PM Abhisit Questions Thaksin's Role As Leader Of 'Class War'

[quiksilva]

This is a tax on the so called elite, drafted by the very people it will tax the most.

Many of these landowners own vast tracts of land, thousands upon thousands of Rai, tens of thousands even. (I have met many of these owners and seen their portfolios). This wealth in land is not an exaggeration.

This new tax will encourage (but not force) owners to sell what they can not use. If this does release unused / unwanted land, it will most be likely be priced to sell (those who can afford the taxes will still not be motivated sellers), and values may (Shock! Horror!) fall in certain areas!

So, it is an incredibly unpopular tax, especially with the Democrats support base, but they will go ahead with it, because it is in the best interests of the Kingdom.

Either by potentially making land more affordable, or even just swelling Thailand's tax receipts, unless you own thousands of rai, or hugely expensive homes, I cant see how you can think this tax is anything but good for Thailand.

Edited March 22, 2010 by quiksilva

[Thai at Heart]

This is a tax on the so called elite, drafted by the very people it will tax the most.

Many of these landowners own vast tracts of land, thousands upon thousands of Rai, tens of thousands even. (I have met many of these owners and seen their portfolios). This wealth in land is not an exaggeration.

This new tax will encourage (but not force) owners to sell what they can not use. If this does release unused / unwanted land, it will most be likely be priced to sell (those who can afford the taxes will still not be motivated sellers), and values may (Shock! Horror!) fall in certain areas!

So, it is an incredibly unpopular tax, especially with the Democrats support base, but they will go ahead with it, because it is in the best interests of the Kingdom.

Either by potentially making land more affordable, or even just swelling Thailand's tax receipts, unless you own thousands of rai, or hugely expensive homes, I cant see how you can think this tax is anything but good for Thailand.

I can't see that Abhisit will be able to make this pass. This tax runs straight into the heart of the concept of how this country works. He is an amazingly brave man for even trying to propose it. The opposition to this is not split on party lines, rather it is purely based on economic lines.

[ballpoint]

I dont really understand what you mean . Allow me to restate please

1) My point is simply to say that IN MY OPINION the red shirts have a strong argument to say that Abhisit is not legally the PM .

Because the correct process has IN MY OPINION not been followed

2) My point is also to say that IN MY OPINION the red shirts should not insist on the return of Thaksin in a position of power or

an amnesty for his deeds

3) Finally my point is to say that IN MY OPINION the redshirts have a good cause in terms of social justice but why have they

associated themselves with that morally bankrupt ex PM ? This is troubling

You have a different opinion on 1) , i respect that , and we are of the same opinion on 2) , i believe . 3) is just a question mark

I dont think this is a stupid argument .

1) If the red shirts think that Abhisit is not legally the PM then why aren't they taking their fight to the courts? Why hasn't the PTP managed to dig anything up and take legal steps to have him removed? You yourself, along with others, have argued that Thaksin should have been removed by the judiciary when he behaved illegally by clinging to power despite his mandate being gone. Now you are arguing that the opposition have the right to use a non judicial method to remove the current PM?

2) Agreed.

3) Because he's footing the bill. He also has enough of his people in the red leadership to dictate most of their strategy. They are also too deeply entwined with the PTP, with all the implications of vote buying, corruption and previous ripping off of the poor, to be currently considered a serious neutral force for democracy. It would be far easier for the true prodemocracy non Thaksin supporting members of the reds to break away rather than try and rebrand their movement, but a good first step would be to cease the daily phone ins, remove any current politicians from the stage, and, instead of just spouting rabble rousing vitriol, actually start making some policy speeches from the stage. It should be telling the people how it will guarantee free and fair elections in the short term, and how it will educate them, raise them from poverty, give them a better life, in short, deliver on its promises, in the long term.

[lannarebirth]

This is a tax on the so called elite, drafted by the very people it will tax the most.

Many of these landowners own vast tracts of land, thousands upon thousands of Rai, tens of thousands even. (I have met many of these owners and seen their portfolios). This wealth in land is not an exaggeration.

This new tax will encourage (but not force) owners to sell what they can not use. If this does release unused / unwanted land, it will most be likely be priced to sell (those who can afford the taxes will still not be motivated sellers), and values may (Shock! Horror!) fall in certain areas!

So, it is an incredibly unpopular tax, especially with the Democrats support base, but they will go ahead with it, because it is in the best interests of the Kingdom.

Either by potentially making land more affordable, or even just swelling Thailand's tax receipts, unless you own thousands of rai, or hugely expensive homes, I cant see how you can think this tax is anything but good for Thailand.

I can't see that Abhisit will be able to make this pass. This tax runs straight into the heart of the concept of how this country works. He is an amazingly brave man for even trying to propose it. The opposition to this is not split on party lines, rather it is purely based on economic lines.

He should publically challange the PT party to get on board. Though they never proposed such sweeping change on behalf of their constituents, it is clear they are the chief beneficiaries. Make the dialouge, public, wide and loud.

[Thai at Heart]

He should publically challange the PT party to get on board. Though they never proposed such sweeping change on behalf of their constituents, it is clear they are the chief beneficiaries. Make the dialouge, public, wide and loud.

It is the ultimate situation of turkeys voting for Xmas. I think Korn is the man for this one. He seems to be far less fearful of standing his ground and explaining the economic benefits of policies.

The problem is that ALL of the protagonists in the political spectrum stand to lose something not just PT. The quickest and easiest way to get rich in Thailand has been to accumulate land and rent it back to farmers. I giggled when I found out that the taxes I owed the local government on my house up country were 92 baht per year, and yet the roads are potholed in the city and the drains are cracked. I would willingly pay 1000+92 if it meant the city didn't flood every year and the traffic lights worked, but I somehow doubt all the other's on my road don't see it that way.

If there is one thing about the wealthy in this country, they largely despise giving back anything for the "greater good". Tax raising efforts in this country are truly pathetic. I would find it difficult to argue with anyone that for every 100 baht raised by this tax 30 satang of it could be misappropriated. I applaud Abhisit's efforts, but I am waiting for someone in the parliament to stand up and point out the fact that Abhisit's family probably doesn't own 1000's of rai so it won't effect him. Of course there is also the sticking point about the corporation that is the largest private land owner in the country.

Of course, if land prices dropped because of a new supply of land onto the market, maybe Abhisit could propose that foreigners could purchase some of it to stabilize prices. Now that would be one to see.

[lannarebirth]

He should publically challange the PT party to get on board. Though they never proposed such sweeping change on behalf of their constituents, it is clear they are the chief beneficiaries. Make the dialouge, public, wide and loud.

It is the ultimate situation of turkeys voting for Xmas. I think Korn is the man for this one. He seems to be far less fearful of standing his ground and explaining the economic benefits of policies.

The problem is that ALL of the protagonists in the political spectrum stand to lose something not just PT. The quickest and easiest way to get rich in Thailand has been to accumulate land and rent it back to farmers. I giggled when I found out that the taxes I owed the local government on my house up country were 92 baht per year, and yet the roads are potholed in the city and the drains are cracked. I would willingly pay 1000+92 if it meant the city didn't flood every year and the traffic lights worked, but I somehow doubt all the other's on my road don't see it that way.

If there is one thing about the wealthy in this country, they largely despise giving back anything for the "greater good". Tax raising efforts in this country are truly pathetic. I would find it difficult to argue with anyone that for every 100 baht raised by this tax 30 satang of it could be misappropriated. I applaud Abhisit's efforts, but I am waiting for someone in the parliament to stand up and point out the fact that Abhisit's family probably doesn't own 1000's of rai so it won't effect him. Of course there is also the sticking point about the corporation that is the largest private land owner in the country.

Of course, if land prices dropped because of a new supply of land onto the market, maybe Abhisit could propose that foreigners could purchase some of it to stabilize prices. Now that would be one to see.

I don't think land prices will drop because of new property taxes. First of all, most agricultural land that is in use will either be exempt or taxed at a miniscule rate. Secondly, I think many properties will be "grandfathered" so that taxation only applies when a transfer of ownership occurs. Also I think initial tax rates will be quite low. As with all taxes, we know where the rates go from there. ^^

[animatic]

One might supose it would free up some arable land

because people want the land to pay it's tax base.

But the other hand rented land would likely also have that tax passed on

to the poor renters, not paid by the puyai owner....

[lannarebirth]

One might supose it would free up some arable land

because people want the land to pay it's tax base.

But the other hand rented land would likely also have that tax passed on

to the poor renters, not paid by the puyai owner....

It will also provide an impetus for the government to speed up land reform (craapy titles, poor surveys, etc), a major concern of Thai people, especially the poor.

[Thai at Heart]

I don't think land prices will drop because of new property taxes. First of all, most agricultural land that is in use will either be exempt or taxed at a miniscule rate. Secondly, I think many properties will be "grandfathered" so that taxation only applies when a transfer of ownership occurs. Also I think initial tax rates will be quite low. As with all taxes, we know where the rates go from there. ^^

I don't think doing it that way would be very effective at all. I would simply whack an extra tax on all land holdings. The government would be swimming in money. Why grandfather it? The issue is that land is sitting in huge tracts in the hands of very few, they should pay. Simple.

I have worked in the EU in agriculture where they tried to calculate how much land was under cultivation. I think Italy calculated that they had almost half the country under olive production, the other half under wheat, and the third half under tomatoes.

Trying to decide what is and isn't under cultivation to calculate taxation would be a very Thai way of solving the problem. The entire arable land area of Thailand under production would increase massively, probably to a size equal to Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia also. Of course, inevitably, calculated crop yields would plummet and the policy makers would need to mandate using more fertiliser to increase yields. The wealthy of Bangkok would probably plough up their back gardens, plant two mango trees and declare their houses farms.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Thai at Heart

[lannarebirth]

I don't think land prices will drop because of new property taxes. First of all, most agricultural land that is in use will either be exempt or taxed at a miniscule rate. Secondly, I think many properties will be "grandfathered" so that taxation only applies when a transfer of ownership occurs. Also I think initial tax rates will be quite low. As with all taxes, we know where the rates go from there. ^^

I don't think doing it that way would be very effective at all. I would simply whack an extra tax on all land holdings. The government would be swimming in money. Why grandfather it? The issue is that land is sitting in huge tracts in the hands of very few, they should pay. Simple.

I have worked in the EU in agriculture where they tried to calculate how much land was under cultivation. I think Italy calculated that they had almost half the country under olive production, the other half under wheat, and the third half under tomatoes.

Trying to decide what is and isn't under cultivation to calculate taxation would be a very Thai way of solving the problem. The entire arable land area of Thailand under production would increase massively, probably to a size equal to Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia also. Of course, inevitably, calculated crop yields would plummet and the policy makers would need to mandate using more fertiliser to increase yields. The wealthy of Bangkok would probably plough up their back gardens, plant two mango trees and declare their houses farms.

Well, I'm just thinking how do you get it implemented when there is so much resistance to it. Not unlike that crappy US Healthcare law. You have to start with something and then you refine it over time. I guarantee you legislators will become addicted to the revenues very quickly and be looking around for more.

[elcent]

One might supose it would free up some arable land

because people want the land to pay it's tax base.

But the other hand rented land would likely also have that tax passed on

to the poor renters, not paid by the puyai owner....

It will also provide an impetus for the government to speed up land reform (craapy titles, poor surveys, etc), a major concern of Thai people, especially the poor.

What about the so called 'Kings Land' and 'Queens Land'? Kings land refers to the flat land and Queens land to mountainous land and is administered by the Royal household bureau. I've seen lots of land being rented out indefinitely to locals for a very low fee and those who rent must make some good use of that land.

[Samuian]

"Abhisit said that in addition to implementing policies aimed at reducing economic gaps between people in society, his government is pushing for the introduction of the country's first land and property tax."This can help reduce the gap between people who have large amounts of land and those who have no land at all," he added."

Who is he trying to bamboozle here? This is absolutely dreadful. A property tax will ruin this country. Thailand was one of the last few countries in the world were a man or woman could still really own property without having to worry "too much" about the government taking it away. With all the corruption here just imagine how much easier it will be with a property tax. If the government wants your property or the local "pui ya bahn" tax collector who has it out for you, wants your property he just has to claim you owe back taxes on it. This is going to be an unmigitated disaster." The "little man" and ma and pa farmers are going to lose their property to the corrupt wealthy Bangkok ruling class. The result of a property tax in Thailand will accomplish just the opposite of what Mr. Abhisit claims. Abhisit is to Thailand what Obama has become to America, its ruin.

The problem is that it is the rich that own most of the property in Thailand, and once they own it they don't do anything with it. If the rich are forced to do something with a lot of the property, that potentially gives more opportunity to the poor.

I cant see how this is going to happen, may indirectly using the extra revenue for education and infrastructure, cant see many other ways...

[lannarebirth]

One might supose it would free up some arable land

because people want the land to pay it's tax base.

But the other hand rented land would likely also have that tax passed on

to the poor renters, not paid by the puyai owner....

It will also provide an impetus for the government to speed up land reform (craapy titles, poor surveys, etc), a major concern of Thai people, especially the poor.

What about the so called 'Kings Land' and 'Queens Land'? Kings land refers to the flat land and Queens land to mountainous land and is administered by the Royal household bureau. I've seen lots of land being rented out indefinitely to locals for a very low fee and those who rent must make some good use of that land.

It's just my opinion of course, but I think that occupancy and record of land use should be recorded as the basis for attaining real ownwership of that land for low income persons. Thaksin DID pay at least lipservice and in fact created some schemes to deal with that. That's a page from his playbook I think the current government would be wise to copy.

[Thai at Heart]

I don't think land prices will drop because of new property taxes. First of all, most agricultural land that is in use will either be exempt or taxed at a miniscule rate. Secondly, I think many properties will be "grandfathered" so that taxation only applies when a transfer of ownership occurs. Also I think initial tax rates will be quite low. As with all taxes, we know where the rates go from there. ^^

I don't think doing it that way would be very effective at all. I would simply whack an extra tax on all land holdings. The government would be swimming in money. Why grandfather it? The issue is that land is sitting in huge tracts in the hands of very few, they should pay. Simple.

I have worked in the EU in agriculture where they tried to calculate how much land was under cultivation. I think Italy calculated that they had almost half the country under olive production, the other half under wheat, and the third half under tomatoes.

Trying to decide what is and isn't under cultivation to calculate taxation would be a very Thai way of solving the problem. The entire arable land area of Thailand under production would increase massively, probably to a size equal to Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia also. Of course, inevitably, calculated crop yields would plummet and the policy makers would need to mandate using more fertiliser to increase yields. The wealthy of Bangkok would probably plough up their back gardens, plant two mango trees and declare their houses farms.

Well, I'm just thinking how do you get it implemented when there is so much resistance to it. Not unlike that crappy US Healthcare law. You have to start with something and then you refine it over time. I guarantee you legislators will become addicted to the revenues very quickly and be looking around for more.

The land title system here isn't perfect, but it is there. Simply going through this process would go a long way to clearing up the discrepancies in the land titles systems anyway. Who would want to pay more than they should?

He who owns it? Here's your bill.

Another issue with only taxing it when it changes hands is that land is used as surety for loans. So even though I don't sell it, I can still derive benefit from it. If you own it, indebted to the bank or not, you pay. Pure and simple.

I mean I have to pay road tax for my car, why shouldn't I pay some land tax?

[lannarebirth]

I don't think land prices will drop because of new property taxes. First of all, most agricultural land that is in use will either be exempt or taxed at a miniscule rate. Secondly, I think many properties will be "grandfathered" so that taxation only applies when a transfer of ownership occurs. Also I think initial tax rates will be quite low. As with all taxes, we know where the rates go from there. ^^

I don't think doing it that way would be very effective at all. I would simply whack an extra tax on all land holdings. The government would be swimming in money. Why grandfather it? The issue is that land is sitting in huge tracts in the hands of very few, they should pay. Simple.

I have worked in the EU in agriculture where they tried to calculate how much land was under cultivation. I think Italy calculated that they had almost half the country under olive production, the other half under wheat, and the third half under tomatoes.

Trying to decide what is and isn't under cultivation to calculate taxation would be a very Thai way of solving the problem. The entire arable land area of Thailand under production would increase massively, probably to a size equal to Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia also. Of course, inevitably, calculated crop yields would plummet and the policy makers would need to mandate using more fertiliser to increase yields. The wealthy of Bangkok would probably plough up their back gardens, plant two mango trees and declare their houses farms.

Well, I'm just thinking how do you get it implemented when there is so much resistance to it. Not unlike that crappy US Healthcare law. You have to start with something and then you refine it over time. I guarantee you legislators will become addicted to the revenues very quickly and be looking around for more.

The land title system here isn't perfect, but it is there. Simply going through this process would go a long way to clearing up the discrepancies in the land titles systems anyway. Who would want to pay more than they should?

He who owns it? Here's your bill.

Another issue with only taxing it when it changes hands is that land is used as surety for loans. So even though I don't sell it, I can still derive benefit from it. If you own it, indebted to the bank or not, you pay. Pure and simple.

I mean I have to pay road tax for my car, why shouldn't I pay some land tax?

I guess I was unclear. I didn't mean only taxing it when it changes hands, as that's basically the system in place right now. I meant that property taxes would be implemented starting with the NEXT owner or whenever the prerty is reassesed or upgraded. There are certain stes within the US which have such schemes and it has not proved to hinder the turnover in real estate.

[anotherpeter]

I guess I was unclear. I didn't mean only taxing it when it changes hands, as that's basically the system in place right now. I meant that property taxes would be implemented starting with the NEXT owner or whenever the prerty is reassesed or upgraded. There are certain stes within the US which have such schemes and it has not proved to hinder the turnover in real estate.

I don't think that will solve anything. The rich aren't selling the land, so there will never be any tax on it. They need an incentive to use it now. So the tax should apply to all land, even city land.

[elcent]

I think a land tax would be wrong at this time, but a progressive income/wealth tax, hmmm nice dough to make.

Remember in Sweden, Abba once made huge profits and through the law they were threatened to pay 110% tax which then forced them to invest their profit and so keep the money rotating and not carried/stored away for the big coup of total control.

[lannarebirth]

I guess I was unclear. I didn't mean only taxing it when it changes hands, as that's basically the system in place right now. I meant that property taxes would be implemented starting with the NEXT owner or whenever the prerty is reassesed or upgraded. There are certain stes within the US which have such schemes and it has not proved to hinder the turnover in real estate.

I don't think that will solve anything. The rich aren't selling the land, so there will never be any tax on it. They need an incentive to use it now. So the tax should apply to all land, even city land.

Yes, that too. aargh!

[anotherpeter]

I think a land tax would be wrong at this time, but a progressive income/wealth tax, hmmm nice dough to make.

Remember in Sweden, Abba once made huge profits and through the law they were threatened to pay 110% tax which then forced them to invest their profit and so keep the money rotating and not carried/stored away for the big coup of total control.

There is income tax now. Rich people know how to get around it. Where do you even start with a wealth tax? Too many valuations required, which then opens it up to corruption.

A land tax, a small amount per rai. Keep it simple. No (or very few) exceptions. Make sure any exceptions are clearly stated and easy to police.

[Thai at Heart]

I think a land tax would be wrong at this time, but a progressive income/wealth tax, hmmm nice dough to make.

Remember in Sweden, Abba once made huge profits and through the law they were threatened to pay 110% tax which then forced them to invest their profit and so keep the money rotating and not carried/stored away for the big coup of total control.

Doesn't work.

The only people paying taxes correctly are the employed since tax is retained by employers.

Why are family companies so ridiculously successful in Thailand? Because you employ everyone inside your family, understate your revenue, deal in cash and claim you never made a profit. The profits from family owned companies are the second largest untapped revenue stream for the government here.

Businesses and rent takers don't pay what they should because they fudge their revenue and profit numbers, if they even are asked to provide numbers. For the so called self employed in their own companies, they simply don't pay what they should.

Impose land tax, reduce business taxes but send out the taxmen with an incentive to get every penny out of every company that should be paid.

[elcent]

I think a land tax would be wrong at this time, but a progressive income/wealth tax, hmmm nice dough to make.

Remember in Sweden, Abba once made huge profits and through the law they were threatened to pay 110% tax which then forced them to invest their profit and so keep the money rotating and not carried/stored away for the big coup of total control.

There is income tax now. Rich people know how to get around it. Where do you even start with a wealth tax? Too many valuations required, which then opens it up to corruption.

This why I'd hit them on their value and not on cash flow and one would see how things can change quickly.

Being afraid of corruption? Why not forget about anything then? (pun intended)

[monkfish]

One might supose it would free up some arable land

because people want the land to pay it's tax base.

But the other hand rented land would likely also have that tax passed on

to the poor renters, not paid by the puyai owner....

I agree many poor rent there land from the rich.

Therefore this tax will be a tax on the poor.

There is also a lot of land that isn't registered in any form, I have relatives who bought such land.

Can't see this project succeeding in the near future.

Inheritance Tax of 50% would work better.

[Samuian]

One might supose it would free up some arable land

because people want the land to pay it's tax base.

But the other hand rented land would likely also have that tax passed on

to the poor renters, not paid by the puyai owner....

I agree many poor rent there land from the rich.

Therefore this tax will be a tax on the poor.

There is also a lot of land that isn't registered in any form, I have relatives who bought such land.

Can't see this project succeeding in the near future.

Inheritance Tax of 50% would work better.

Well how many rai farmland does the average "Somchai" own in Thailand 5, 10, 20 Rai?

Tax anything above that!

A genuine Land Tax, those who work the land and say size and generated income thereof....

could be considered whilst levying the tax, well I would go for PLUS inheritance tax!

Edited March 22, 2010 by Samuian

[Thai at Heart]

One might supose it would free up some arable land

because people want the land to pay it's tax base.

But the other hand rented land would likely also have that tax passed on

to the poor renters, not paid by the puyai owner....

I agree many poor rent there land from the rich.

Therefore this tax will be a tax on the poor.

There is also a lot of land that isn't registered in any form, I have relatives who bought such land.

Can't see this project succeeding in the near future.

Inheritance Tax of 50% would work better.

We have just witnessed one of the most protracted cases disputing ownership of assets transferred from parents to their children. They can't even decide ownership of a publically quoted company. How about 1/2 a rai in Umphur Gonowhere. If you think corruption is rife, wait until they really wealthy would declare their assets at death. Gazzilionaires would die without a pot to piss in. If they put a time limit such as transfer of assets in the previous 5 years, I could imagine families keeping grandad alive for 5 years and a minute on life support just to avoid tax.

I would suggest that Thailand will be ready for an inheritance tax in about 50 years. Abhisit doesn't have enough lives to make inheritance tax swing anyway.

If the land isn't registered, no tax to pay. I am not too concerned about poor farmers paying 200 baht to a land owner to pay the tax. This will get passed into the prices of the products eventually. 200 baht on a rai's worth of rice is affordable for all consumers.

What is more important is that huge tracts of unused land starts to attract some form of taxation. If your relatives just bought some unregistered land, I would hope that they would want to "chuay chart' and pay their taxes.

Flat rate per rai. Pure simple and the government has all the info in it's hands to do it tomorrow.

[Ricardo]

I can't see that Abhisit will be able to make this pass. This tax runs straight into the heart of the concept of how this country works. He is an amazingly brave man for even trying to propose it. The opposition to this is not split on party lines, rather it is purely based on economic lines.

This attempt clearly shows, PM-Abhisit isn't wholly the elite-controlled puppet, which many might claim. He is willing to put his job on-the-line, to do what he thinks is necessary, this might lose him power in the short-run, but he's young enough to have a long future in Thai politics ahead of him.

Any such tax needs to be set high-enough to be worth collecting, the government needs to avoid the 30-Baht hospital-care administration-cost pitfall, but low-enough so that it won't cause a serious backlash, when it's passed-on to the people actually using the land. That was Maggie Thatcher's Poll-Tax mistake !

But the government needs to raise more tax, to fund the hospitals and education-reforms properly, it simply can't continue to rely on the World Bank or selling 30-year zero-coupon bonds to Singapore, in the long-run it has to balance its books.

I wonder what alternatives the PTP would propose ? Has former-PM Thaksin yet made any firm proposals, apart from promising that only he knows the economic-answers, and to give him 'his' money back ?

[Thai at Heart]

I can't see that Abhisit will be able to make this pass. This tax runs straight into the heart of the concept of how this country works. He is an amazingly brave man for even trying to propose it. The opposition to this is not split on party lines, rather it is purely based on economic lines.

This attempt clearly shows, PM-Abhisit isn't wholly the elite-controlled puppet, which many might claim. He is willing to put his job on-the-line, to do what he thinks is necessary, this might lose him power in the short-run, but he's young enough to have a long future in Thai politics ahead of him.

Any such tax needs to be set high-enough to be worth collecting, the government needs to avoid the 30-Baht hospital-care administration-cost pitfall, but low-enough so that it won't cause a serious backlash, when it's passed-on to the people actually using the land. That was Maggie Thatcher's Poll-Tax mistake !

But the government needs to raise more tax, to fund the hospitals and education-reforms properly, it simply can't continue to rely on the World Bank or selling 30-year zero-coupon bonds to Singapore, in the long-run it has to balance its books.

I wonder what alternatives the PTP would propose ? Has former-PM Thaksin yet made any firm proposals, apart from promising that only he knows the economic-answers, and to give him 'his' money back ?

All well and true. I wish him all the will in the world to make it fly.

I would suggest that simply getting the law on the books would be an achievement before he worries about a backlash. If he introduces a 1baht per rai tax there will be uproar among some pretty important people in the country. That said, whilst it wouldn't be as momentous as Obama's health care reform, it would be a very memorable day for Thailand if he gets it done.

I don't think he and Korn would have proposed what they propose without working out how to fund it. Abhisit and Korn were shoe horned into the job because they were supposedly very competent. With the education they have I wouldn't expect them to cook up a complete mess.

The poor can't pay, the middle don't want to pay, the really wealthy can dodge. What is the easiest and most identifiable asset to tax? Land.

[moo9]

If it wasn't for the media, I would never know anything is happening in Bangkok. Life in Chiang Mai seems as normal as always.

Same everywhere other than Bangkok. Love the city, but glad I don't live there right now!

Just saw the Aljazeera interview of Abhisit. I have seen him on TV before, but only when speaking Thai. His English is perfect, though he does have a bit of that funny English accent. Just kidding!

Definitely a smart man. Easy going, cool, great answers. Not like the rants of Thaksin.

Indeed he is playing in another league compared with Veera Musigapong, Jatuporn Phromphan, Jakrapob Penkair, Nattawut Sai-kua and others.

Could you imagine one of these guys could become the PM of the Kingdom. Hard to imagine. They lack everything. It would be a shame for the country. And T. is out of question. I think almost 40 - 50 % of the Thai certainly would not accept him as PM again, so the story would start from the beginning.

[moo9]

I wonder what alternatives the PTP would propose ? Has former-PM Thaksin yet made any firm proposals, apart from promising that only he knows the economic-answers, and to give him 'his' money back ?

T. is Mr Super T! He can make anything possible. When he was Governor in BKK he promised to solve the traffic jam problems within 6 months and now I think he promised to turn each North Easterner to a wealthy person within the same period. What a cheap and irresponsible propaganda!

[Samuian]

If it wasn't for the media, I would never know anything is happening in Bangkok. Life in Chiang Mai seems as normal as always.

Same everywhere other than Bangkok. Love the city, but glad I don't live there right now!

Just saw the Aljazeera interview of Abhisit. I have seen him on TV before, but only when speaking Thai. His English is perfect, though he does have a bit of that funny English accent. Just kidding!

Definitely a smart man. Easy going, cool, great answers. Not like the rants of Thaksin.

Indeed he is playing in another league compared with Veera Musigapong, Jatuporn Phromphan, Jakrapob Penkair, Nattawut Sai-kua and others.

Could you imagine one of these guys could become the PM of the Kingdom. Hard to imagine. They lack everything. It would be a shame for the country. And T. is out of question. I think almost 40 - 50 % of the Thai certainly would not accept him as PM again, so the story would start from the beginning.

Don;t worry it won't happen!

That nothing much happens to them right now is they don;t have much of an impact anyway, and that little they can drum up... is fading.. how embarrassing, but as long as they get paid, why shouldn't they go on?

If Rajdamnoern was a "sea of red", try to consider what happens if they (Veera Musigapong, Jatuporn Phromphan, Jakrapob Penkair, Nattawut Sai-kua) however manage to get into parliament and mess with the constitution, the judiciary and the countries assets, have Mr.Thaksin and 111 Politicians pardoned and get back to square one... you haven't seen anything till then! - believe me!

The passive people here in Thailand are the far larger group, they will only move if they see / feel their very own self and freedom threatened, they are last not least Thai, see the last peace campaign, quiet, calm and collected, the majority is embarrassed with this kind of behavior as the red shirts are displaying it - believe me or better just have a good look around and ask some genuine people not those with the "war drums" funny infantile clappers!

[Jerrytheyoung]

The passive people here in Thailand are the far larger group, they will only move if they see / feel their very own self and freedom threatened, they are last not least Thai, see the last peace campaign, quiet, calm and collected, the majority is embarrassed with this kind of behavior as the red shirts are displaying it - believe me or better just have a good look around and ask some genuine people not those with the "war drums" funny infantile clappers!

Who is beating the "war drums"? Is not it some irresponsible guys launching exagerate or fake informations like the 6,000 weapons story or the bombings - which are in reality firecrackers? They are in auto-excitation mode and I am afraid but the Red "Mob" is cool a lot more cool that the other ones. So who are the infantile clappers? The medias supporting the Government?