Thai Govt Slashes BMA Subsidy By Up To Bt20bn

[Reasonableman]

A

had GK retreated or gone to check his maths?

I can understand everyones reaction to this news and is does stink of being highly politicized.

However, do you have any verifiable facts and figures on what and how the BMA's allocation is spent, and as such you can draw conlcuisons as top whether it is well spent or not, or will you just automatically jump to the conclusion that they are spending it wisely an this is all a sinsiter ploy by the PTP government?

I have none of these figures, but given the comments on here, I am sure you must have?

I thought not.

Apart from innuendo what have you actually produced to back it up?.......................................

I thought not.

[smutcakes]

A

had GK retreated or gone to check his maths?

I can understand everyones reaction to this news and is does stink of being highly politicized.

However, do you have any verifiable facts and figures on what and how the BMA's allocation is spent, and as such you can draw conlcuisons as top whether it is well spent or not, or will you just automatically jump to the conclusion that they are spending it wisely an this is all a sinsiter ploy by the PTP government?

I have none of these figures, but given the comments on here, I am sure you must have?

I thought not.

Apart from innuendo what have you actually produced to back it up?.......................................

I thought not.

Abosultely nothing, but I am not the one criticizing this or making out that this is a stupid decision.

I feel it is probably a political decision, but without proper figures on what and how the money of the BMA is spent, it is impossible to make a proper judgement, but obviously this has not stopped some people.

[Moruya]

had GK retreated or gone to check his maths?

I can understand everyones reaction to this news and is does stink of being highly politicized.

However, do you have any verifiable facts and figures on what and how the BMA's allocation is spent, and as such you can draw conlcuisons as top whether it is well spent or not, or will you just automatically jump to the conclusion that they are spending it wisely an this is all a sinsiter ploy by the PTP government?

I have none of these figures, but given the comments on here, I am sure you must have?

I thought not.

I don't need to know how it is spent - just that it has been slashed. Look at the education budget alone to see how an already poor education might be impacted.

When that is compared to the money being spent on Thaksin's home town, Chaing Mai being somewhere in the order of 10 times the BMA with approximately 1/12th of the population. Add in the high speed rail link and it all adds up.

Feel free to read all about it - http://office.bangkok.go.th/pipd/

[GentlemanJim]

Poor old GK. Bit early in the day to be drinking ain't it?

Indeed - it's the same cost as one of these crappy Chinese tablets - and that was BEFORE it was slashed by 2/3rds!!!

You are NOT supposed to mention the tablets The Government are now hoping everyone has forgotten about them. It seems there has been a blanket news ban on them in the last month. Aren't the first 400 000 supposed to be ready by now?

Edited to add, no sooner had i made this comment then I found a new thread and info on...tablets...Doh!

Edited July 10, 2012 by GentlemanJim

[OzMick]

Guess its easier to burn the city down if they cut the funding first...

Interesting to see the Minister of Interior gets a whopping 100% increase in their funding, Secret Police forces are expensive to opperate so they need the extra cash.

Screw education in the capital, those Bangkok Elites are waay to educated for PTP's liking, makes it difficult for the PM to stand up in Parliament and debate anything when everyone around her is better educated and able to debate better than her, right?

".....makes it difficult for the PM to stand up in Parliament and debate anything...." AFAIK this is yet to happen. The term "debate" indicates a 2-way flow of ideas, not reading from a prepared document and bolting for the door.

[smutcakes]

had GK retreated or gone to check his maths?

I can understand everyones reaction to this news and is does stink of being highly politicized.

However, do you have any verifiable facts and figures on what and how the BMA's allocation is spent, and as such you can draw conlcuisons as top whether it is well spent or not, or will you just automatically jump to the conclusion that they are spending it wisely an this is all a sinsiter ploy by the PTP government?

I have none of these figures, but given the comments on here, I am sure you must have?

I thought not.

I don't need to know how it is spent - just that it has been slashed. Look at the education budget alone to see how an already poor education might be impacted.

When that is compared to the money being spent on Thaksin's home town, Chaing Mai being somewhere in the order of 10 times the BMA with approximately 1/12th of the population. Add in the high speed rail link and it all adds up.

Feel free to read all about it - http://office.bangkok.go.th/pipd/

Thank you for confirming what I thought, that your opinions are purely conjecture, based on no factual information, other than your dislike for the Government.

I cannot see where there is a English part to the link you posted, so I cannot read. Obviously if what you are saying is true regarding the monies spent, it does seem dispraportionate, however again without proper verifiable facts and figures it is impossible to say. I am sure that some people in Chaing Mai would comment, that this investment has been a long time coming.

[planr]

had GK retreated or gone to check his maths?

I can understand everyones reaction to this news and is does stink of being highly politicized.

However, do you have any verifiable facts and figures on what and how the BMA's allocation is spent, and as such you can draw conlcuisons as top whether it is well spent or not, or will you just automatically jump to the conclusion that they are spending it wisely an this is all a sinsiter ploy by the PTP government?

I have none of these figures, but given the comments on here, I am sure you must have?

I thought not.

That's not how public finance works in Thailand. Transfers from the national government (MOF) to the BMA are not earmarked for specific uses in most (if not all) cases. Instead, the MOF transfers revenue raised from various national taxes (e.g., VAT, alcohol, income, property, etc) to the BMA for disbursement / use as they see fit. This link - 203.155.220.230/info/budget/Budget55/budget/center/55_02.pdf - contains budget / revenue (but not expenditure) information for 2010 and projections for 2011 and 2012. To sum it up, the BMA's budget in 2010 looked like this:

BMA Collected Revenue - 9.5 billion baht

Nati'l Govt Transfers - 32.9 billion baht

Other (Assets, Facilities, Commercial Operations, etc) - 3.8 billion baht

TOTAL - 46.2 billion baht

In addition to a lack of knowledge about revenue collection and hypothecation between the BMA and the national government, there also seems to be a lack of comprehension about the provision of basic public services in Bangkok. Namely that the BMA is not responsible for the majority of public education facilities in Bangkok, rather most fall under the Ministry of Education. In fact, in the 2012 budget proposal (here, page 8), the BMA only proposed spending 2.3 billion baht on education, this out of a total proposed budget of 55 billion baht.

Thus any claim that the BMA requested nearly 12 billion baht (and apparently was granted about 5 billion baht) solely for education is a typo or blatant lie... maybe somewhere in between.

In a nutshell, this particular piece of news is a severe blow for the BMA, which effectively reduces there 2013 revenue stream by 35-40%. It is a completely political move on the part of the national government, and you can be sure the BTS concession issue is a factor.

Edited July 10, 2012 by planr

[smutcakes]

had GK retreated or gone to check his maths?

I can understand everyones reaction to this news and is does stink of being highly politicized.

However, do you have any verifiable facts and figures on what and how the BMA's allocation is spent, and as such you can draw conlcuisons as top whether it is well spent or not, or will you just automatically jump to the conclusion that they are spending it wisely an this is all a sinsiter ploy by the PTP government?

I have none of these figures, but given the comments on here, I am sure you must have?

I thought not.

That's not how public finance works in Thailand. Transfers from the national government (MOF) to the BMA are not earmarked for specific uses in most (if not all) cases. Instead, the MOF transfers revenue raised from various national taxes (e.g., VAT, alcohol, income, property, etc) to the BMA for disbursement / use as they see fit. This link - 203.155.220.230/info/budget/Budget55/budget/center/55_02.pdf - contains budget / revenue (but not expenditure) information for 2010 and projections for 2011 and 2012. To sum it up, the BMA's budget in 2010 looked like this:

BMA Collected Revenue - 9.5 billion baht

Nati'l Govt Transfers - 32.9 billion baht

Other (Assets, Facilities, Commercial Operations, etc) - 3.8 billion baht

TOTAL - 46.2 billion baht

In addition to a lack of knowledge about revenue collection and hypothecation between the BMA and the national government, there also seems to be a lack of comprehension about the provision of basic public services in Bangkok. Namely that the BMA is not responsible for the majority of public education facilities in Bangkok, rather most fall under the Ministry of Education. In fact, in the 2012 budget proposal (here, page 8), the BMA only proposed spending 2.3 billion baht on education, this out of a total proposed budget of 55 billion baht.

Thus any claim that the BMA requested nearly 12 billion baht (and apparently was granted about 5 billion baht) solely for education is a typo or blatant lie... maybe somewhere in between.

In a nutshell, this particular piece of news is a severe blow for the BMA, which effectively reduces there 2013 revenue stream by 35-40%. It is a completely political move on the part of the national government, and you can be sure the BTS concession issue is a factor.

Thanks for the info, but difficult to comprehend or comment to much without exependiture info. I agree this is probably very much a political move- and the BTS concession again is probably part of that. Very difficult to know whether this cut in allocation will have any noticable affect on some services, or there was originally far to much padding within the budget. Even if there was padding, I am sure we will be made known about the affect of the cut for political reasons anyway, this is Thailand after all!

[ramrod711]

Guess its easier to burn the city down if they cut the funding first...

Interesting to see the Minister of Interior gets a whopping 100% increase in their funding, Secret Police forces are expensive to opperate so they need the extra cash.

Screw education in the capital, those Bangkok Elites are waay to educated for PTP's liking, makes it difficult for the PM to stand up in Parliament and debate anything when everyone around her is better educated and able to debate better than her, right?

You are probably correct, however she would have to attend parliament before we would know for sure.

[ramrod711]

What is going on here? Did they just slash the government allocated budget for Bangkok by 2/3rd?

Separately, why is this called subsidy? Very confused meaning.

This 20 billion is merely the down payment on Thaksins 46 billion and it is only right that Bangkok pay. If I was a yellow shirt I would burn Chiang Mai.

[Thai at Heart]

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/05/11/national/BMA-approves-2011-budget-plan-30128994.html

They backed an outlay of Bt46 billion, from some Bt102 billion in projects put forward by other agencies.

BMA spokesman Thanom Onketpol said the Bt46-billion budget would spent in five categories: Bt9.5 billion for administration; Bt9 billion for human resources; Bt3 billion for the central budget; Bt15.22 billion for the BMA development budget and Bt9.28 billion for other expenses.

Thanom said this budget was more than the previous year's Bt41 billion because the BMA had boosted its tax income by 10 per cent over the past seven months.

[Thai at Heart]

http://www.nationmul...n-30128994.html

They backed an outlay of Bt46 billion, from some Bt102 billion in projects put forward by other agencies.

BMA spokesman Thanom Onketpol said the Bt46-billion budget would spent in five categories: Bt9.5 billion for administration; Bt9 billion for human resources; Bt3 billion for the central budget; Bt15.22 billion for the BMA development budget and Bt9.28 billion for other expenses.

Thanom said this budget was more than the previous year's Bt41 billion because the BMA had boosted its tax income by 10 per cent over the past seven months.

Not meaning to be glib, but when OTHERS makes up 20%, I would hope there is a hell of a better break down than that.

[Moruya]

Poor old GK. Bit early in the day to be drinking ain't it?

Indeed - it's the same cost as one of these crappy Chinese tablets - and that was BEFORE it was slashed by 2/3rds!!!

You are NOT supposed to mention the tablets The Government are now hoping everyone has forgotten about them. It seems there has been a blanket news ban on them in the last month. Aren't the first 400 000 supposed to be ready by now?

Edited to add, no sooner had i made this comment then I found a new thread and info on...tablets...Doh!

I'm a very naughty boy!

[Thai at Heart]

And here is the kicker.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/06/07/national/BMA-sets-Bt55-bn-budget-30157176.html

Although the 2012 fiscal year budget is very large, it does not stretch fiscal discipline thin, he said.

The capital's savings are also the most ever.

"We have more than Bt30 billion in the bank," he said.

Loose lips and all that. Better to have kept schtum...

[planr]

Not meaning to be glib, but when OTHERS makes up 20%, I would hope there is a hell of a better break down than that.

Try this. I also posted it above (#37). Unless you can read Thai, you won't know what exactly everything is allocated for, but you can see that there are plenty of line items. Also note this is the proposed 2012 expenditures (not 2010 like the old Nation article you linked to)

[Thai at Heart]

Not meaning to be glib, but when OTHERS makes up 20%, I would hope there is a hell of a better break down than that.

Try this. I also posted it above (#37). Unless you can read Thai, you won't know what exactly everything is allocated for, but you can see that there are plenty of line items. Also note this is the proposed 2012 expenditures (not 2010 like the old Nation article you linked to)

This does appear to be a political gesture, but in the article I just linked, someone proudly claims to have had 30bn in the bank. All very nice, but as a public entity, do they really need 1bn USD tied up in the bank?

As for the division between central and local government, as they show in other articles, they don't even get remotely close to covering costs for garbage removal and disposal. Now I haven't lived in Bangkok for a while, but my recollection was that the bill is next to nothing for removing waste in Bangkok for example, so it isn't as though there are plenty of options to get businesses and people to pay a bit more in taxes associated with waste etc.

All political swings and roundabouts. I wouldn't doubt that the PAD may even have something to say about this apparent redistribution wealth.

[h90]

had GK retreated or gone to check his maths?

I can understand everyones reaction to this news and is does stink of being highly politicized.

However, do you have any verifiable facts and figures on what and how the BMA's allocation is spent, and as such you can draw conlcuisons as top whether it is well spent or not, or will you just automatically jump to the conclusion that they are spending it wisely an this is all a sinsiter ploy by the PTP government?

I have none of these figures, but given the comments on here, I am sure you must have?

I thought not.

It is not up to the central government to cut or increase up to what they think if it is spend wisely or stupid.

If there is some serious mismanagement or corruption, than bring it to the courts, not cut the funds.

[Moruya]

had GK retreated or gone to check his maths?

I can understand everyones reaction to this news and is does stink of being highly politicized.

However, do you have any verifiable facts and figures on what and how the BMA's allocation is spent, and as such you can draw conlcuisons as top whether it is well spent or not, or will you just automatically jump to the conclusion that they are spending it wisely an this is all a sinsiter ploy by the PTP government?

I have none of these figures, but given the comments on here, I am sure you must have?

I thought not.

That's not how public finance works in Thailand. Transfers from the national government (MOF) to the BMA are not earmarked for specific uses in most (if not all) cases. Instead, the MOF transfers revenue raised from various national taxes (e.g., VAT, alcohol, income, property, etc) to the BMA for disbursement / use as they see fit. This link - 203.155.220.230/info/budget/Budget55/budget/center/55_02.pdf - contains budget / revenue (but not expenditure) information for 2010 and projections for 2011 and 2012. To sum it up, the BMA's budget in 2010 looked like this:

BMA Collected Revenue - 9.5 billion baht

Nati'l Govt Transfers - 32.9 billion baht

Other (Assets, Facilities, Commercial Operations, etc) - 3.8 billion baht

TOTAL - 46.2 billion baht

In addition to a lack of knowledge about revenue collection and hypothecation between the BMA and the national government, there also seems to be a lack of comprehension about the provision of basic public services in Bangkok. Namely that the BMA is not responsible for the majority of public education facilities in Bangkok, rather most fall under the Ministry of Education. In fact, in the 2012 budget proposal (here, page 8), the BMA only proposed spending 2.3 billion baht on education, this out of a total proposed budget of 55 billion baht.

Thus any claim that the BMA requested nearly 12 billion baht (and apparently was granted about 5 billion baht) solely for education is a typo or blatant lie... maybe somewhere in between.

In a nutshell, this particular piece of news is a severe blow for the BMA, which effectively reduces there 2013 revenue stream by 35-40%. It is a completely political move on the part of the national government, and you can be sure the BTS concession issue is a factor.

Thanks for the info, but difficult to comprehend or comment to much without exependiture info. I agree this is probably very much a political move- and the BTS concession again is probably part of that. Very difficult to know whether this cut in allocation will have any noticable affect on some services, or there was originally far to much padding within the budget. Even if there was padding, I am sure we will be made known about the affect of the cut for political reasons anyway, this is Thailand after all!

So if I cut your pocket money by 2/3rds and don't explain what or why who will you bitch at?

[smutcakes]

had GK retreated or gone to check his maths?

I can understand everyones reaction to this news and is does stink of being highly politicized.

However, do you have any verifiable facts and figures on what and how the BMA's allocation is spent, and as such you can draw conlcuisons as top whether it is well spent or not, or will you just automatically jump to the conclusion that they are spending it wisely an this is all a sinsiter ploy by the PTP government?

I have none of these figures, but given the comments on here, I am sure you must have?

I thought not.

It is not up to the central government to cut or increase up to what they think if it is spend wisely or stupid.

If there is some serious mismanagement or corruption, than bring it to the courts, not cut the funds.

Who is it up to then? Who provides the funds to the BMA?

[Phatcharanan]

However, do you have any verifiable facts and figures on what and how the BMA's allocation is spent, and as such you can draw conlcuisons as top whether it is well spent or not, or will you just automatically jump to the conclusion that they are spending it wisely an this is all a sinsiter ploy by the PTP government?

I have none of these figures, but given the comments on here, I am sure you must have?

I thought not.

Hey! Wait................thats not fair! Give me 10 mins as I have irrefutable evidence..................................I just need to find my Abacus first.

[Moruya]

had GK retreated or gone to check his maths?

I can understand everyones reaction to this news and is does stink of being highly politicized.

However, do you have any verifiable facts and figures on what and how the BMA's allocation is spent, and as such you can draw conlcuisons as top whether it is well spent or not, or will you just automatically jump to the conclusion that they are spending it wisely an this is all a sinsiter ploy by the PTP government?

I have none of these figures, but given the comments on here, I am sure you must have?

I thought not.

It is not up to the central government to cut or increase up to what they think if it is spend wisely or stupid.

If there is some serious mismanagement or corruption, than bring it to the courts, not cut the funds.

Who is it up to then? Who provides the funds to the BMA?

Taxpayers. Most of whom are based in Bangkok.

Corporations. Most of which are headquartered in Bangkok

[smutcakes]

It is not up to the central government to cut or increase up to what they think if it is spend wisely or stupid.

If there is some serious mismanagement or corruption, than bring it to the courts, not cut the funds.

Who is it up to then? Who provides the funds to the BMA?

Taxpayers. Most of whom are based in Bangkok.

Corporations. Most of which are headquartered in Bangkok

yeah okay....i will pop down the BMA office and have a word about their budget requirments as I am taxpayer.

Indirctly you are correct, but the job of governing this falls to the elected Governement no?

I just wanted clarification of who pays out these monies, in response to a comment saying that it was not up to the central governments responsibility.

[Moruya]

yeah okay....i will pop down the BMA office and have a word about their budget requirments as I am taxpayer.

Indirctly you are correct, but the job of governing this falls to the elected Governement no?

I just wanted clarification of who pays out these monies, in response to a comment saying that it was not up to the central governments responsibility.

Indeed it does. And the babbling bimbo should have provided a convincing explanation

[Thai at Heart]

yeah okay....i will pop down the BMA office and have a word about their budget requirments as I am taxpayer.

Indirctly you are correct, but the job of governing this falls to the elected Governement no?

I just wanted clarification of who pays out these monies, in response to a comment saying that it was not up to the central governments responsibility.

Indeed it does. And the babbling bimbo should have provided a convincing explanation

Well, I have often wondered about the 'corporation" tax issue, since there are enormous industrial facilities all dotted around outside Bangkok, but from what I understand, all the tax revenue is classed as generated in Bangkok. By now, Rayong should be paradise, but of course, most of the taxes for say Mapthaput are paid in Bangkok. Roll in the large agribusinesses dotted around the countryside, and the figures for tax generation are severely skewed in Bangkok's favour.

Basically, all roads lead to Bangkok.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Thai at Heart

[planr]

Taxpayers. Most of whom are based in Bangkok.

Corporations. Most of which are headquartered in Bangkok

yeah okay....i will pop down the BMA office and have a word about their budget requirments as I am taxpayer.

Indirctly you are correct, but the job of governing this falls to the elected Governement no?

I just wanted clarification of who pays out these monies, in response to a comment saying that it was not up to the central governments responsibility.

The general public pays a variety of taxes, the vast majority of which are collected by the national government, which then decides how, where, and how much to allocate those revenues. In this instance, the national government is threatening not to allocate what is a pretty standard share to the BMA. The taxpayers have absolutely no say in this, as it is in many countries.

[planr]

Well, I have often wondered about the 'corporation" tax issue, since there are enormous industrial facilities all dotted around outside Bangkok, but from what I understand, all the tax revenue is classed as generated in Bangkok. By now, Rayong should be paradise, but of course, most of the taxes for say Mapthaput are paid in Bangkok. Roll in the large agribusinesses dotted around the countryside, and the figures for tax generation are severely skewed in Bangkok's favour.

Basically, all roads lead to Bangkok.

Yes and no. Corporate taxes are paid to Revenue Department branch offices in each province. Because Thailand is still very centralized in many ways, these funds are largely "managed" by the Revenue Department's HQ in Bangkok. It is then up to the national authorities to re-distribute at their discretion.

What is interesting is that nearly 2/3rds of all tax revenue collected by the RD is collected from Bangkok. This may (or may not) be due to many large corporations having corporate HQ's in BKK but their main production facilities (or otherwise) located in the provinces as you allude to.

Edited July 10, 2012 by planr

[Thai at Heart]

Well, I have often wondered about the 'corporation" tax issue, since there are enormous industrial facilities all dotted around outside Bangkok, but from what I understand, all the tax revenue is classed as generated in Bangkok. By now, Rayong should be paradise, but of course, most of the taxes for say Mapthaput are paid in Bangkok. Roll in the large agribusinesses dotted around the countryside, and the figures for tax generation are severely skewed in Bangkok's favour.

Basically, all roads lead to Bangkok.

Yes and no. Corporate taxes are paid to Revenue Department branch offices in each province. Because Thailand is still very centralized in many ways, these funds are largely "managed" by the Revenue Department's HQ in Bangkok. It is then up to the national authorities to re-distribute at their discretion.

What is interesting is that nearly 2/3rds of all tax revenue collected by the RD is collected from Bangkok. This may (or may not) be due to many large corporations having corporate HQ's in BKK but their main production facilities (or otherwise) located in the provinces as you allude to.

Well i have worked for 4 different companies in different parts of Thailand in exports, and all invoicing was done from Bangkok. I know many others and when i stumbled over the same stats as you i can only conclude that the numbers are skewered because of this.

to register an office you have to pay something to the business development department, beyond that th ere us some local licenses etc, but basically put up a factory in Khon Kaen, buny agricultural products, produce products up country, export, invoice from Bangkok.

Tax revenue appears to have been generated in Bangkok, which in case of one company was over 300mn usd a year but all the operation had in Bangkok was an office of 6 people, up country 1500, plus paying out money to over 25000 farmers.

Not saying it is good or bad just that figures alone appear to overstate the total business activity going on in Bangkok.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Thai at Heart

[smutcakes]

Taxpayers. Most of whom are based in Bangkok.

Corporations. Most of which are headquartered in Bangkok

yeah okay....i will pop down the BMA office and have a word about their budget requirments as I am taxpayer.

Indirctly you are correct, but the job of governing this falls to the elected Governement no?

I just wanted clarification of who pays out these monies, in response to a comment saying that it was not up to the central governments responsibility.

The general public pays a variety of taxes, the vast majority of which are collected by the national government, which then decides how, where, and how much to allocate those revenues. In this instance, the national government is threatening not to allocate what is a pretty standard share to the BMA. The taxpayers have absolutely no say in this, as it is in many countries.

Which is exactly what I said. My only contention was to reply to H90's point that it was not the central governments decision to reduce/increase budgets like the BMA. I think the fact he has not responded signals he/her was talking rubbish.

Just out of interest, why is the amount being given to the BMA a 'pretty standard share' in your opinion?

[Reasonableman]

Just out of interest, if you were the government, how would you try to sell this move as apolitical, not punitive, and not anti-city-dweller?

[MunterHunter]

Just out of interest, if you were the government, how would you try to sell this move as apolitical, not punitive, and not anti-city-dweller?

"Yingluck Handbag fund" is getting low, we cant have our Premier being seen out at important events (such as meetings in hotels) with last years fashions!