NCPO, please kill our subsidy culture: Thai opinion

[attrayant]

"Just think of the better air quality that would come from getting more people off the road and onto convenient public transport"

In Thailand there is no such thing as convenient public transport.

The OP is not opining about a world that is, but a world that might be.

..."- not to mention the contribution to the global battle against climate change."

"112km of electric train lines" would not have had much influence on global warning. Solving the Bangkok traffic jams would have more impact and boost economy.

All else being equal, centralized production of carbon emissions is always preferable to decentralized.

[Prbkk]

Free markets work better than subsidies. In Australia there was much angst when subsidies were abandoned for footwear, textiles, automotive. The economy didn't implode: it changed and became stronger through a focus on what a well-educated workforce could do better than others. Subsidies for rice operate in Japan, Korea and Taiwan but that is in recognition of the cultural significance of rice and in those highly developed economies the subsidies are affordable. Similarly rice is of huge cultural significance in Thailand but the Thai economy lacks the higher tech industries to be able to afford subsidies on the scale of recent years. Yes, there should be a subsidy...but modest and sustainable.

[attrayant]

Are you sure? You want to pay for rice what it's worth? You want the trucks that carry that rice should buy diesel for what it's worth? You want an airport tax to pay for what happens there? You want 4,000 baht internet service (not counting the phone line you currently get for 107 baht because it's subsidised) and 40-baht postage. You want people to pay 50 baht per trip on the bus to work, and then point out to your business why they need a very substantial raise or you lose all employees?

Where do you suppose the money to pay for all those subsidies comes from?

Eliminating subsidies is the right thing to do, as long as the money that paid for them stops being collected from the taxpayers. As an added benefit, we cut out the cost of the middleman (government programs that manage the subsidies), thus reducing the tax burden even further.

[BadBouy]

"How can we make sure that taxpayers' money is fairly and equally distributed?"

"Other forms of subsidy need to be eliminated, too. Some politicians hire their children or relatives to work for them, then use official budgets to travel with them overseas. Shouldn't we have a rule that makes such appointments illegal?"

Politicians, corrupt politicians one quickly morphs into the other. Subsidies only give them more power, soon the bulk of the money is heading into the hands of a friend and not where the aid was intended. It does not matter which country it is greed and human weakness. While the free market system may be flawed it applies fairness better than corrupt politicians. I believe even if you were to have the aid distributed by a committee made up of the people who the money was directed towards, soon some people would be getting more help than others. Breaking up monopolies, keeping competition vibrant, and protection of workers being abused should be the job of government. I would add projects that deal transportation, education, health care, and preserving environment are important but you have got to find a way to get the administration of them out of the hands of politicians and their cronies.

My solution to best straiten out politicians is to take the incentive out of having long term political careers, term limits, lower pay, removal of life long benefits, severe penalties for corruption that are strictly enforced. Attract well meaning people that want to make a difference, for them doing a good job would enhance their value in the private sector when they exit government and lead to a lucrative career outside of government. I doubt this would be 100% effective but better than what is going on now.

[robblok]

This reporter sounds like a real <deleted>.

In another article she wrote "How Thais got into this polarised storm is almost beyond imagination." Well if she can't work it out, what got her the job? Just to turn a phrase and supply some figures don't make a jurno. You need to interpret this information, because if you don't the reader will.

If the young girl went to University to become a reporter, who built the university? Probably one of those speeding farmers at 300-400 baht a day.

I liked what Billsmart said "subsides are all necessary to redistribute wealth to counter the inevitable concentration of wealth among a few, and to focus public resources on social goals".

I wonder if this young girl would have the courage to look at the Armed services and the strangle hold they have on directorships of Thai companies while they sit and vote on the economy.

Looking at PTT this morning I could only get their 2008 annual report/directors/managemen/profit/loss. Is this what she meant about getting information from Thai companies? For a public company to have lack of current information on their web site shows contempt to the market place.

I am in 100% agreement with her article. Most people who are not are probably not educated or have invested time in study. Education should be subsidized and free for everyone. After you educated yourself your on your own, you got a basis to succeed at that point.

Why should others then keep paying for your inability to succeed or make a living. If others do better as you so be it. There is nothing wrong with others who are smarter and better making more money. If everyone gets the same no matter what they contribute innovation would never be there. Why innovate or study if in the end your wealth will be redistributed. Why even put effort in your work if it does not matter.. for that matter why work at all.. Others can do that and you can get the money.

My son is Downs Syndrome and high functioning. Recently he had a fall and broke his back. We need to be able to offer a social saftey net to all people.

Up until I was 30 I worked in real estate and in my last year earned in the top 10% of people in Oz. But I wasn't seeing my family. I wanted to put more into my sons welfare. I got a job in disabilities earning about $10. ph. I decided I wanted to go back and study. I was fortunate to get in under scheme that I didn't have to pay too much. I passed at a credit level, ended up working in Drug and Alcohol. when I left studies I went into disabilities but found it very political and a throw back to the blue rinse brigade.

I have help set up a service that is now achieving income of over $1 millon a year. When I started in that service it was achieving $110,000 per year. On leaving studies I also set up a position in public health where the person who took over recieved an Order of Australia Medal. The position was the first dedicated Hepatitis C welfare postion in NSW Health. I also advocated for shooting galleries for IV users in NSW, not because that was a good idea, but because they saved lives and also gave the opportunity to get people clean.

Some social welfare programs actually save the economy money.

Some times you need to say to someone, come here now look at it from this side and see how different things are. Or, but there for the grace of God go I.

Lifes choices are different for all.

If I stayed working in Real Estate I probably would have a lot more money. The work I have done over the last 20 years has feed my soul, and put food on the table.

You see our tax money pays for social reform. At 28 and paying $30,000 in tax I was annoyed, but I know my 30 year old son is now being taken care of. I am in my mid 50's and haven't worked for 6 years due to a chronic illness. I am not on a pension or welfare payments. But its there if I need it.

For 20 years I worked in welfare. Do people need help Rob, my experience and education says yes.

I would suggest to the reporter in the story to spend some time with people that need help. There is a HIV service in Pattaya that I would suggest; there she could hold a childs hand. I am sure the child would get a lot out of someone holding their hand.

I am not that cold as I might seem, sure there are people who need help. However in my experience the welfare state is grossly abused and creates a tax level for working people that is just unfair. People like your son should be helped however, people should as a rule making their own money. Creating a group that is always dependent on welfare is totally wrong. The sick / old are an exception to the rule. I am talking about able bodied people.

I feel real strongly in helping people to fish (as a saying) instead of giving them fish. So I am all for free and equal good education. For the sick and old there should be provisions.

If you want to exclude farmers / transporters from the diesel.. there is such a thing as "red diesel" that could be tried here with some modifications. But other then that why let one group of people pay a lot for fuel and others not.

I still stand by my words that farmers if they can't compete (after having had a short term subsidy for re education / changing crops or stopping farming) having to find something else. No need for everyone to pay for something that just can be done cheaper and better by an other person.

I have seen how the welfare state brings people down, how it taxes the middle class too much. It kills innovation, makes some people lazy.

You did your thing and made your choices.. do you think you should have gotten money when you decided to change jobs ? Or do you see it as a personal choice ?. As for your back in my experience (even with myself as I worked for a boss and was the boss) people earning wages are easier sick as those who are self employed. The latter only stop when they are really sick while people earning wages could have a hangover from the weekend and stop working. That is the problem is when to give money and when not to. Helping should be a last resort, only for those really in need.. and then should supply enough.

If you keep the level of getting in high you can keep the benefits on a good level. If too easy it will wreck an economy.

[robblok]

Free markets work better than subsidies. In Australia there was much angst when subsidies were abandoned for footwear, textiles, automotive. The economy didn't implode: it changed and became stronger through a focus on what a well-educated workforce could do better than others. Subsidies for rice operate in Japan, Korea and Taiwan but that is in recognition of the cultural significance of rice and in those highly developed economies the subsidies are affordable. Similarly rice is of huge cultural significance in Thailand but the Thai economy lacks the higher tech industries to be able to afford subsidies on the scale of recent years. Yes, there should be a subsidy...but modest and sustainable.

.. I woke up and ended in a parallel universe I can actually agree with stuff that you post.

[SantiSuk]

The author seems never to have heard of diesel-powered engines for cars. I agree with the general argument he promotes but his example is full of holes.

[billd766]

For Wandasloan post #60

My apologies for not replying directly but the board would not accept my post as there were too many quotes.

Firstly my apologies to you about the word slaughtered.

Thank you for putting in the post and saving me the job of looking for it.

It was from Thumper101 and was in the post I replied to.

From Thumper101 "So you are saying that there will be an uprising against them followed by mass slaughter and that it ALWAYS happens????"

Your reply " Pretty much, yep."

It seemed to me that you agreed with him about the mass slaughter.

[Thai at Heart]

So you are saying that there will be an uprising against them followed by mass slaughter and that it ALWAYS happens????

Pretty much, yep.

Man, you are seriously off the rails on this issue.

Well, we'll see, won't we? The thing is, I'm only better that the same thing that always has happened will happen again.

Listen, do me a favour if you want. If the army has intervened successfully 11 up until April. If it's so great at setting things on a clean, pristine democratic road, why did it do it the previous 10 times and now again this time? That is, what has the army EVER achieved with a coup that was positive for the country.

And yes, the army pretty well always has a coup, fails eventually to stifle dissent, faces an uprising, kills many people in the uprising and then backs off by proclaiming victory. What victory? Hundreds and hundreds of Thais dead at military hands, in the past 41 years alone. What has Thailand gained from all this bloodshed, and why do you think something different will happen this time?

.

Tell you what, since you seem to think you know what you are talking about I'd be interested in an answer to the following

(Referring to Political landscape)

1. Who in your opinion are the top 5 people/groups that have gained in Thailand over the last 11 years Financially

2. Same question except who has lost the most

3. Did the country benefit from the Rice Scheme

4. Did the Farmers benefit from the rice scheme

5. Should the military have stepped in. yes/no

6. Was Democracy working in Thailand yes/no

You don't know the real answers to half of those questions other than what you are fed on here and in the Nation.

[fab4]

So you are saying that there will be an uprising against them followed by mass slaughter and that it ALWAYS happens????

Pretty much, yep.

Man, you are seriously off the rails on this issue.

Well, we'll see, won't we? The thing is, I'm only better that the same thing that always has happened will happen again.

Listen, do me a favour if you want. If the army has intervened successfully 11 up until April. If it's so great at setting things on a clean, pristine democratic road, why did it do it the previous 10 times and now again this time? That is, what has the army EVER achieved with a coup that was positive for the country.

And yes, the army pretty well always has a coup, fails eventually to stifle dissent, faces an uprising, kills many people in the uprising and then backs off by proclaiming victory. What victory? Hundreds and hundreds of Thais dead at military hands, in the past 41 years alone. What has Thailand gained from all this bloodshed, and why do you think something different will happen this time?

.

No matter whether if it's the subsidies, dredging a klong, or any topic, it always comes down to the bad 'ol army, doesn't it Wanda?

A little more on off-topic items. The last coup was bloodless and this one has also been bloodless so far. Up to the 1991/2 coup there were killings during the takeovers. Yes hundreds were killed but the police killed thousands during Thaksin's 'war on drugs' so they are the 'champion' killers in recent years.

One also needs to ask oneself why there have been so many coups. Could it have been because of incompetent, self-serving governments, that were wrecking the economy and people's lives?

Whether this is different to (say) 1992 or 2006 is unknown and continuing to crystal ball forecast that it's the same again has just as much validity that Brazil are going to win the World Cup just because they did it before.

Now to the topic. I agree with those who have panned this OP as Bangkok centric and patronising. Subsidies are not all bad. The recent rice subsidy was a very bad example of how not to do it. Rice farmers do need assistance but there must be a limit to how much is subsidised (exclude what is exported) and the third crop is somewhere to start.

Other subsidies such as the diesel one are more than justified and keeps transport costs for companies, farmers, and Songkran travellers down.

"but the police killed thousands during Thaksin's 'war on drugs' so they are the 'champion' killers in recent years."

Well actually, No, it depends on what you call recent. Try investigating what happened between 1972 and 1975 in Phattalung Province. Keyword "red drum"

[Scott]

I would very strongly suggest that you chose your words very, very carefully. We have posters to treading a very fine line.

Please exercise care in what you post and how your posts are worded.

[bangon04]

Free markets work better than subsidies. In Australia there was much angst when subsidies were abandoned for footwear, textiles, automotive. The economy didn't implode: it changed and became stronger through a focus on what a well-educated workforce could do better than others. Subsidies for rice operate in Japan, Korea and Taiwan but that is in recognition of the cultural significance of rice and in those highly developed economies the subsidies are affordable. Similarly rice is of huge cultural significance in Thailand but the Thai economy lacks the higher tech industries to be able to afford subsidies on the scale of recent years. Yes, there should be a subsidy...but modest and sustainable.

Surely the entire Thai economy operate on a form of subsidy - namely Protectionism. Real competition from outside Thailand is blocked by so many rules and reserved occupations, reserved businesses. The whole Thai banking system is propped up by the refusal to allow HSBC to compete on an equal market basis within Thailand.

Subsidies - Also practised by most developed economies, to a greater or lesser extent. Farming subsidies are common, tax breaks for overseas investments, tax loopholes for multinational companies etc etc.

[moe666]

"Just think of the better air quality that would come from getting more people off the road and onto convenient public transport"

In Thailand there is no such thing as convenient public transport.

Really? Never used the BTS or the likes of Nakhonchai Air Coaches? I'd say they're very convenient myself.

You're right. The exception to the rule.

I guess the red taxis in Chiang Mai are also exception to the rule by carrying 4 or 5 people around instead of them driving a car.

[moe666]

Free markets work better than subsidies. In Australia there was much angst when subsidies were abandoned for footwear, textiles, automotive. The economy didn't implode: it changed and became stronger through a focus on what a well-educated workforce could do better than others. Subsidies for rice operate in Japan, Korea and Taiwan but that is in recognition of the cultural significance of rice and in those highly developed economies the subsidies are affordable. Similarly rice is of huge cultural significance in Thailand but the Thai economy lacks the higher tech industries to be able to afford subsidies on the scale of recent years. Yes, there should be a subsidy...but modest and sustainable.

Please show me a country that has an absolutely free market, there are tax breaks and subsidies used to give someone or some company a break or a leg up on there competition. Even that so called leader of free markets, the US, have these given and supported by the so called leaders of free markets the Republicans.

[billsmart]

Free markets work better than subsidies. In Australia there was much angst when subsidies were abandoned for footwear, textiles, automotive. The economy didn't implode: it changed and became stronger through a focus on what a well-educated workforce could do better than others. Subsidies for rice operate in Japan, Korea and Taiwan but that is in recognition of the cultural significance of rice and in those highly developed economies the subsidies are affordable. Similarly rice is of huge cultural significance in Thailand but the Thai economy lacks the higher tech industries to be able to afford subsidies on the scale of recent years. Yes, there should be a subsidy...but modest and sustainable.

Please show me a country that has an absolutely free market, there are tax breaks and subsidies used to give someone or some company a break or a leg up on there competition. Even that so called leader of free markets, the US, have these given and supported by the so called leaders of free markets the Republicans.

moe666 is absolutely correct. All Western countries and most of the world have a hybrid by system: part capitalist and part socialist. In the USA that's called Keynesian economics. The free market is managed to some extent by the government and progressive rate tax systems and social programs (such as subsidies) are used to redistribute wealth.

In most cases the political arguments are just about what is the best ratio and where these two systems should be implemented.

[robblok]

Free markets work better than subsidies. In Australia there was much angst when subsidies were abandoned for footwear, textiles, automotive. The economy didn't implode: it changed and became stronger through a focus on what a well-educated workforce could do better than others. Subsidies for rice operate in Japan, Korea and Taiwan but that is in recognition of the cultural significance of rice and in those highly developed economies the subsidies are affordable. Similarly rice is of huge cultural significance in Thailand but the Thai economy lacks the higher tech industries to be able to afford subsidies on the scale of recent years. Yes, there should be a subsidy...but modest and sustainable.

Please show me a country that has an absolutely free market, there are tax breaks and subsidies used to give someone or some company a break or a leg up on there competition. Even that so called leader of free markets, the US, have these given and supported by the so called leaders of free markets the Republicans.

moe666 is absolutely correct. All Western countries and most of the world have a hybrid by system: part capitalist and part socialist. In the USA that's called Keynesian economics. The free market is managed to some extent by the government and progressive rate tax systems and social programs (such as subsidies) are used to redistribute wealth.

In most cases the political arguments are just about what is the best ratio and where these two systems should be implemented.

Sure Bill, but most economies don't give crazy amounts to the farmers. Most of it is to develop and steer economies. As an accountant I see the Dutch fiscal plans and how they steer things in a certain direction. Like stimulating electric cars. However they won't stimulate that forever. Stimulating solar panels. There is a difference between stimulating a thing, and waiting for it to be able to stand on its own feed as opposed to keeping them on the subsidy infuse for a lifetime.

This is where we differ, I don't see a problem helping farmers short term to develop (other countries have a far better rice yield) but if they really can't compete.. accept it and move on (after having helped them re educate). In the Netherlands for instance fishing trawlers were bought up by the government to decrease the size and make it more profitable for the ones left. No way would they keep subsidizing. That is what I am against, then you make people dependent on it and its of course a sure thing to buy votes.

I find the welfare system good in a way, however there are too many leeches too and that makes it costly and build resentment.

[Chris Lawrence]

This reporter sounds like a real <deleted>.

In another article she wrote "How Thais got into this polarised storm is almost beyond imagination." Well if she can't work it out, what got her the job? Just to turn a phrase and supply some figures don't make a jurno. You need to interpret this information, because if you don't the reader will.

If the young girl went to University to become a reporter, who built the university? Probably one of those speeding farmers at 300-400 baht a day.

I liked what Billsmart said "subsides are all necessary to redistribute wealth to counter the inevitable concentration of wealth among a few, and to focus public resources on social goals".

I wonder if this young girl would have the courage to look at the Armed services and the strangle hold they have on directorships of Thai companies while they sit and vote on the economy.

Looking at PTT this morning I could only get their 2008 annual report/directors/managemen/profit/loss. Is this what she meant about getting information from Thai companies? For a public company to have lack of current information on their web site shows contempt to the market place.

I am in 100% agreement with her article. Most people who are not are probably not educated or have invested time in study. Education should be subsidized and free for everyone. After you educated yourself your on your own, you got a basis to succeed at that point.

Why should others then keep paying for your inability to succeed or make a living. If others do better as you so be it. There is nothing wrong with others who are smarter and better making more money. If everyone gets the same no matter what they contribute innovation would never be there. Why innovate or study if in the end your wealth will be redistributed. Why even put effort in your work if it does not matter.. for that matter why work at all.. Others can do that and you can get the money.

My son is Downs Syndrome and high functioning. Recently he had a fall and broke his back. We need to be able to offer a social saftey net to all people.

Up until I was 30 I worked in real estate and in my last year earned in the top 10% of people in Oz. But I wasn't seeing my family. I wanted to put more into my sons welfare. I got a job in disabilities earning about $10. ph. I decided I wanted to go back and study. I was fortunate to get in under scheme that I didn't have to pay too much. I passed at a credit level, ended up working in Drug and Alcohol. when I left studies I went into disabilities but found it very political and a throw back to the blue rinse brigade.

I have help set up a service that is now achieving income of over $1 millon a year. When I started in that service it was achieving $110,000 per year. On leaving studies I also set up a position in public health where the person who took over recieved an Order of Australia Medal. The position was the first dedicated Hepatitis C welfare postion in NSW Health. I also advocated for shooting galleries for IV users in NSW, not because that was a good idea, but because they saved lives and also gave the opportunity to get people clean.

Some social welfare programs actually save the economy money.

Some times you need to say to someone, come here now look at it from this side and see how different things are. Or, but there for the grace of God go I.

Lifes choices are different for all.

If I stayed working in Real Estate I probably would have a lot more money. The work I have done over the last 20 years has feed my soul, and put food on the table.

You see our tax money pays for social reform. At 28 and paying $30,000 in tax I was annoyed, but I know my 30 year old son is now being taken care of. I am in my mid 50's and haven't worked for 6 years due to a chronic illness. I am not on a pension or welfare payments. But its there if I need it.

For 20 years I worked in welfare. Do people need help Rob, my experience and education says yes.

I would suggest to the reporter in the story to spend some time with people that need help. There is a HIV service in Pattaya that I would suggest; there she could hold a childs hand. I am sure the child would get a lot out of someone holding their hand.

I am not that cold as I might seem, sure there are people who need help. However in my experience the welfare state is grossly abused and creates a tax level for working people that is just unfair. People like your son should be helped however, people should as a rule making their own money. Creating a group that is always dependent on welfare is totally wrong. The sick / old are an exception to the rule. I am talking about able bodied people.

I feel real strongly in helping people to fish (as a saying) instead of giving them fish. So I am all for free and equal good education. For the sick and old there should be provisions.

If you want to exclude farmers / transporters from the diesel.. there is such a thing as "red diesel" that could be tried here with some modifications. But other then that why let one group of people pay a lot for fuel and others not.

I still stand by my words that farmers if they can't compete (after having had a short term subsidy for re education / changing crops or stopping farming) having to find something else. No need for everyone to pay for something that just can be done cheaper and better by an other person.

I have seen how the welfare state brings people down, how it taxes the middle class too much. It kills innovation, makes some people lazy.

You did your thing and made your choices.. do you think you should have gotten money when you decided to change jobs ? Or do you see it as a personal choice ?. As for your back in my experience (even with myself as I worked for a boss and was the boss) people earning wages are easier sick as those who are self employed. The latter only stop when they are really sick while people earning wages could have a hangover from the weekend and stop working. That is the problem is when to give money and when not to. Helping should be a last resort, only for those really in need.. and then should supply enough.

If you keep the level of getting in high you can keep the benefits on a good level. If too easy it will wreck an economy.

Rob never meant that you were cold. Just thought I would share some of my experience.

I agree there are time when things should be tightened. Even with welfare.

The thing I found in welfare was that many delivering the service were show ponies or couldn't relate to their target audience. One quality I delivered was looking for economic outcomes which equal success. To do this you need to measure what effect the work you are doing is having on the community.

Without proper measures and the right people doing the work, you end up with skewed results or no results. This is not what the general public deserve and give ammunition to welfare bashers.

In one service I dealt with long term addicts, 85% with goal or probahtion and parole issues. Within 8 weeks of hitting our door, they had a job. We schooled them on computers, budgeting, dress sence/grooming and resumes. If they didn't get a job I would have to kick them out. Never once did I do this. This was a live in service; we had a pool, a commercial quality gym, eduacted on good eating habits, savings and re-connecting with family, while living in a family enviroment. To get results you needed to develop respect and trust. If you don't get this better off not comming in to work. We had results of 65-75% completing the 6-12 month program. They would leave clean and have savings of $3000 to $5000+ in their bank accounts and a job. Of course some would come back. Didn't work the first time for all, but they knew what they had to do next time.

I tried to get Centrlink funding. They wanted us to jump thru their hopes running on their checks and balances. Their checks and balance cost too much money. The resaon I did this as I went to a job placement agency and told them that their way of dealing with my clients was not good. They wanted to run them thru courses for about 20 weeks to condition them to work, I did this in less than eight and cheaper. The job placement agencey got paid by the Government about $12000 to $15000 to "case manage" these clients. More time in their system the more they got paid.

So sometimes it is the system operating that is more the problem together with the people running that system. I only dealt with motivated people, but our system is what motivated these people.

Again Rob, just my experience to say that yeah peole need help. When the right help is given change will happen. I would never tolerate being abused or treated like a mug.

Its trying to work out what subsidies are actually working and the ones where you are being taken for a ride. No one doesn't want to be poor. The Thais changed from opium to growing tobacoo. This was a major change in a community. Education is important. Support is important when change is occuring. What I see with this junta and the Bangkok elites is that the programs or subsidies for the farming areas are not supported. Doing this will always set one for failure.

I think 'kill' is a strong word to which I may have over-reacted and I think 'review' would have been a more appropriate. Just my 2 bob's

[BSJ]

"Personally, I hate it when a pickup driver overtakes my car at dangerous speed - I know he can only afford to burn that energy because of the subsidy."

Personally, I hate it when some numbnuts driving a pi$$y eco car blocks my progress, or pulls out of a side street at funeral director speed, or screws around in the car park...but hey, I don't write a full page article about a whole range of things to hide my anger at the things that peeve me.

Are journalists trained in Thailand or can anyone become one?