in the points they attempt to raise. 

 

 

 

I believe rights should be equal - and they are: If you paid taxes in the UK for 3 years, your children could receive their woke indoctrination at the same cost as the British.  Thailand does not offer such benefits to residents. 

 

 

This has been my whole argument in these 'dual charing' debates over the years. 

 

Thailand 'dual charges' based on nationality, which IMO is wrong, whereas many more 'developed nations*' do not and instead operate their policies based on residency. 

 

I too would much prefer it if 'as a UK citizen' my son would get UK pricing, but having lived my Adult life outside of the UK and having hardly paid any tax there, there are plenty of non-British residents who have paid far more into the system than I have.  

If I wish for my Son to pay UK University fees, we have to move to the UK - I can't argue with the fairness / unfairness of that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My whole argument has been that I'm supportive of residency based policies, as long as citizens aren't discriminated against or disadvantaged, regardless of their previous or current residency. 

[PuiPuiHarry]

I will schear the day, Thai nationals have to pay also in Europe a 10-fold entrance price. I guarantee you, in 12 hours there will be an UN emergency meeting about racism for this.

[Dutch Peter]

7 hours ago, lordblackader said:

The problem with the article isn't that tourists are charged more; it's that people living and working in Thailand and paying taxes have to pay up to 900% more. Try charging a Thai living in a Western country who is paying income tax and who has the local equivalent of Social Security 900% more to enter a park - all hell would break loose, and you'd never hear the end of how racist and discriminatory it was. 

 

[BangkokReady]

9 hours ago, webfact said:

Thailand's dual pricing policy, where foreign tourists often pay more than locals at attractions, sparks ongoing conversation.

 

The problem is that it's foreign people, not foreign tourists.  If it was only foreign tourists, I doubt anyone would care.

[PJ71]

7 hours ago, transam said:

More tripe from the bloke that is envious, because he can't get a yellow book or pink ID card......😰............

hahahahahha

 

off to the waterfall you go Tranny, jog on - hahahhahahahahahah

[transam]

1 minute ago, PJ71 said:

hahahahahha

 

off to the waterfall you go Tranny, jog on - hahahhahahahahahah

Well, for sure you would HAVE to pay full price..................🤣

[PJ71]

Just now, transam said:

Well, for sure you would HAVE to pay full price..................🤣

Well, for sure i don't care, it's pennies.

 

Maybe a lot for you tho Tranny?

 

 

[Tomtomtom69]

41 minutes ago, PuiPuiHarry said:

I will schear the day, Thai nationals have to pay also in Europe a 10-fold entrance price. I guarantee you, in 12 hours there will be an UN emergency meeting about racism for this.

 

Except that some European countries have already discussed the possibility (and very likely implementation) of a dual pricing policy where all non-European nationals (I think they mean non-EU/EEA) have to pay more than citizens of the zone. This policy could be implemented in a couple of years from now and I believe is being spearheaded by France.

[Tomtomtom69]

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Its not my sons Automatic right to get cheap university when I haven't paid UK tax....   Thus, the system is based on residency, which IMO is not unfair....       you can keep clinging on to this issue like a dog with a bone... BUT - it is not an example of 'dual charging'....   Its an example of allowing foreign residents the same rights as a British residents. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It should be, based on him being a British citizen. Otherwise, he might as well apply as a Thai student.

[transam]

4 minutes ago, PJ71 said:

Well, for sure i don't care, it's pennies.

 

Maybe a lot for you tho Tranny?

 

 

Of course, you don't care...................🤭