Focus On Quality Tourists, Not Quantity, Urges PM Abhisit

[Soutpeel]

Not that it has anything to do with the thread but yes i have travelled through 30 plus countries and am fluent in 2 languages( as in native speaker fluency) and i am well enough educated(i hope 2 degrees, diploma and few certificates is enough to be considered highly educated)

And very modest it seems....

[longway]

I think the prime minister has it wrong - but I imagine he is a 5 star traveler. Once I saw a documentary on TV showing how backpackers and the "thrifty" tourist actuallly help the local economy out more than the 4-5 star traveler. This was because the frugal trourist would get a room at a B&B or a small locally runned hotel than staying at a place that would be owned by some big corporation or international company., Next, the food would also be purchased from some "ma and pa" runned restaurant than at some chain hotel or restaurant. Also, the program I watched brought out how the young traveler is usually into learning about the culture more than the older traveler. So I always thought Thailand had it correct - to attract both kinds of tourists... (and when there were political problems in Thailand, who were the first establishments to suffer? - the international hotel chains.

Hmmm, how do backpackers help the economy? They stay in small cheap hotels who do not pay taxes

They eat in small cheap places, who do not pay taxes

They shop in small cheap shops who do not pay taxes,

So how do they help the economy? considering that hotel chains, retail chains, malls and larger food chains all pay taxes and employ people.

They put cash directly into the hands of the people who need it the most.....

IMO today's backpacker is tomorrow's quality high spending tourist, they will come back in the future with their families, perhaps repeatedly, just because of the good memories and nostalgia.

Edited March 3, 2011 by longway

[inmysights]

Why this AGAIN. And why NOW? When, as already has been stated, tourist numbers are DOWN. Bad exchange rate, ongoing , with no end in sight, problems with Western economies.

As a visiting friend remarked 'Thailand - 3rd World country with First world pricing'.

Abhisit's turning out to be a bigger disappointment than Obama, if that were possible.

Oh well. For those of you who might be interested, watch Zeitgeist Addendum on Youtube. To see how the world really turns ...

[spectre324]

While Thailands premier tourist island cant even tackle a few taxi drivers or thug jetski rentors they want to rebrand (in words not deeds) for quality tourists.

Real quality will come when offered real quality.. Not corrupt official burying garbage on the beaches, selling portions of public land for private use, and due to backhanders and payments allowing sections of the society to beat up and otherwise threaten those sections not yet paying. Simply raising prices doesnt attract the 5 star crowd. When Thailand has 2 star governance they will appeal to 2 star arrivals.. Asking for 5 star prices while having 2 star administration doesnt cut it.

Why would quality tourist come here with the dual pricing in the temples, at the parks and whever else they decide? at least the sex tourist get what they pay for, (std, hiv, lady boys)

[kuffki]

Not that it has anything to do with the thread but yes i have travelled through 30 plus countries and am fluent in 2 languages( as in native speaker fluency) and i am well enough educated(i hope 2 degrees, diploma and few certificates is enough to be considered highly educated)

Backpacker in my opinion is someone who does not have a penny to his name and sets to travel by staying in the cheapest hotels possible, sharing room with 10 others, eating the cheapest food possible and really not having a cent to his name to enjoy the country.In my opinion not only it is far from being enjoyable but hardly productive since there is no money to do or experience anything.

If we are comparing to see whose is biggest, I have been to over 100 countries, have a Ph.D., (but while I speak 4 languages, I am only native fluent in one, so you have me beat there.) And I work here, doing my small part to improve the Thai economy. Not that means anything, as who cares a fig, but only in response to your post as you seem to infer that gives your views more credence.

And 30 years ago, I was a backpacker, mostly in Europe, but a little in Asia, to include Thailand. While I may have shared rooms with others I met, I also went to museums, local cafes, parks, and anywhere which took my fancy. I did not stay at posh hotels, which, to be honest, are the same in most countries. But I met the most eclectic and diverse group of people I have ever had the honor of meeting.

And today, coincidently, as my business partner and I were trying to decide what to do around a trade show in Dusseldorf we will attend in May, I made the decision, based on my backpacking days, to have four of us go to Florence for 4 days and Nice for 2 days. And this time, yes, we will be staying in nice places, spending more money.

Actually we were not comparing anything. Another member whose quoted text you left out asked the questions which i answered.

[warfie]

I think the prime minister has it wrong - but I imagine he is a 5 star traveler. Once I saw a documentary on TV showing how backpackers and the "thrifty" tourist actuallly help the local economy out more than the 4-5 star traveler. This was because the frugal trourist would get a room at a B&B or a small locally runned hotel than staying at a place that would be owned by some big corporation or international company., Next, the food would also be purchased from some "ma and pa" runned restaurant than at some chain hotel or restaurant. Also, the program I watched brought out how the young traveler is usually into learning about the culture more than the older traveler. So I always thought Thailand had it correct - to attract both kinds of tourists... (and when there were political problems in Thailand, who were the first establishments to suffer? - the international hotel chains.

Hmmm, how do backpackers help the economy? They stay in small cheap hotels who do not pay taxes

They eat in small cheap places, who do not pay taxes

They shop in small cheap shops who do not pay taxes,

So how do they help the economy? considering that hotel chains, retail chains, malls and larger food chains all pay taxes and employ people.

They put cash directly into the hands of the people who need it the most.....

IMO today's backpacker is tomorrow's quality high spending tourist, they will come back in the future with their families, perhaps repeatedly, just because of the good memories and nostalgia.

BINGO!

[Ricardo]

Backpacker in my opinion is someone who does not have a penny to his name and sets to travel by staying in the cheapest hotels possible, sharing room with 10 others, eating the cheapest food possible and really not having a cent to his name to enjoy the country.In my opinion not only it is far from being enjoyable but hardly productive since there is no money to do or experience anything.

Even backpackers have to spend some money (food/transport), they rarely stay in hotels either (heard of youth-hostels or camping or guesthouses ?), and it is entirely possible to meet the people and discover & enjoy a new country or culture, without spending a fortune !

And if they didn't enjoy it, they wouldn't do it, now would they ?

I'm afraid that the vast-majority of travellers never do fly 1st-class, or stay in a 5-star hotel, shocking but true ! :jap:

[kuffki]

I think the prime minister has it wrong - but I imagine he is a 5 star traveler. Once I saw a documentary on TV showing how backpackers and the "thrifty" tourist actuallly help the local economy out more than the 4-5 star traveler. This was because the frugal trourist would get a room at a B&B or a small locally runned hotel than staying at a place that would be owned by some big corporation or international company., Next, the food would also be purchased from some "ma and pa" runned restaurant than at some chain hotel or restaurant. Also, the program I watched brought out how the young traveler is usually into learning about the culture more than the older traveler. So I always thought Thailand had it correct - to attract both kinds of tourists... (and when there were political problems in Thailand, who were the first establishments to suffer? - the international hotel chains.

Hmmm, how do backpackers help the economy? They stay in small cheap hotels who do not pay taxes

They eat in small cheap places, who do not pay taxes

They shop in small cheap shops who do not pay taxes,

So how do they help the economy? considering that hotel chains, retail chains, malls and larger food chains all pay taxes and employ people.

They put cash directly into the hands of the people who need it the most.....

Thats correct they put cash into the hands of the people which does not always translate into economy.

Once again hotel chains, retail chains, food chains pay tax. Individuals and small operators do not.

[kuffki]

Backpacker in my opinion is someone who does not have a penny to his name and sets to travel by staying in the cheapest hotels possible, sharing room with 10 others, eating the cheapest food possible and really not having a cent to his name to enjoy the country.In my opinion not only it is far from being enjoyable but hardly productive since there is no money to do or experience anything.

Even backpackers have to spend some money (food/transport), they rarely stay in hotels either (heard of youth-hostels or camping or guesthouses ?), and it is entirely possible to meet the people and discover & enjoy a new country or culture, without spending a fortune !

And if they didn't enjoy it, they wouldn't do it, now would they ?

I'm afraid that the vast-majority of travellers never do fly 1st-class, or stay in a 5-star hotel, shocking but true ! :jap:

No one is arguing that they do not. Pages earlier one of the posters tried to claim that it was the backpackers who are the core and contribute hugely to economy and if they not wanted(which again he/she assumed somehow from the OP, then "WE"(the term he used) will not come to Thailand at all.

[Tiffer]

Get with the programme!

All countries with the possible exception of Nepal, Bhutan etc have a very eclectic mix of visitors.

The PM did not say exclude budget tourism.

The objective is to focus resources on higher end tourism which in turn supports ancillary and auxiliary services and there is NOTHING wrong with that.

Arguably the budget end can take care of itself and when all is said and done an NTO is simply a facilitator.

If you want to see the wealth spread... how about getting on to the TAT to develop better quality regional information... discuss

Tiffer.if the p m did not exclude budget tourists why the quote " watch my lips, no more cheap charlies ", get with the program

@Chuppup

I can't find that quote attributed to the PM anywhere except as the title of this thread and asiaambassador.blogspot.com

The title of the article is as per his comment which is to "focus on quality, not quantity"

If I am wrong, please correct me. Thanks ;-)

[janverbeem]

A good start might be taking a bulldozer through places like Pattaya. Round up all the bargirls on the streets. Quality tourists don't flock to Thailand for ladyboys and the sex industry.

I'd drive a buldozer through your house first....not everything in Pattaya is to do with sex.

No, you are right. But the point remains Pattaya effectively advertises as Thailand as the knock shop of Asia. And that image will overide anything else you try and do to promote the place.

Image isn't everything, but it is an important first step.

Wasn't that image created by their own citizens?

[kuffki]

I think the prime minister has it wrong - but I imagine he is a 5 star traveler. Once I saw a documentary on TV showing how backpackers and the "thrifty" tourist actuallly help the local economy out more than the 4-5 star traveler. This was because the frugal trourist would get a room at a B&B or a small locally runned hotel than staying at a place that would be owned by some big corporation or international company., Next, the food would also be purchased from some "ma and pa" runned restaurant than at some chain hotel or restaurant. Also, the program I watched brought out how the young traveler is usually into learning about the culture more than the older traveler. So I always thought Thailand had it correct - to attract both kinds of tourists... (and when there were political problems in Thailand, who were the first establishments to suffer? - the international hotel chains.

Hmmm, how do backpackers help the economy? They stay in small cheap hotels who do not pay taxes

They eat in small cheap places, who do not pay taxes

They shop in small cheap shops who do not pay taxes,

So how do they help the economy? considering that hotel chains, retail chains, malls and larger food chains all pay taxes and employ people.

Just because there isn't a strict equivalent to the IRS in the US, doesn't mean these small operations are not paying taxes. A small hotel or restaurant either is, or is part-of a piece of real-estate, which means someone is paying property taxes. Those overheads are reflected in the price of the rooms or meals. Taxes have already been levied on the food they buy, the fuel they buy to transport that food, or the pick-up truck they bought to transport what-ever.

As long as money is changing hands the government will always find a way to tax it, whether it be overtly or covertly.

i hate to tell you but only foreigners and those to register the property with land department(hardly anyone) pay property or land tax. They simply do not. Any income under 250 000 per month does not even need to be declared, not to mention that a huge number do not even register as a business or a company and while they do receive the money and spend it(that contributes to economy) but not so much to the big picture(taxes and stats)

[sydneyjed]

The Chinese are now recognised as the 'high end quality tourist' that every country now wants to attract...The problem with this of course is that their tourism industry there is a closed shop as such and while we can take tours into China,just try taking tourists out of China !!!A 'closed shop' is an under statement as all tours ,shopping etc..is jealousy controlled with an iron fist!!Loaded they maybe but all the money stays in just a few hands and where's the benefit in that?

If the govt. want more money spent by Tourists, they can start the ball rolling by charging the same prices for all at National Parks and all other govt. operated facilities....farangs are not stupid when it comes to a two price operation......and i don't want to hear about...".but Thai people are poor and that is the reason"....try telling all the Thai Tourist that roll up at these venues in their Mercedes and BMW's, that they are poor

Oh but they are (poor)

It doesn't matter how rich a Thai you are every Farang is always richer in their Thai eyes. Comparing Farang to Thai the Farang is the rich one and the Thai poor. There are no money trees in Asia they only grow in Farangland.

So what about the chinese,korean,indians,iranians,russians they arent farangs

[kuffki]

PS. Could you may be point out countries who welcome backpackers and openly say so, a link would be great! Thanks in advance once again

The United States, Australia and virtually all European countries welcome low-income travelers. They do not go out of their way to offend any income group because that is an extraordinarily stupid economic policy.

Many of these "low-life scum of the earth" (not my view but apparently the view of others) stay a long time. Because of that, they end up spending a considerable amount of money.

Rich people often stay a short time and spend good money. Do the numbers: One "low life scum of the earth packpacker" spends, perhaps, 400B/d on a budget hotel and another 400B/d on food. Lets make it easy: 1000B/day. They often stay a month (some much longer). 30 d x 1000 = 30,000 B. And that does not include RT airfaire often paid for by their not-so-poor parents back home, so lets throw in another 35000B and we get 65000B being spend by the scum over a period of 30 days.

One rich person spends, maybe, 5000B/day on a fancy hotel and 500B/mean (1500B/day minimum) and stay maybe one week and leaves. 5000 x 7 = 35000 (hotel) + 10500 (food) + RT air (35000) = 80500B. So the poor ("non-quality" person who is not wanted) scum spends 65000B and the rich ("quality person" who is wanted) person spends 80500B. Is the money spent by the poor scum backpacker insignificant?

Yes, I probably underestimated what the rich person spends. But by how much? I do not know. I think the point is valid. Poor people who stay a long time do spend a significant amount of money. The govt. should welcome them to Thailand because there is a huge tourism industry that is in place that caters to them.

Why not promote Thailand as a tourist destination for all income categories? That is what most developed countries do.

Ok, now that you have written 1000 words, please provide a link where countries you had mentioned WANT and INVITE and WELCOME and PREFER backpackers.Just because backpackers go to Australia it really does not mean they are wanted, liked or welcomed, they are simply tolerated.

Also please provide 1 link where Thailand said they DID NOT WANT or DID NOT WELCOME or REFUSED backpackers.

I think you are a bit wrong on Australia. They heavily court the backpacker market, via tools such as working holiday visas, and extensions to those visas of you work for three months in the agricultural sector.

Plenty of research about which shows Australia recognises the importance.

see http://www.ret.gov.a...kers%202003.pdf

http://www.ret.gov.a...d%20Reports.pdf

and more generally

http://www.ret.gov.a...x?k=backpackers

You absolutely right, they court the backpackers to use them for cheap labor, labor that no Australian wants to do. They use them rather then welcome them to explore the country, as no option is given, all must work fruit picking for a set period of time and some get wages which are below the minimum wage.

Even with that, they also get taxed for every dollar they earn. So Australia has a little different reasons for wanting backpackers

PS. Links show that there is a huge number of backpackers, it does not show that Australia promotes itself as a backpackers holiday destination.

Edited March 3, 2011 by kuffki

[kuffki]

Kufki - stop! you're just getting more and more out of your depth. firstly "a link" isn't the only way to find informationSecondly these people can read and make critical inferences - you must try to do the same.THere is plenty of stuff out there with the information you need. rather than blustering about on this thread, why don't you do some research of your own?then hopefully you won't ask such daft questions and put forward such baseless arguments.

Glad to hear google is your best and only friend now, now try analyzing information from google and apply some logic to your posts

[ukrules]

Side note.....Thailand has one of the highest per capita ownership of Mercedes Benz cars of any country in the world, excluding bizarre middle east countries floating in oil....

I saw what I'm pretty sure was a Bentley Continental GT parked in the 'visitors' parking spot of my apartment building a few days ago. It had two small 'thai crest' type badges on the front grill. These cars cost a whole load of money to buy in Europe, never mind in Thailand with all the import duty, etc. At a guess I'd say they would cost $300-400,000 in Thailand, kind of puts the Merc owners in their places I guess.

Who knows, this being Thailand it could have been a hand made copy.

[DP25]

Anyone who's been to Khao San any time lately can see that the backpacker/young/budget family market is doing great. I was there two nights ago and I've never seen so many people there, and it seems every time I go I'm thinking the same thing. Just a ridiculous number of people. That area is going to have to continue expanding to fit everyone as it's just way too crowded now on the main road.

[kuffki]

Side note.....Thailand has one of the highest per capita ownership of Mercedes Benz cars of any country in the world, excluding bizarre middle east countries floating in oil....

I saw what I'm pretty sure was a Bentley Continental GT parked in the 'visitors' parking spot of my apartment building a few days ago. It had two small 'thai crest' type badges on the front grill. These cars cost a whole load of money to buy in Europe, never mind in Thailand with all the import duty, etc. At a guess I'd say they would cost $300-400,000 in Thailand, kind of puts the Merc owners in their places I guess.

Who knows, this being Thailand it could have been a hand made copy.

You not wrong there, i see more Ferrari's and Lamborghini's in Pattaya then i have seen in any other city in the world. To make matters even "worse" they all brand new and i believe each one is nothing less then 20 million baht. Even if some are copies, they still cost around (if not more) few million baht.

[Evolare]

The tourism generated 585 Billion I think this an example where things got lost in translation. which means average tourist spent 37,000 Baht and sounds about right.

Also consider people who buy houses and stuff is not calculated in this considering it doesnt go under tourism so foreign capital to the thai economy in total would if you include Business visa holders, and foreign citizen with residential permits then you are looking att much higher figures than 7% I wouldnt be suprised if it was closed to 20-25% or higher this is me guessing of course. This not counting Multinational company investments...

[maxpower]

Most ex-pats who live in Thailand live behind those gates that keep them away from those great unwashed masses of Thai's, just as do those Thai's with means. Every time the TAT or government official makes a statement about tourism the world collapses around Thailand ex-pat community and all those nay sayers come out in droves. Such a waste of time and childish statements come to bear such as bulldozing down Pattaya or don't bulldoze my house or the math does not add up or this or that crazy statement. Thailand is what it is. Like it or not that's the facts. quality tourists are those who stay in luxury resorts and depart Thailand having never really visited Thailand. Backpackers are a completely different type of tourist, tout, deadbeat all in one. Sex is part of the Thailand package even for the Thai's. There are more sex venues geared for the Thai male than for the visitor or tourist. What are you going to purchase here? Silk is the main item of value and quality. How many of you tourists purchase it? There is so much more to Thailand than its beaches, and its bars, but I dare say 99% of visitors and 89% of those ex-pats living in Thailand never see anything but some stinky bar and the types that cluster there to watch English football and complain about Thailand going to hell. Such a waste of energy you all are. You can put lipstick on a pig but its still a pig.

Attention, this topic does not allow you to speak the truth

[DP25]

Also consider people who buy houses and stuff is not calculated in this considering it doesnt go under tourism so foreign capital to the thai economy in total would if you include Business visa holders, and foreign citizen with residential permits then you are looking att much higher figures than 7% I wouldnt be suprised if it was closed to 20-25% or higher this is me guessing of course. This not counting Multinational company investments...

You think farang paying for sick buffalo and buying houses in Isaan is generating about 70 billion dollars a year? Yeah I don't think so

[Evolare]

Side note.....Thailand has one of the highest per capita ownership of Mercedes Benz cars of any country in the world, excluding bizarre middle east countries floating in oil....

I saw what I'm pretty sure was a Bentley Continental GT parked in the 'visitors' parking spot of my apartment building a few days ago. It had two small 'thai crest' type badges on the front grill. These cars cost a whole load of money to buy in Europe, never mind in Thailand with all the import duty, etc. At a guess I'd say they would cost $300-400,000 in Thailand, kind of puts the Merc owners in their places I guess.

Who knows, this being Thailand it could have been a hand made copy.

actually you counting to low just like kufki said...you have to add about 300% of the purchase price on a car like this so if its 250,000US then your looking at a million US for it in thailand. they got serious taxes on imported cars but I wouldnt say most of them are copies

[Tiffer]

Not that it has anything to do with the thread but yes i have travelled through 30 plus countries and am fluent in 2 languages( as in native speaker fluency) and i am well enough educated(i hope 2 degrees, diploma and few certificates is enough to be considered highly educated)

Backpacker in my opinion is someone who does not have a penny to his name and sets to travel by staying in the cheapest hotels possible, sharing room with 10 others, eating the cheapest food possible and really not having a cent to his name to enjoy the country.In my opinion not only it is far from being enjoyable but hardly productive since there is no money to do or experience anything.

If we are comparing to see whose is biggest, I have been to over 100 countries, have a Ph.D., (but while I speak 4 languages, I am only native fluent in one, so you have me beat there.) And I work here, doing my small part to improve the Thai economy. Not that means anything, as who cares a fig, but only in response to your post as you seem to infer that gives your views more credence.

And 30 years ago, I was a backpacker, mostly in Europe, but a little in Asia, to include Thailand. While I may have shared rooms with others I met, I also went to museums, local cafes, parks, and anywhere which took my fancy. I did not stay at posh hotels, which, to be honest, are the same in most countries. But I met the most eclectic and diverse group of people I have ever had the honor of meeting.

And today, coincidently, as my business partner and I were trying to decide what to do around a trade show in Dusseldorf we will attend in May, I made the decision, based on my backpacking days, to have four of us go to Florence for 4 days and Nice for 2 days. And this time, yes, we will be staying in nice places, spending more money.

Actually we were not comparing anything. Another member whose quoted text you left out asked the questions which i answered.

@Bonobo

Kuffki is quite right. I had a little dig at him for seemingly making the assumption that I am a backpacker (Post #223) on a horse no less...

Unfortunately I only speak 5 languages... (1 fluently, 2 moderately well and 2 very badly) and stopped at an MSc so it would appear he and I are pretty even in the old life experience / education pissing contest

And yes, I did goad him in to providing his definition of "backpacker". Nice one Kuffki. With your consent I can use that in class

Kuffki's opinion seems to be a fairly representative interpretation when we look at the other posts on this thread.

I find that quite interesting irrespective of how much it may (or may not) differ from academic interpretations which abound.

The point is that backpackers, in all their guises, are an important part of tourism whithout which we would be all the poorer, myself included.

I too did my time in the trenches (sometime literally) going around Europe and it was a truely enriching experience.

And yes, many of us do revisit places later in life with frinds and family.

PS My Phd is about 3 years away...

[mca]

Side note.....Thailand has one of the highest per capita ownership of Mercedes Benz cars of any country in the world, excluding bizarre middle east countries floating in oil...

Sincere apologies but that old chestnut raises it's head occasionally and is simply not true.

[Tiffer]

Not that it has anything to do with the thread but yes i have travelled through 30 plus countries and am fluent in 2 languages( as in native speaker fluency) and i am well enough educated(i hope 2 degrees, diploma and few certificates is enough to be considered highly educated)

And very modest it seems....

Oi! We know what happens when people are quoted out of context or the quote misrepresented which reminds me... when did the PM actually say "no more cheap charlies"?

[kuffki]

Not that it has anything to do with the thread but yes i have travelled through 30 plus countries and am fluent in 2 languages( as in native speaker fluency) and i am well enough educated(i hope 2 degrees, diploma and few certificates is enough to be considered highly educated)

And very modest it seems....

Oi! We know what happens when people are quoted out of context or the quote misrepresented which reminds me... when did the PM actually say "no more cheap charlies"?

PM, Never said that. i do not think he ever clarified what he meant by quality.

PS. Soutpeel is very good at making useless and pointless off topic posts with no value to add what so ever.i guess trying to bring down others makes him feel much better about himself

[Jim walker]

Ok, now that you have written 1000 words, please provide a link where countries you had mentioned WANT and INVITE and WELCOME and PREFER backpackers.Just because backpackers go to Australia it really does not mean they are wanted, liked or welcomed, they are simply tolerated.

Newcastle [ UK ] The prime ministers home town I am sure he has had a few good nights out with our Sandra and her pals they welcome backpackers and millionairs and they are all treated the same equality like.

[bonobo]

@Bonobo

Kuffki is quite right. I had a little dig at him for seemingly making the assumption that I am a backpacker (Post #223) on a horse no less...

Unfortunately I only speak 5 languages... (1 fluently, 2 moderately well and 2 very badly) and stopped at an MSc so it would appear he and I are pretty even in the old life experience / education pissing contest

And yes, I did goad him in to providing his definition of "backpacker". Nice one Kuffki. With your consent I can use that in class

Kuffki's opinion seems to be a fairly representative interpretation when we look at the other posts on this thread.

I find that quite interesting irrespective of how much it may (or may not) differ from academic interpretations which abound.

The point is that backpackers, in all their guises, are an important part of tourism whithout which we would be all the poorer, myself included.

I too did my time in the trenches (sometime literally) going around Europe and it was a truely enriching experience.

And yes, many of us do revisit places later in life with frinds and family.

PS My Phd is about 3 years away...

Yes, I read your little dig. It was how he reacted to it which seemed out-of-place to me when coupled with his disparaging remarks about backpackers. But no matter.

[TimTang]

Just because there isn't a strict equivalent to the IRS in the US, doesn't mean these small operations are not paying taxes. A small hotel or restaurant either is, or is part-of a piece of real-estate, which means someone is paying property taxes. Those overheads are reflected in the price of the rooms or meals. Taxes have already been levied on the food they buy, the fuel they buy to transport that food, or the pick-up truck they bought to transport what-ever.

As long as money is changing hands the government will always find a way to tax it, whether it be overtly or covertly.

i hate to tell you but only foreigners and those to register the property with land department(hardly anyone) pay property or land tax. They simply do not. Any income under 250 000 per month does not even need to be declared, not to mention that a huge number do not even register as a business or a company and while they do receive the money and spend it(that contributes to economy) but not so much to the big picture(taxes and stats)

I suppose I should be happy you're not criticizing my spelling and grammar anymore, instead you've resorted to a new technique which I would define as "Baffle them with Bull$hit."

So you're saying that Thailand is like the wild-wild-west where you can just go out, stake out a piece of property, and slap a building on it, while the government remains totally oblivious?

Anything under 250,000/mo is non-taxable? Have you read the labor laws lately? You can download the PDF, in English, on this site if you're interested.

I'd be willing to agree that many small businesses may not be registered, but they still end up paying taxes indirectly when they purchase the products and services required to run them.

Any money that comes into the country that wouldn't otherwise be there, increases the amount of money in circulation within the country. The more money, and the more often that money changes hands, the more revenue the government collects through sales and services.

I'm starting to believe that your avatar is actually a self portrait.

[Lancelot]

A good start might be taking a bulldozer through places like Pattaya. Round up all the bargirls on the streets. Quality tourists don't flock to Thailand for ladyboys and the sex industry.

Thailand should not look a gift horse in the mouth. Very few "Quality" tourists are likely to bother with Thailand at all. The South of France is so much more inviting.

I would agree. Most tourists come to Thailand because its cheap