2015 Thai budget bill: NCPO aims to avoid debt

[webfact]

2015 BUDGET BILL
NCPO aims to avoid debt
Prapasri Osathanont
The Nation


Junta chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha gestures while addressing yesterday

Prayuth vows 2015 budget won't burden country, will boost economy

BANGKOK: -- Junta chief Prayuth Chan-ocha told the National Legislative Assembly yesterday the proposed budget would not leave problems or debt for the country in the long run - as he would only be in power for one year.

"I don't want to create a burden. There is no debt. Only one year [in power], I will do what should be done. We will find the problems and solutions with a clear roadmap," he told the military-dominated NLA.

"Don't say the NCPO can do everything. I'm not an angel. You have to help me. If I say [something], I have to take responsibility. First of all we must develop the human resources to move the country forward."

Prayuth, chairman of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), proposed the new budget bill yesterday for approval by the Assembly. The fiscal 2015 budget of Bt2.575 trillion will adhere to the principles of economic sufficiency.

The legislative assembly voted 183 in favour of supporting the bill on the first reading while three abstained. More than half of the 197 members of the Parliament are security officials.

"Nobody had any problems. Nobody disagreed," Prayuth said.

The Army chief expects the economy to recover in the latter half of this year on the back of a clearer political situation and effective budget measures. The budget was set to be in deficit, adhering to the principles of economic sufficiency, he said.

The Budget bill for fiscal 2015, which has input from all ministries with departmental plans and projects, conformed to the 11th National Economic and Social Development Plan (2012-2016) and spending had to follow fiscal and monetary disciplines, he said.

"The construction costs should lower [by] 10-30 per cent without kickbacks," he said. "The national strategy needed to focus on both agriculture and manufacturing. Quarterly reports of budget spending should be done," Prayuth said.

Of the total budget, Bt2.53 trillion would be used as expenditure for state enterprises and other state agencies, and about Bt41.97 billion will be repaid for Treasury balance.

Prayuth was optimistic about a Thai economic recovery from now on, expecting GDP growth next year to range between 3.5-4.5 per cent driven by global economic recovery, improvement in global trade and Thai export expansion following estimated growth this year of 1.5-2 per cent. Meanwhile, inflation next year is projected at 1.8-2.8 per cent.

He said that the country's current account is expected to be in surplus after exports improve and tourism recovers. Net revenue collection is estimated at Bt2.43 trillion, up 2.1 per cent year-on-year, for the 2015 fiscal year.

After tax allocation of Bt109 billion to local administrative organisations, net revenue for government expenditure is expected at Bt2.325 trillion or 17.6 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). The fiscal year's budget for expenditure is set at Bt2.575 trillion.

Now, the treasury balance totals Bt333.43 billion.

Prayuth said this year's budget extended from the celebration of Her Royal Highness Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn's fifth cycle birthday anniversary and saw solutions to and improvement of the southernmost provinces, implementation under the Asean Economic Community (AEC), prevention and suppression of corruption, and human resource development.

National budget expenditures would fully cover all financial sources, including budget, off-budget and borrowings. Reviews will be made for necessities in projects and operations. The budget for investment was set at Bt450.16 billion, which would be made for land and construction from the central area to all regions.

Some 19.5 per cent of this year's budget will be set aside for the Ministry of Education, the highest allocation.

Strategic budget allocation extends from Bt955.92 billion for education, health care, virtue and merits, quality of life, Bt222.76 billion for state security, Bt186.24 billion for the increase of confidence and acceleration of the nation's foundation, Bt169.11 billion for economic growth with sustainability, Bt135.12 billion for national resource allocation and environment.

Some Bt24.74 billion is set aside for scientific, technological development, research and innovation, Bt9.59 billion for foreign and international affairs, Bt354.48 billion for the nation's good administration and Bt517.02 billion for state operations.

The extraordinary committee, consisting of 50 members, will prepare its interpretation within seven days and its report must be final by September 11. The agenda will be forwarded to the NLA meeting during September 17-18.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/NCPO-aims-to-avoid-debt-30241210.html


-- The Nation 2014-08-19

[terryp]

I wish him well ...as when he steps down it will be the usual thai feeding frenzy yet again (they need to give the laws on government/political and business corruption a massive update)

[kalbo123]

Good to see the General is not wearing his Army costume anymore and is ready for his new function.

[chotthee]

The easiest way to avoid debt is to issue a law cancelling all debt.

He can do that.

No one can say a thing.

[Thanet]

The easiest way to avoid debt is to issue a law cancelling all debt.

He can do that.

No one can say a thing.

Agreed, that's all he has to do.

We'll not only be happy, but debt free and happy.

[Thanet]

Good to see the General is not wearing his Army costume anymore and is ready for his new function.

His new function is the same as his old function. It's enshrined in the constitution.

[Eric Loh]

Suprise (or maybe not) no one in the NLA question how we avoid debt when we have budget allocation at 2.5T B and a revenue of 2.4T B and a 3T B infrastructure project. How all this can equates to no debt. Too many yes men in NLA.

[tingtongteesood]

The bitter and twisted red fan boys rear their ugly heads again. At least he is aiming to keep debt down rather than corruptly take a boatload of money and put everyone else into debt, unlike some people we could mention. Good luck to him and let's hope he knows what he is doing.

[Ricardo]

Perhaps some would prefer, that Thailand take on trillions of Baht in 50-year zero-coupon bonds, to pay for infrastructure 'investments' which carry a high risk of corruption, and which haven't yet been demonstrated to have a payback ?

'Steady as she goes' is not a bad policy, borrow only where there is a clear longer-term benefit from doing so, would any of us act differently in our personal-finances ?

Here Endeth the First Lesson, from the Holy Book of Accountancy !

[smutcakes]

Perhaps some would prefer, that Thailand take on trillions of Baht in 50-year zero-coupon bonds, to pay for infrastructure 'investments' which carry a high risk of corruption, and which haven't yet been demonstrated to have a payback ?

'Steady as she goes' is not a bad policy, borrow only where there is a clear longer-term benefit from doing so, would any of us act differently in our personal-finances ?

Here Endeth the First Lesson, from the Holy Book of Accountancy !

How are they borrowing now?

[smutcakes]

The bitter and twisted red fan boys rear their ugly heads again. At least he is aiming to keep debt down rather than corruptly take a boatload of money and put everyone else into debt, unlike some people we could mention. Good luck to him and let's hope he knows what he is doing.

How is the 'circa' 2.4 trillion project being financed now? certainly not by a budget surplus.

[ginjag]

Perhaps some would prefer, that Thailand take on trillions of Baht in 50-year zero-coupon bonds, to pay for infrastructure 'investments' which carry a high risk of corruption, and which haven't yet been demonstrated to have a payback ?

'Steady as she goes' is not a bad policy, borrow only where there is a clear longer-term benefit from doing so, would any of us act differently in our personal-finances ?

Here Endeth the First Lesson, from the Holy Book of Accountancy !

How are they borrowing now?

slow in accepting the post---now double post.

Edited August 19, 2014 by ginjag

[ginjag]

Perhaps some would prefer, that Thailand take on trillions of Baht in 50-year zero-coupon bonds, to pay for infrastructure 'investments' which carry a high risk of corruption, and which haven't yet been demonstrated to have a payback ?

'Steady as she goes' is not a bad policy, borrow only where there is a clear longer-term benefit from doing so, would any of us act differently in our personal-finances ?

Here Endeth the First Lesson, from the Holy Book of Accountancy !

How are they borrowing now?

From PTP?? they should be well oiled after 3 years in office.

[Ricardo]

Perhaps some would prefer, that Thailand take on trillions of Baht in 50-year zero-coupon bonds, to pay for infrastructure 'investments' which carry a high risk of corruption, and which haven't yet been demonstrated to have a payback ?

'Steady as she goes' is not a bad policy, borrow only where there is a clear longer-term benefit from doing so, would any of us act differently in our personal-finances ?

Here Endeth the First Lesson, from the Holy Book of Accountancy !

How are they borrowing now?

Good question.

By stuffing long-term debt into the BoT, against its will, in one case a couple of years ago ?

By forcing government-owned banks to lend, against government guarantees, and medium-term (2-3 year) bonds in the case of the rice-scheme ?

This is interesting http://dw.mof.go.th/foc/gfs/database/ta5.html

and http://dw.mof.go.th/foc/gfs/database/ta4_1.html where they describe "4/ Net lending/borrowing is the overall borrowing requirement and is equal to the traditional "deficit/surplus" excluding "lending minus repayments"."

and also "

5/ The following are included as "extrabudgetary funds": 12 extrabudgetary funds (National Health Security Fund, Oil Fund, Thailand Village Fund Energy Saving Fund, Coin Production Fund, Sugarcane Fund, Science and Technology Development Fund, Thai Health Promotion Fund, Tollway Fund, Student Loan Fund, SMEs Fund) Oil Fund data has been recorded as accrual basis since Jan, 04

[Ricardo]

And the Public Debt Management Office produce this useful summary of monthly debt outstanding :-

http://www.pdmo.go.th/en/popup_money_data.php?m=money&ts2_id=1

[Eric Loh]

Perhaps some would prefer, that Thailand take on trillions of Baht in 50-year zero-coupon bonds, to pay for infrastructure 'investments' which carry a high risk of corruption, and which haven't yet been demonstrated to have a payback ?

'Steady as she goes' is not a bad policy, borrow only where there is a clear longer-term benefit from doing so, would any of us act differently in our personal-finances ?

Here Endeth the First Lesson, from the Holy Book of Accountancy !

How are they borrowing now?

Good question.

By stuffing long-term debt into the BoT, against its will, in one case a couple of years ago ?

By forcing government-owned banks to lend, against government guarantees, and medium-term (2-3 year) bonds in the case of the rice-scheme ?

This is interesting http://dw.mof.go.th/foc/gfs/database/ta5.html

and http://dw.mof.go.th/foc/gfs/database/ta4_1.html where they describe "4/ Net lending/borrowing is the overall borrowing requirement and is equal to the traditional "deficit/surplus" excluding "lending minus repayments"."

and also " 5/ The following are included as "extrabudgetary funds": 12 extrabudgetary funds (National Health Security Fund, Oil Fund, Thailand Village Fund Energy Saving Fund, Coin Production Fund, Sugarcane Fund, Science and Technology Development Fund, Thai Health Promotion Fund, Tollway Fund, Student Loan Fund, SMEs Fund) Oil Fund data has been recorded as accrual basis since Jan, 04

And the long term debt shouldn't even be there if the then Finance Minister did not do a fire sale of assets discreetly a couple of years ago.

[rickirs]

Increased debt avoidance is not going to be easy.

One might recognize three notable points in the 2015 budget proposal:

1) The budget is roughly only 2% more than the previous budget of 2.511 trillion, excluding 13.423 billion baht allocated as payment for the national reserves. Overall net tax revenue collections declined during the first eight months of the 2014 fiscal year to 1.36 trillion baht, which is 6.4 percent lower than the original target of 1.45 trillion baht. (ref. FPO Director-General Somchai Sajjapongse).

On an annualized basis revenue collections for 2014 fiscal year will fall short of the budget by about 28%. Thus, it would seem that the 2015 proposed budget will need to raise additional revenue collections of 30% over 2014 if further budget deficits are to be avoided. There is insufficient information as to whether a new inheritance tax and higher property taxes will be enough, especially when tax loopholes can effectively negate any meaningful revenue collection increases.

At $9,700 USD per annual capita Thai’s pay in terms of tax burden more than any other monarchy except for Swaziland among a selection of thirteen modern monarchs out of a total of forty-four monarchs in the world. (ref. “A comparison of modern monarchies,” Dr. David Streckfuss, March 17, 2012). With a minimum daily wage of 300 Baht perhaps some monarchy cost savings could be implemented to help make up any potential revenue collection shortfall in 2015 for the health and welfare of the Thai people.

2) The Tourism Ministry’s budget is cut almost by a third. (ref. “The Thai Junta’s 2015 draft budget, explained in 4 graphs,” by Saksith Saiyasombut, ThaiPublica). This seems counterintuitive in the face of declining tourism in 2014.

3) Military spending has grown over 100bn Baht or 135% over the last 10 years and with next 2015 budget draft, the junta is adding another 5% (ref. ditto Saiyasombut). The 2013 defense budget saw a 7% increase (ref. Asian Military Review, Gordon Arthur, Nov. 5, 2013) and for 2014 it grew 5%, largely because of the coup (ref. “Thai junta boosts spending on defense, education in draft budget,” Amy Lefevre, Reuters 8/18/2014).

Gen. Prayuth has defended the increase in the 2015 Defense budget: "If we don't increase the budget and purchase new weapons, then nobody will fear us." (ref. “Thai junta boosts spending on defense, education in draft budget,” Amy Lefevre, Reuters, August 18, 2014). Maybe the military can suffer a little less fear and lower its budget needs for the health and welfare of the Thai people.

[Acharn]

The easiest way to avoid debt is to issue a law cancelling all debt.

He can do that.

No one can say a thing.

No one? You think? I can see you don't know about "vulture funds." When a government defaults on its debt, these hedge funds go around buying up the certificates of the defaulted bonds and then sue in various courts hoping to get a judgement that will force the debtor country to pay in full, or at least a higher payout than the hedge fund paid. That's what happened to Argentina last month. You think you hate Soros, wait until you meet Donald Stirling. Also, to whom is the debt owed? To rich Thais or to foreigners? You might think about the future. If much of the debt is owed to foreigners then if you ever need to borrow money in the future you might have a hard time finding willing lenders.

[trainman34014]

Surely the headline should read ''Aims to avoid MORE debt '' !

[smutcakes]

Perhaps some would prefer, that Thailand take on trillions of Baht in 50-year zero-coupon bonds, to pay for infrastructure 'investments' which carry a high risk of corruption, and which haven't yet been demonstrated to have a payback ?

'Steady as she goes' is not a bad policy, borrow only where there is a clear longer-term benefit from doing so, would any of us act differently in our personal-finances ?

Here Endeth the First Lesson, from the Holy Book of Accountancy !

How are they borrowing now?

Good question.

By stuffing long-term debt into the BoT, against its will, in one case a couple of years ago ?

By forcing government-owned banks to lend, against government guarantees, and medium-term (2-3 year) bonds in the case of the rice-scheme ?

This is interesting http://dw.mof.go.th/foc/gfs/database/ta5.html

and http://dw.mof.go.th/foc/gfs/database/ta4_1.html where they describe "4/ Net lending/borrowing is the overall borrowing requirement and is equal to the traditional "deficit/surplus" excluding "lending minus repayments"."

and also "

5/ The following are included as "extrabudgetary funds": 12 extrabudgetary funds (National Health Security Fund, Oil Fund, Thailand Village Fund Energy Saving Fund, Coin Production Fund, Sugarcane Fund, Science and Technology Development Fund, Thai Health Promotion Fund, Tollway Fund, Student Loan Fund, SMEs Fund) Oil Fund data has been recorded as accrual basis since Jan, 04

Not all debt is bad debt, sometimes it makes fiscal sense to borrow from the bank even if you could afford to pay for it at the time of purchase.

My question was serious, how will the 2.4 trillion baht scheme be financed if debt is to be avoided? I would of thought given the microscope that the issue was put under previously that this issue of funding would have been raised.

Its concerning that when previous Govt announced the plan for HSR, the TDRI were highly critical of it, saying it would need 9 mill plus passengers a year to stay afloat. Then the NCPO announce HSR and the TDRI is completely silent.

[Ricardo]

Not all debt is bad debt, sometimes it makes fiscal sense to borrow from the bank even if you could afford to pay for it at the time of purchase.

My question was serious, how will the 2.4 trillion baht scheme be financed if debt is to be avoided? I would of thought given the microscope that the issue was put under previously that this issue of funding would have been raised.

Its concerning that when previous Govt announced the plan for HSR, the TDRI were highly critical of it, saying it would need 9 mill plus passengers a year to stay afloat. Then the NCPO announce HSR and the TDRI is completely silent.

Yes, I agree with what you say, there are times when governments should borrow, perhaps to smooth net-income/expenditure mismatches, rather than be rigorous in only spending what they've actually got in-the-bank. Although if they have spare cash, which I doubt the NCPO have given the slightly-rising overall funding-requirement (which is how I interpret the CDMO figures), then perhaps tax-cuts are the answer, boosting funds available for consumers to spend. One of the justifications for the rice-scheme was after all the boost to overall consumer-spending by the better-off farmers.

I'm not sure from reading the OP, just how tight General Prayuth intends to be, he says "the proposed budget would not leave problems or debt for the country in the long run" and also that " The budget was set to be in deficit, adhering to the principles of economic sufficiency", also that " spending had to follow fiscal and monetary disciplines,", but what exactly does this mean ? We don't yet know. The extraordinary committee was given a week to study the budget and produce its report.

"He said that the country's current account is expected to be in surplus after exports improve and tourism recovers", which surely implies running a short-term deficit until exports & tourism improve, I'd say ?

PTP had planned large-scale long-term borrowing, from within the domestic savings-market IIRC, to fund their infrastructure-plans. But I never saw any serious cost/benefit analyses, or payback-details, for the various projects. Perhaps this was a consequence of not putting all the detailed proposals through Parliament for scrutiny ? That was something I did question on principle at the time, there appeared to be a curious reluctance to justify the projects, and show how they would payback and bring a net long-term benefit. If it really is a good investment, then any government (including NCOP) should be able to show the figures, to prove it !

On the HSR some important things have now changed, the previously-planned 4-line passenger-network has become a 2-line freight-project with lines from Chiang Khong & Laos to Laem Chabang Port, and it's not yet clear how much (if anything) the Chinese (who are surely the main beneficiaries) will invest towards it. The other spending on the entirely-separate SRT track-doubling projects should also be demonstrated to bring benefits, too. And details of other related-spending on rolling-stock, and the planned growth of freight on the meter-gauge network, needs to be set out more fully.

All just IMHO, of course.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Ricardo

[Eric Loh]

Not all debt is bad debt, sometimes it makes fiscal sense to borrow from the bank even if you could afford to pay for it at the time of purchase.

My question was serious, how will the 2.4 trillion baht scheme be financed if debt is to be avoided? I would of thought given the microscope that the issue was put under previously that this issue of funding would have been raised.

Its concerning that when previous Govt announced the plan for HSR, the TDRI were highly critical of it, saying it would need 9 mill plus passengers a year to stay afloat. Then the NCPO announce HSR and the TDRI is completely silent.

Yes, I agree with what you say, there are times when governments should borrow, perhaps to smooth net-income/expenditure mismatches, rather than be rigorous in only spending what they've actually got in-the-bank. Although if they have spare cash, which I doubt the NCPO have given the slightly-rising overall funding-requirement (which is how I interpret the CDMO figures), then perhaps tax-cuts are the answer, boosting funds available for consumers to spend. One of the justifications for the rice-scheme was after all the boost to overall consumer-spending by the better-off farmers.

I'm not sure from reading the OP, just how tight General Prayuth intends to be, he says "the proposed budget would not leave problems or debt for the country in the long run" and also that " The budget was set to be in deficit, adhering to the principles of economic sufficiency", also that " spending had to follow fiscal and monetary disciplines,", but what exactly does this mean ? We don't yet know. The extraordinary committee was given a week to study the budget and produce its report.

"He said that the country's current account is expected to be in surplus after exports improve and tourism recovers", which surely implies running a short-term deficit until exports & tourism improve, I'd say ?

PTP had planned large-scale long-term borrowing, from within the domestic savings-market IIRC, to fund their infrastructure-plans. But I never saw any serious cost/benefit analyses, or payback-details, for the various projects. Perhaps this was a consequence of not putting all the detailed proposals through Parliament for scrutiny ? That was something I did question on principle at the time, there appeared to be a curious reluctance to justify the projects, and show how they would payback and bring a net long-term benefit. If it really is a good investment, then any government (including NCOP) should be able to show the figures, to prove it !

On the HSR some important things have now changed, the previously-planned 4-line passenger-network has become a 2-line freight-project with lines from Chiang Khong & Laos to Laem Chabang Port, and it's not yet clear how much (if anything) the Chinese (who are surely the main beneficiaries) will invest towards it. The other spending on the entirely-separate SRT track-doubling projects should also be demonstrated to bring benefits, too. And details of other related-spending on rolling-stock, and the planned growth of freight on the meter-gauge network, needs to be set out more fully.

All just IMHO, of course.

I give you the benefit of doubt whether you around in March last year when there were 2 days of heated debate in Parliment on the infrastructure project. Charts, power-point presentation were all employed and it was a lively debate which was air live and reported in the mass media.

[smutcakes]

Not all debt is bad debt, sometimes it makes fiscal sense to borrow from the bank even if you could afford to pay for it at the time of purchase.

My question was serious, how will the 2.4 trillion baht scheme be financed if debt is to be avoided? I would of thought given the microscope that the issue was put under previously that this issue of funding would have been raised.

Its concerning that when previous Govt announced the plan for HSR, the TDRI were highly critical of it, saying it would need 9 mill plus passengers a year to stay afloat. Then the NCPO announce HSR and the TDRI is completely silent.

Yes, I agree with what you say, there are times when governments should borrow, perhaps to smooth net-income/expenditure mismatches, rather than be rigorous in only spending what they've actually got in-the-bank. Although if they have spare cash, which I doubt the NCPO have given the slightly-rising overall funding-requirement (which is how I interpret the CDMO figures), then perhaps tax-cuts are the answer, boosting funds available for consumers to spend. One of the justifications for the rice-scheme was after all the boost to overall consumer-spending by the better-off farmers.

I'm not sure from reading the OP, just how tight General Prayuth intends to be, he says "the proposed budget would not leave problems or debt for the country in the long run" and also that " The budget was set to be in deficit, adhering to the principles of economic sufficiency", also that " spending had to follow fiscal and monetary disciplines,", but what exactly does this mean ? We don't yet know. The extraordinary committee was given a week to study the budget and produce its report.

"He said that the country's current account is expected to be in surplus after exports improve and tourism recovers", which surely implies running a short-term deficit until exports & tourism improve, I'd say ?

PTP had planned large-scale long-term borrowing, from within the domestic savings-market IIRC, to fund their infrastructure-plans. But I never saw any serious cost/benefit analyses, or payback-details, for the various projects. Perhaps this was a consequence of not putting all the detailed proposals through Parliament for scrutiny ? That was something I did question on principle at the time, there appeared to be a curious reluctance to justify the projects, and show how they would payback and bring a net long-term benefit. If it really is a good investment, then any government (including NCOP) should be able to show the figures, to prove it !

On the HSR some important things have now changed, the previously-planned 4-line passenger-network has become a 2-line freight-project with lines from Chiang Khong & Laos to Laem Chabang Port, and it's not yet clear how much (if anything) the Chinese (who are surely the main beneficiaries) will invest towards it. The other spending on the entirely-separate SRT track-doubling projects should also be demonstrated to bring benefits, too. And details of other related-spending on rolling-stock, and the planned growth of freight on the meter-gauge network, needs to be set out more fully.

All just IMHO, of course.

Now we dont know how it will be funded, none of the real detail has been examined, despite the PTP 30% cut that everyone used to talk about the price has stayed the same....... Yes PTP were bad, but the whole justification behind the coup is to clean this place up, but they just seem to be carrying on the same road, but now any dissent is even less possible, and the details are even less transparent.

[rubl]

Suprise (or maybe not) no one in the NLA question how we avoid debt when we have budget allocation at 2.5T B and a revenue of 2.4T B and a 3T B infrastructure project. How all this can equates to no debt. Too many yes men in NLA.

The infrastructure project is spread out over 7 years or so. Each year seems part of that included in the Nation Budget's 'investment' post.

Also the OP has this line

"National budget expenditures would fully cover all financial sources, including budget, off-budget and borrowings."

So, the aim of the Yingluck administration to move budgets outside the National Budget and possible parliamentary scrutiny is being undone. No more 'non-revolving' funds.

PS maybe related to my current Internet connection, but on the topic page I get an "Ads by Google" with "Mitt Romney in 2016? Vote now!"

Edited August 20, 2014 by rubl

[rubl]

Now we dont know how it will be funded, none of the real detail has been examined, despite the PTP 30% cut that everyone used to talk about the price has stayed the same....... Yes PTP were bad, but the whole justification behind the coup is to clean this place up, but they just seem to be carrying on the same road, but now any dissent is even less possible, and the details are even less transparent.

To infrastructue project is spread over seven years or so, with each budget year seeing a part budgeted.

As for details, with no details before it's somewhat hilarious to complain that there are less now.

[smutcakes]

Suprise (or maybe not) no one in the NLA question how we avoid debt when we have budget allocation at 2.5T B and a revenue of 2.4T B and a 3T B infrastructure project. How all this can equates to no debt. Too many yes men in NLA.

The infrastructure project is spread out over 7 years or so. Each year seems part of that included in the Nation Budget's 'investment' post.

Also the OP has this line

"National budget expenditures would fully cover all financial sources, including budget, off-budget and borrowings."

So, the aim of the Yingluck administration to move budgets outside the National Budget and possible parliamentary scrutiny is being undone. No more 'non-revolving' funds.

PS maybe related to my current Internet connection, but on the topic page I get an "Ads by Google" with "Mitt Romney in 2016? Vote now!"

Paid off over 7 years? So there is a 340 bn baht surplus going towards it each year from the budget? The budget is already in deficit, so where is the 340 bn going to come from? I did not see that in the budget yesterday, did you?

And your second post, yes its hilarious, through a Govt out and then do exactly what they were doing. I thought this was about overhaul and change and good practice, not just a power grab which anyone with half a brain new it was. I think you can already see the worm is turning and people are starting to wake up to the fact reform was never on the agenda.

There was far more information around on this, it was debated, the transport minister did a number of presentations outlining it etc

[rubl]

Suprise (or maybe not) no one in the NLA question how we avoid debt when we have budget allocation at 2.5T B and a revenue of 2.4T B and a 3T B infrastructure project. How all this can equates to no debt. Too many yes men in NLA.

The infrastructure project is spread out over 7 years or so. Each year seems part of that included in the Nation Budget's 'investment' post.

Also the OP has this line

"National budget expenditures would fully cover all financial sources, including budget, off-budget and borrowings."

So, the aim of the Yingluck administration to move budgets outside the National Budget and possible parliamentary scrutiny is being undone. No more 'non-revolving' funds.

PS maybe related to my current Internet connection, but on the topic page I get an "Ads by Google" with "Mitt Romney in 2016? Vote now!"

Paid off over 7 years? So there is a 340 bn baht surplus going towards it each year from the budget? The budget is already in deficit, so where is the 340 bn going to come from? I did not see that in the budget yesterday, did you?

And your second post, yes its hilarious, through a Govt out and then do exactly what they were doing. I thought this was about overhaul and change and good practice, not just a power grab which anyone with half a brain new it was. I think you can already see the worm is turning and people are starting to wake up to the fact reform was never on the agenda.

There was far more information around on this, it was debated, the transport minister did a number of presentations outlining it etc

I didn't say 'paid-off, I said 'spread over'. Like all governments this government will need to borrow, some shortterm, some long term (three to ten years). That's normal. As long as all this is documented, budgeted.

Perfectly normal way of functioning, as long as budgeted, documented, reported.

As for the Yingluck infra structure trillions, that would be paid of in 50 years seemingly. With the white lies MoF one may wonder especially as none of this was part of the National Budget. All taken out of it, to be easier. Easier for some to make things so transparent as to let it disappear.

[smutcakes]

Suprise (or maybe not) no one in the NLA question how we avoid debt when we have budget allocation at 2.5T B and a revenue of 2.4T B and a 3T B infrastructure project. How all this can equates to no debt. Too many yes men in NLA.

The infrastructure project is spread out over 7 years or so. Each year seems part of that included in the Nation Budget's 'investment' post.

Also the OP has this line

"National budget expenditures would fully cover all financial sources, including budget, off-budget and borrowings."

So, the aim of the Yingluck administration to move budgets outside the National Budget and possible parliamentary scrutiny is being undone. No more 'non-revolving' funds.

PS maybe related to my current Internet connection, but on the topic page I get an "Ads by Google" with "Mitt Romney in 2016? Vote now!"

Paid off over 7 years? So there is a 340 bn baht surplus going towards it each year from the budget? The budget is already in deficit, so where is the 340 bn going to come from? I did not see that in the budget yesterday, did you?

And your second post, yes its hilarious, through a Govt out and then do exactly what they were doing. I thought this was about overhaul and change and good practice, not just a power grab which anyone with half a brain new it was. I think you can already see the worm is turning and people are starting to wake up to the fact reform was never on the agenda.

There was far more information around on this, it was debated, the transport minister did a number of presentations outlining it etc

I didn't say 'paid-off, I said 'spread over'. Like all governments this government will need to borrow, some shortterm, some long term (three to ten years). That's normal. As long as all this is documented, budgeted.

Perfectly normal way of functioning, as long as budgeted, documented, reported.

As for the Yingluck infra structure trillions, that would be paid of in 50 years seemingly. With the white lies MoF one may wonder especially as none of this was part of the National Budget. All taken out of it, to be easier. Easier for some to make things so transparent as to let it disappear.

You borrow short or long term 3-10 years you still have to pay it back. How are they going to repay 2.4 trillion over 10 years? Where is the money coming from?

[Eric Loh]

Suprise (or maybe not) no one in the NLA question how we avoid debt when we have budget allocation at 2.5T B and a revenue of 2.4T B and a 3T B infrastructure project. How all this can equates to no debt. Too many yes men in NLA.

The infrastructure project is spread out over 7 years or so. Each year seems part of that included in the Nation Budget's 'investment' post.

Also the OP has this line

"National budget expenditures would fully cover all financial sources, including budget, off-budget and borrowings."

So, the aim of the Yingluck administration to move budgets outside the National Budget and possible parliamentary scrutiny is being undone. No more 'non-revolving' funds.

PS maybe related to my current Internet connection, but on the topic page I get an "Ads by Google" with "Mitt Romney in 2016? Vote now!"

Paid off over 7 years? So there is a 340 bn baht surplus going towards it each year from the budget? The budget is already in deficit, so where is the 340 bn going to come from? I did not see that in the budget yesterday, did you?

And your second post, yes its hilarious, through a Govt out and then do exactly what they were doing. I thought this was about overhaul and change and good practice, not just a power grab which anyone with half a brain new it was. I think you can already see the worm is turning and people are starting to wake up to the fact reform was never on the agenda.

There was far more information around on this, it was debated, the transport minister did a number of presentations outlining it etc

If we caught what the General spoke about balance budget by year 2017, it would not take a genius to conclude that the infrastructure loan will be an off-budget expenditure. I also heard that it will be paid by investment funds. I sincerely doubt that there are sufficient investors local and abroad who will buy off almost 3T investment funds. I dare say that much will be soft loan from perhaps China or some aspect of the infrastructure project will be privatized. For sure though it will not come from the yearly budget.

[ginjag]

Paid off over 7 years? So there is a 340 bn baht surplus going towards it each year from the budget? The budget is already in deficit, so where is the 340 bn going to come from? I did not see that in the budget yesterday, did you?

And your second post, yes its hilarious, through a Govt out and then do exactly what they were doing. I thought this was about overhaul and change and good practice, not just a power grab which anyone with half a brain new it was. I think you can already see the worm is turning and people are starting to wake up to the fact reform was never on the agenda.

There was far more information around on this, it was debated, the transport minister did a number of presentations outlining it etc

I didn't say 'paid-off, I said 'spread over'. Like all governments this government will need to borrow, some shortterm, some long term (three to ten years). That's normal. As long as all this is documented, budgeted.

Perfectly normal way of functioning, as long as budgeted, documented, reported.

As for the Yingluck infra structure trillions, that would be paid of in 50 years seemingly. With the white lies MoF one may wonder especially as none of this was part of the National Budget. All taken out of it, to be easier. Easier for some to make things so transparent as to let it disappear.

You borrow short or long term 3-10 years you still have to pay it back. How are they going to repay 2.4 trillion over 10 years? Where is the money coming from?

Smutcakes any answer re the Yingluck trillions-over the 50 years, as was pointed out.?