How To Misappropriate 350 Billion Baht

[virtualtraveller]

Before we borrow any more money, ask yourselves where 350 billion has vanished?

The Govt Rice Pledging Scheme was supposed to help the poor farmer. They bought the rice at 15,000 baht a tonne but the world market only gave them 12,000 per tonne, because rice from India and Vietnam is cheaper. So, during 2012 and 2013 they will likely lose about 350,000,000,000 baht (estimated by World Bank).

First, where does this money come from? The rich tax payers: there’s about 7 million who pay tax on their salaries. It means each one had to help pay about 50,000 baht (about 2 years tax). But they’re rich, they can afford it, and they’re a small group who’s opinion does not count when we choose a govt.

The more important question is this?

Where did this money go?

Well, there were 1 million poor farmers registered in the scheme. So, simple maths means each got 350,000 baht. Did they? Well, has anyone seen new vehicles in your local village? No. Why don’t we all give up our low paid factory jobs to become farmers, earning 350,000 baht extra.

So, where did this money go?

Well, there’s about 4 million farming families in this country, if the govt had used the money more wisely and sent them all a cheque, each household would have received a bonus of 70,000 baht. Did you? That’s more than the annual minimum wage for one farm hand.

So, where did this money go?

Well, there’s 65 million people in this country. If every man, women and child was given a tax rebate, you would get 5,384 baht for every person in your family. Did you?

So, where did this money go?

Well, instead of relying on a corrupt system to get the money directly to the pocket of the poor farmer, maybe the money ended up in the local economy to help with infrastructure. There are 7255 tambons in Thailand, so each could have got 48,000,000 baht. That’s a lot of whisky for the village headmen. Did you see them suddenly richer? No.

So, where did this money go?

Well, maybe it didn’t go to the farmers because the middle men and officials decided the money was better spent on community services like hospitals and schools. If that’s how they have spent the money then we will now have about 10,000 new schools or hospitals built, that’s 500 for every single province in Isarn. Have you seen anything new going up in your district?

The govt insists this scheme is a good idea to help the poor, it has pledged to continue this project for its full term, that’s means 2014 and 2015, so take all these figures above and double them. Then ask your local Peua Thai representative…

Where does all this money go, because we haven’t seen any of it.

[Stradavarius37]

Drink a beer - it's not your problem farang lol

[HeijoshinCool]

Drink a beer - it's not your problem farang lol

*sigh*

[ZhouZhou]

Drink a beer - it's not your problem farang lol

what if he drinks a rice beer?

or maybe he already have.

Edited March 30, 2013 by ZhouZhou

[yourauntbob]

Just like in almost every country, the government has a way of making money disappear without any trace. Your using "simple math", you should be using "government math." Normally this means that for every 10 monetary units spent, 1 monetary unit actually helps someone outside of government employees and elected officials.

[aussiebebe]

Where did the money go? Well, the term misappropriated, that depends on whether the publicly stated intention of helping the poor is the same as the actual intention behind implementation of the policy. If you suppose that the point of the scheme was to destroy Thailand's rice exports then it's been wonderfully successful. The same scheme could have 1) lowered production costs, 2) increased yields per rai, 3) encouraged sustainability 4) improved marketing and trading or 5) subsidized prices. Instead of a blend of all options, betting the house on option 5 when it had been tried and shown not work before was logically the best option to destroy exports.
Why would the government want to leave farmers with high production costs, low yields and inferior marketing and trading practices when these are the party's base supporters? Well my insight is that I live just outside Bangkok and for all the time I've know her, my wife has been paid a stipend to vote. You know why she didn't attend the local election last Sunday? She was only to be given 200baht instead of 300, so 'couldn't be bothered'. That's all you need to know about Thais, politics and Thailand to fathom the pledging mess; enslave the poor, pay them to vote the right way - that's the Thai way. Seen from this perspective, the pledging scheme is perfect Thai politics in action.

Edited March 30, 2013 by aussiebebe

[Rancid]

The money is being stolen by the governmnet, the bureaucrats and the middle men to buy extra mansons and Mercedes Benz. But as another poster suggested don't lose sleep over it, you aren't in a tither over all the money being swindled in your home country, the EU and especially by the Crooked Banksters so why worry about here? None of it it coming your way so get on with life.

[jbrain]

Where did this money go?

Well, there were 1 million poor farmers registered in the scheme. So, simple maths means each got 350,000 baht. Did they? Well, has anyone seen new vehicles in your local village? No. Why don’t we all give up our low paid factory jobs to become farmers, earning 350,000 baht extra.

I have such a feeling that the farmers had to invest some money before their harvest could be sold, so only a small portion of their theoretical 350.000 baht was profit to spend.

Edited March 30, 2013 by jbrain

[mrtoad]

Drink a beer - it's not your problem farang lol

Tax payers should have a right to know

[thaicbr]

Drink a beer - it's not your problem farang lol

Tax payers should have a right to know

And there are quite a few falang tax payers. Myself included.

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

[mrtoad]

Drink a beer - it's not your problem farang lol

Tax payers should have a right to know

And there are quite a few falang tax payers. Myself included.

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

Might need to edit that, the first bit is not my comment

[473geo]

The price for rice increased for the farmer also operating costs increased, (Many now use hired machinery to reap as opposed to family labour) the farmer received 3 baht more for his rice, fertiliser price increased too, so the government by subsidising the rice price slightly increased but more likely protected the 'profit' per kg of the farmer, and the dealers. I would suggest farmers received 2-3 baht above market prices but operating costs increased so although there was no gold strike, there was undoubted benefit in profit protection. Just a government subsidy, you will note that in 2012 Laos set their base at 9-10 baht per kg........that would suggest an additional 30% above market price went to Thai farmers...not bad if they could keep their costs down......so the beneficiaries, fertiliser manufacturers, reaping machine hire firms, agricultural machinery sales and repair locations, local shops and industry, vehicle manufacturers and sales outlets, Wats, door to door salesmen....indeed any trader who came into contact with a rice farmer that found he still had a reasonable profit margin.....in short...the rural economy....

Edited March 30, 2013 by 473geo

[Bockscar]

It's obvious where it goes,it's all spent on water pistols for Songkran!

[473geo]

There are around 40 million people in Thailand who depend on agricuture for all or part of their income, by your figures that would make around 7000 baht per year per person, equates to 583 baht per month or 20 baht per day per person......and you wonder why the difference is not really noticable............maybe it went on the kids pocket money eh?

Edited March 30, 2013 by 473geo

[notmyself]

So, during 2012 and 2013 they will likely lose about 350,000,000,000 baht (estimated by World Bank).

That figure seems a bit low to me. 430 Billion plus more like.

[FunFon]

And there are quite a few falang tax payers. Myself included.

Taxes paid by foreigners here are simply the "user fee" to be permitted to stay here. Paying taxes does not give any rights to interfere with Thai politics, and to the extent you are actually effective at any grassroots activism targeted at helping the common people here you are putting yourself at risk.

But waffling on in public forums is generally so ineffective you are certainly free to waste your own time without concern. But IMO such discussions belong in the News forums.

-

-

There are around 40 million people in Thailand who depend on agricuture for all or part of their income, by your figures that would make around 7000 baht per year per person, equates to 583 baht per month or 20 baht per day per person......and you wonder why the difference is not really noticable............maybe it went on the kids pocket money eh?

-

Actually for people in those income brackets, such paltry figures are indeed significant, and of course the subsidies aren't evenly distributed.

I'm not saying these policies are sensible from any rational POV, just addressing your specific point.

[473geo]

You are correct Funfon the distribution would vary according to output, just as the associated costs would increase regarding the same. My point is two fold. one can present numbers in a variation of ways depending on your motive, there are great deal of non farmers who are reliant on agriculture and benefit from maintaining a profit margin for the farmers agricultural produce. The unseen beneficiaries. My point was not that the amounts are insignificant but for the smaller farmer although welcome, not life changing, especially when increased production costs enter the equation

Edited March 30, 2013 by 473geo

[FunFon]

My point was not that the amounts are insignificant but for the smaller farmer although welcome, not life changing, especially when increased production costs enter the equation

-

I don't think anyone's claiming life-changing benefits here, even most of the poor farmers know the (mostly Chinese) middlemen and bureaucrats are getting most of the benefits and that fundamentally it's a vote-buying scheme that doesn't make macro-economic sense.

But they take whatever they can get don't they, no one expects TPTB to actually make decisions on the basis of benefiting the country as a whole.