Two Tier / Double Pricing For Farang

[LinkPopularity]

well, at the Royal Palace in bangkok, the falang pays to visit a tourist place, while it's free for Thais to visit the house of their beloved King ... makes total sense to me ...

[ZZZ]

Most of the enterprises mentioned are State owned and as such are owned by the citizens, just set it in your mind that the price you pay is the correct price and Thai price is discounted because they own it,after all ,there have to be some benefit for being a Thai in your own country.

I can see a possible justification for National Parks charging modestly more for non-residents but the current multiple of ten times (if I remember) is excessive.

For commercial establishments to have dual pricing just stinks.

Thailand is very concerned about its tourism but unconcerned about its expats. If TOT received a blizzard of complaints from tourists that Thailand is a rip-off place because of dual pricing and so not worth visiting, there might be a response.

If you kick a dinosaur, occasionally it groans.

Anyone with any economical sense know that the vast majority of commercial establishment in tourist areas would not be viable businesses if they charged everyone what they charge the locals.

The reason to charge locals less is to get repeat business from them. A tourist may visit a place one time, a local could visit the same place many times during the year and this way actually pay more into the business than the tourist. These repeat visits by the locals actually make the price lower for the tourists as they contribute to the income for these businesses.

It sounds to me that most the opponents are not questioning the price they have to pay they are just envious that someone else get in for less, without thinking about the whole picture.

Not that I'm religious in any way but is that not totally against the last of the 10 commandments

[way2muchcoffee]

Check the 7th or 8th Commandment (depending on your religious persuasion). Not that anyone really cares, but two-tier pricing is a form a theft in my book.

Edited May 10, 2008 by way2muchcoffee

[wilko]

Most of the enterprises mentioned are State owned and as such are owned by the citizens, just set it in your mind that the price you pay is the correct price and Thai price is discounted because they own it,after all ,there have to be some benefit for being a Thai in your own country.

I can see a possible justification for National Parks charging modestly more for non-residents but the current multiple of ten times (if I remember) is excessive.

For commercial establishments to have dual pricing just stinks.

Thailand is very concerned about its tourism but unconcerned about its expats. If TOT received a blizzard of complaints from tourists that Thailand is a rip-off place because of dual pricing and so not worth visiting, there might be a response.

If you kick a dinosaur, occasionally it groans.

Anyone with any economical sense know that the vast majority of commercial establishment in tourist areas would not be viable businesses if they charged everyone what they charge the locals.

The reason to charge locals less is to get repeat business from them. A tourist may visit a place one time, a local could visit the same place many times during the year and this way actually pay more into the business than the tourist. These repeat visits by the locals actually make the price lower for the tourists as they contribute to the income for these businesses.

It sounds to me that most the opponents are not questioning the price they have to pay they are just envious that someone else get in for less, without thinking about the whole picture.

Not that I'm religious in any way but is that not totally against the last of the 10 commandments

Now THAT makes sense a totally logical market explanation.

[Gonsalviz]

I realize that many of us foreigners are alot wealthier than most Thais, but their are many Thais that are wealthy, too--and why are they not penalized as well with higher prices, so I would appreciate posts be left out stressing that we have more money than they do--so we should be expected to pay more--be more directed to the topic that it is "unfair" and "racist" to charge more to people of different colour.

This here is an important point.

There are approximately 6 mil Thais who are probably better off than a high percentage of visitors to the Kingdom. And it is from this pool of Thais where the users of nice hotels / resorts etc receive "special" Thai price, not from the other 60 mil citizens of the country who the double tier pricing system is supposed to benefit.

Soundman.

I had a Thai sister in law that worked at a bungalow/hotel place in Koh Samui. She told me that the hotel charged Thais more because if they can afford to be at a hotel at all, they have a lot of money.

Edited May 10, 2008 by Gonsalviz

[Foggy Dew]

I am with the “if you don’t like it go home brigade on this one”

Reason:

I live in Ireland and pay my taxes in Ireland, part of which goes to the upkeep of tourist attractions, so in my taxes I have paid a contribution to the upkeep of a particular historic / tourist site.... well then why should I have to pay the same entry price as a visiting American tourist who has not paid anything towards the upkeep of the site?

In addition, many indeed if not most Irish people have not visited their local “sites of interest” which they have supported through their taxes, but head for far off lands to view the sites of interest in these places.

So next time think.... who paid for the roads to the site, the toilet facilities (such as they are) the gardeners and grounds men,

It was paid for by the taxes of people of the nation.

You, are just paying the normal price of entry, the Thai national has already paid part of their fee through taxes and is only paying the balance at the gate!

Have a happy and enjoy it while it lasts! For Buddhism teaches us that nothing is permanent!

Foggy

Ps. The above sounds very reasoned so let me be clear and unreasonable will the be-grudgers <deleted> off!

[way2muchcoffee]

I am with the “if you don’t like it go home brigade on this one”

Reason:

I live in Ireland and pay my taxes in Ireland, part of which goes to the upkeep of tourist attractions, so in my taxes I have paid a contribution to the upkeep of a particular historic / tourist site.... well then why should I have to pay the same entry price as a visiting American tourist who has not paid anything towards the upkeep of the site?

In addition, many indeed if not most Irish people have not visited their local “sites of interest” which they have supported through their taxes, but head for far off lands to view the sites of interest in these places.

So next time think.... who paid for the roads to the site, the toilet facilities (such as they are) the gardeners and grounds men,

It was paid for by the taxes of people of the nation.

You, are just paying the normal price of entry, the Thai national has already paid part of their fee through taxes and is only paying the balance at the gate!

Have a happy and enjoy it while it lasts! For Buddhism teaches us that nothing is permanent!

Foggy

Ps. The above sounds very reasoned so let me be clear and unreasonable will the be-grudgers <deleted> off!

Except for the fact that I pay nearly 10,000 bt monthly in taxes to the Thai government for the privilege of paying tourist prices about 50% of the time at national parks.

[wilko]

I'm a tax payer in Thailand and usually if I show my card I get in cheap...however I really think that alot of this is just paranoia. I negotiate my prices outside the govt fixed ones and don't seem to be paying much more than any Thais...I know that where I live thais and farang pay the same house prices and rents.

[JetsetBkk]

Anyone with any economical sense know that the vast majority of commercial establishment in tourist areas would not be viable businesses if they charged everyone what they charge the locals.

The reason to charge locals less is to get repeat business from them. A tourist may visit a place one time, a local could visit the same place many times during the year and this way actually pay more into the business than the tourist. These repeat visits by the locals actually make the price lower for the tourists as they contribute to the income for these businesses.

It sounds to me that most the opponents are not questioning the price they have to pay they are just envious that someone else get in for less, without thinking about the whole picture.

Not that I'm religious in any way but is that not totally against the last of the 10 commandments

You make 2 points here I agree with:

1. Repeat business: so all people living in Thailand should pay the same price - this means "expats" should pay the lower price since they would also generate repeat business.

2. Envious of the locals - dead right. I am.

[samran]

Thailand is very concerned about its tourism but unconcerned about its expats. If TOT received a blizzard of complaints from tourists that Thailand is a rip-off place because of dual pricing and so not worth visiting, there might be a response.

There are more than a few places around the traps, either hotels or apartments who simply will not take Thai's. With the hotels, this has changed of late, but a friend of mine - a US graduated MBA, with a CFA and an extremely well paid job who is into diving managed not to find a room down in Phuket on more than one occasion.

Neither of the situations are fair, but lets have a bit of balance here.

On average, Farangs are treated very favourably in Thailand, more so than most Thai's.

[a99az]

Shepsel I think you are 100% right it is as you say racist and I would love to see it ended. It should be outlawed by the Thai goverment forth with.

[samran]

Anyone with any economical sense know that the vast majority of commercial establishment in tourist areas would not be viable businesses if they charged everyone what they charge the locals.

The reason to charge locals less is to get repeat business from them. A tourist may visit a place one time, a local could visit the same place many times during the year and this way actually pay more into the business than the tourist. These repeat visits by the locals actually make the price lower for the tourists as they contribute to the income for these businesses.

It sounds to me that most the opponents are not questioning the price they have to pay they are just envious that someone else get in for less, without thinking about the whole picture.

Not that I'm religious in any way but is that not totally against the last of the 10 commandments

You make 2 points here I agree with:

1. Repeat business: so all people living in Thailand should pay the same price - this means "expats" should pay the lower price since they would also generate repeat business.

2. Envious of the locals - dead right. I am.

In my time here I've partaken in quite a few deals at hotels, packaged holidays etc have been discounted for 'Thai residents' - which included locals with long stay visas and work permits.

[TUCKER]

just boycott them.ex-pats in bulgaria where i lived just refused to pay,if everybody does it works.

[pampal]

If anyone feels they are being discriminated against, they should boycott the establishment practising discrimination.

[Etrigan]

Futhermore there is a difference between entering a park for one day and studiyng several years

Thanks for clearing that up Sherlock. Took some real deduction that. Very impressive indeed.

[madjbs]

The "New Siam Guesthouse" chain in Bangkok do not allow Thais in, popular place with the tourists but I never recommend anyone to stay there anymore. Their loss as they have lost a substantial amount of business from me and a large number of friends who come to visit every year.

Edited May 12, 2008 by madjbs

[ralph444]

how often do you peple even go to national parks or zoos in los.

[madjbs]

I go to national parks occasionally, can't say I have ever been charged the full price. I believe that tourists should be charged the higher rate but all people who are resident and paying taxes in Thailand should be allowed in at the Thai rate.