Fuel price changes 'needed'

[airconsult]

All fuel prices should be raised to at least 40 baht a litre. People will stop making all the short 'pleasure' journeys they are currently making , driving to 7/11 every 5 minutes and such like. People should walk and cycle, even though it is a million miles from the Thai mindset. Something should also be done to reduce the terrifying number of heavy trucks hurtling around Thailand. A lot of them seem to be empty, where the hell are they all going?

What a wonderful thought. Do you live in the city by any chance? Out where I live the nearest 7/11 is 6km away, the next is 15km and the next again is 20 km away. The nearest BigC and Makro are 65km away.

Out where I live there is NO public transport and if you need to go anywhere it is by motorbike, pickup, e-tan or tractor.

Not such an expense for me but for the many millions of Thais who live in rural areas the change will seriously affect their lives.

Don't worry about them though as they are only poor Thais and you are a rich farang so the extra expense will mean nothing to you.

Edited for poor spelling

Well, I would go to the nearest 7/11 and forget about the other 2. Go to Big C once a month, or do your neighbors not have fridges?

Of course I see your point, but Thais seem to be increasingly 'living' in their cars which brings into question the myth of the 'poor' Thais. Anyway, every single Thai village I have ever been to has a 'mom and pop' store, and a butchers, egg salesmen and so on.

All the food that the mom and pop stores plus the food delivery cars that are about every day are delivered by diesel trucks and pickups.

Out here in rural Khampaeng Phet only the bigger villages have pork and chicken and egg dealers plus the market 2 or 3 times a week but the people still have to get there somehow using as I said earlier by motorbike, pickup, e-tan or tractor.

It is the same in most rural areas of Thailand and as usual the poorest will suffer the most.

In a rational policy, while the tax would be a unified structure, the tax on diesel/lpg/ngv would rise, and fall on benzine/gasohol.

This would at least allow a level playing field to determine the most efficient engineering solution to design. eg, right now a 2L benzine may get about 55mpg, whereas a diesel may get 75mpg.

But we know that once you start distorting the market with different tax rates it's very hard to stop as some people will always lose out. The diesel reduced tax was designed to keep the mass transport of essential items such as food lower.

There are many people smarter than me - so I'm sure someone can come up with an idea how to differentiate between a transport service and personal use.

[Gomyway]

Studies of the safety of nuclear power are intrinsically flawed for the simple reason that we don't know the long-term costs. When a gas-fired plant goes boom, we move in, count the bodies, clean up the site, and move on. We calculate the costs. When a plant like Cernyobl or Fukushima goes tits up, we have no clue what the longer-term effects will be. Chernyobl went kaput in the early '80s and we are still adding to the debit side of the ledger. Fukushimi appears to be worse, especially given that the problems are still unfolding.

The WHO disagrees.

28 FEBRUARY 2013 | GENEVA - A comprehensive assessment by international experts on the health risks associated with the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (NPP) disaster in Japan has concluded that, for the general population inside and outside of Japan, the predicted risks are low and no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2013/fukushima_report_20130228/en/

EDIT to add UNSCEAR report on Chernobyl long-term effects.

The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986 was a tragic event for its victims, and those most affected suffered major hardship. Some of the people who dealt with the emergency lost their lives. Although those exposed as children and the emergency and recovery workers are at increased risk of radiation-induced effects, the vast majority of the population need not live in fear of serious health consequences due to the radiation from the Chernobyl accident. For the most part, they were exposed to radiation levels comparable to or a few times higher than annual levels of natural background, and future exposures continue to slowly diminish as the radionuclides decay. Lives have been seriously disrupted by the Chernobyl accident, but from the radiological point of view, generally positive prospects for the future health of most individuals should prevail.

http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html

Sometimes it's good to take a look at both sides, maybe this could give you some more inside http://enenews.com/

And by the way I wonder since the prices for oil at the spot market have been falling down around 10% why the prices for fuel didn't go down here also?

[airconsult]

Studies of the safety of nuclear power are intrinsically flawed for the simple reason that we don't know the long-term costs. When a gas-fired plant goes boom, we move in, count the bodies, clean up the site, and move on. We calculate the costs. When a plant like Cernyobl or Fukushima goes tits up, we have no clue what the longer-term effects will be. Chernyobl went kaput in the early '80s and we are still adding to the debit side of the ledger. Fukushimi appears to be worse, especially given that the problems are still unfolding.

The WHO disagrees.

28 FEBRUARY 2013 | GENEVA - A comprehensive assessment by international experts on the health risks associated with the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (NPP) disaster in Japan has concluded that, for the general population inside and outside of Japan, the predicted risks are low and no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2013/fukushima_report_20130228/en/

EDIT to add UNSCEAR report on Chernobyl long-term effects.

The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986 was a tragic event for its victims, and those most affected suffered major hardship. Some of the people who dealt with the emergency lost their lives. Although those exposed as children and the emergency and recovery workers are at increased risk of radiation-induced effects, the vast majority of the population need not live in fear of serious health consequences due to the radiation from the Chernobyl accident. For the most part, they were exposed to radiation levels comparable to or a few times higher than annual levels of natural background, and future exposures continue to slowly diminish as the radionuclides decay. Lives have been seriously disrupted by the Chernobyl accident, but from the radiological point of view, generally positive prospects for the future health of most individuals should prevail.

http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html

Sometimes it's good to take a look at both sides, maybe this could give you some more inside http://enenews.com/

And by the way I wonder since the prices for oil at the spot market have been falling down around 10% why the prices for fuel didn't go down here also?

I'm sorry for my cynicism - but that doesn't seem terribly reliable or credible to me - more conspiracy-theory than reality.

Prices for fuel in Thailand are set by the energy ministry - if it's a short-term fluctuation, they don't adjust. (Particularly down - costs the government no money, extra for PTT)

[trainman34014]

There are too many people driving around in Diesel guzzling 4x4's, particularly pick-up's when they don't really need them. I have a neighbour not far up the road who uses one just to go shopping and run the kids to school. In the three years they've had it i have never seen them put a single thing in the back. 'It looks good' is the answer apparently. My own Brother-in-Law retired in January and went out and bought the biggest Mitsubishi pick-up he could get and had all the chrome bits fitted including bullbars etc. I asked him why he wanted it and he said 'because it looks big and strong' ; nothing to do with suitability for two retired peoples needs. Still; he is 5ft tall and weighs about 45 kilo's so my guess is he's feeling a little insecure and wants to be noticed !

[Seligne2]

There was, maybe still is, a big tax break for persons buying pickups. That is the reason Thailand is No 2 (behind the US) in pickup sales worldwide.

[cooked]

Part of a Global House in Surin recently fell over in strong winds and killed relatives of mine, a family was wiped out. So to you guys that seem to be going off at a tangent supporting nuclear power I think you should be discussing nuclear power in Thailand. It can't be done, the CIA should bomb the place before they start. (Thinking about Iran's little problem with suspected development of nukes). if they do build a plant, I am leaving.

Raising transport costs is always excused with reasons like 'increased revenue will be used to improve public transport'. It never is.

[sniffdog]

Please keep diesel under 30 baht. My merc bmw and volvo runs on them. Thanks.

Well, my Ferrari doesn't and I need the price of gasoline to go down.

[BirdsandBooze]

No wind farms trickle charging the grid please. Imagine the graft once the junta has stepped down.

[Chao Lao Beach]

Raise taxes seem to be the flavor of the month eh, may be Thailand has not % wise become non competitive yet.

[midas]

Studies of the safety of nuclear power are intrinsically flawed for the simple reason that we don't know the long-term costs. When a gas-fired plant goes boom, we move in, count the bodies, clean up the site, and move on. We calculate the costs. When a plant like Cernyobl or Fukushima goes tits up, we have no clue what the longer-term effects will be. Chernyobl went kaput in the early '80s and we are still adding to the debit side of the ledger. Fukushimi appears to be worse, especially given that the problems are still unfolding.

The WHO disagrees.

28 FEBRUARY 2013 | GENEVA - A comprehensive assessment by international experts on the health risks associated with the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (NPP) disaster in Japan has concluded that, for the general population inside and outside of Japan, the predicted risks are low and no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2013/fukushima_report_20130228/en/

EDIT to add UNSCEAR report on Chernobyl long-term effects.

The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986 was a tragic event for its victims, and those most affected suffered major hardship. Some of the people who dealt with the emergency lost their lives. Although those exposed as children and the emergency and recovery workers are at increased risk of radiation-induced effects, the vast majority of the population need not live in fear of serious health consequences due to the radiation from the Chernobyl accident. For the most part, they were exposed to radiation levels comparable to or a few times higher than annual levels of natural background, and future exposures continue to slowly diminish as the radionuclides decay. Lives have been seriously disrupted by the Chernobyl accident, but from the radiological point of view, generally positive prospects for the future health of most individuals should prevail.

http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html

i prefer to rely on what this lady warns us

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=en_CiEnJ4Wo

Edited September 13, 2014 by midas

[Pundi6446]

If the price for diesel keeps climbing, so does consumer goods go up sky high. Cost to refine diesel is half that of gasoline, so why is it jumping up, this causes consumer inflation, on all things, so you people yelling about prices in Thailand going up, here is one reason why.

[MaiChai]

Increasing fuel prices will be unpopular and make everything go up in price. If this government wants to remain popular they want to think carefully about doing it. If they want fuel prices to match the real market price then it needs to be increased slowly over a long period of time to reduce the impact ; maybe even 10 years.

[billd766]

There are too many people driving around in Diesel guzzling 4x4's, particularly pick-up's when they don't really need them. I have a neighbour not far up the road who uses one just to go shopping and run the kids to school. In the three years they've had it i have never seen them put a single thing in the back. 'It looks good' is the answer apparently. My own Brother-in-Law retired in January and went out and bought the biggest Mitsubishi pick-up he could get and had all the chrome bits fitted including bullbars etc. I asked him why he wanted it and he said 'because it looks big and strong' ; nothing to do with suitability for two retired peoples needs. Still; he is 5ft tall and weighs about 45 kilo's so my guess is he's feeling a little insecure and wants to be noticed !

We bought a Ford Ranger 4 door 4 x 4 back in 2001 when we were living on BKK knowing that in the future we would be moving to rural Thailand and building a house up here. In its time the Ford has hauled loads of build material for the house, been used as a water carrier with 1,300 litres of water in a tank, personal car, bus, ambulance the odd time or two and it is still going with 309,xxx km on the clock while returning around 11 km/ltr or around 30 mpg. Bear in mind it is old technology fuel injection. My wife who decided on the Ford is about 5 foot 5in and I am about 5 foot 10 and it fits both of us.

[monkeycountry]

Some people seem to think that if the price of diesel is raised say 20% then all food prices will also increase by 20%. Keep in mind that for a random food item sold in tesco or 7-11, diesel is just a small part of it's production cost. So say as an example that diesel accounts for 10% (likely too high) of the items total production cost, that means the item will be only 2% (20% × 10%) more expensive for the consumer than before. So a can of coca cola in 7-11 which is now 14 baht? Will instead be 14.28 baht. I think even poor thais can afford that change.

Edited September 14, 2014 by monkeycountry

[billd766]

Some people seem to think that if the price of diesel is raised say 20% then all food prices will also increase by 20%. Keep in mind that for a random food item sold in tesco or 7-11, diesel is just a small part of it's production cost. So say as an example that diesel accounts for 10% (likely too high) of the items total production cost, that means the item will be only 2% (20% × 10%) more expensive for the consumer than before. So a can of coca cola in 7-11 which is now 14 baht? Will instead be 14.28 baht. I think even poor thais can afford that change.

It may only be a small increase to Tesco or 7/11 who buy in vast quantities but most of rural Thailand doesn't have easy access to a Tesco or BigC they do to a 7/11. The problem with 7/11 is that it is a franchise and the operators MUST buy from 7/11 central at the price they dictate and also sell at the price from 7/11 central control.

Assuming that Thais only live on one can of coca cola a week I would agree with you but sadly they don't.

If you assume however that everything has to be transported every where then according to your logic the cost of living will also go up 2% across the board.

Think of it this way even the diesel that is delivered to the pumps up country will be more expensive to deliver especially as most of the smaller tankers also run on that diesel to deliver to the smaller operators. Do you think that the employers, who will also be hit by this, will raise their employees salary by at least 2% per head. Out in rural Thailand the answer will be a resounding NO.

Who will they pass that extra cost onto? It will be all the customers, but to save raising the prices the workers will get less salary, have to work unpaid overtime or perhaps jobs will be lost.

There is always a knock on effect to any increase. One such was when the daily rate went up to 300 baht across the country.

In rural Thailand the rate was 170 baht a day so an extra 130 IF it was paid would and did result in lost jobs as firms closed down because the employers couldn't absord a 40% increase in salaries.

Edited September 14, 2014 by billd766

[papa al]

it would have to find other principal fuels such as clean coal and nuclear power to be added

Please, please never nuclear.

Not because Thais cant do it right, but because it just isn't safe and when it comes down to disposing of the spent fuel rods and shutting down at the end of life it turns out not to be such a cheap option of producing power as it is cracked up to be.

Apparently you have never heard of Thorium reactors.

[katana]

Back in the 1950s the nuclear industry along with governments of the time promised us clean, efficient, safe energy, 'too cheap to meter'. We were told cars of the future were going to run on a tiny pellet of uranium nuclear fuel, the size of a grain of rice.
Then we had the Windscale, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukishima nuclear accidents. After nearly 60 years, they still can't get the technology right and they're blowing up.
Now they claim thorium reactors are going to be the thing of the future. Yeah, we've heard all that before.
PS
If you take into account the cost of building and decommissioning nuclear power plants and also storing the spent fuel for centuries to come, it's actually the most expensive form of energy. Some years back, the UK tried to privatise the nuclear industry, but the only way they could do it was to fence off the decommissioning costs to be picked up by the government ie the tax payer. Clearly private industry knew something others didn't.

[Thai at Heart]

Some people seem to think that if the price of diesel is raised say 20% then all food prices will also increase by 20%. Keep in mind that for a random food item sold in tesco or 7-11, diesel is just a small part of it's production cost. So say as an example that diesel accounts for 10% (likely too high) of the items total production cost, that means the item will be only 2% (20% × 10%) more expensive for the consumer than before. So a can of coca cola in 7-11 which is now 14 baht? Will instead be 14.28 baht. I think even poor thais can afford that change.

The whole country runs on diesel, not just the coke price. People have to get to work, people have to get to places, fertiliser has to be shipped, seeds have to be shipped. So while it isn't a straight correlation, it is not just directly onto the end of the supply chain.

But, there is a distortion in pick up.pricing which is too far out of wack for the benefit of Toyota and others. They need low tax micro cars for cities asap.

[metisdead]

A post in violation of fair use policy has been removed:

14) You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences.

[monkeycountry]

Some people seem to think that if the price of diesel is raised say 20% then all food prices will also increase by 20%. Keep in mind that for a random food item sold in tesco or 7-11, diesel is just a small part of it's production cost. So say as an example that diesel accounts for 10% (likely too high) of the items total production cost, that means the item will be only 2% (20% × 10%) more expensive for the consumer than before. So a can of coca cola in 7-11 which is now 14 baht? Will instead be 14.28 baht. I think even poor thais can afford that change.

The whole country runs on diesel, not just the coke price. People have to get to work, people have to get to places, fertiliser has to be shipped, seeds have to be shipped. So while it isn't a straight correlation, it is not just directly onto the end of the supply chain.

But, there is a distortion in pick up.pricing which is too far out of wack for the benefit of Toyota and others. They need low tax micro cars for cities asap.

I am aware it is not just coke, it was an example. Everything will be 2% more expensive. My point was simply that things will be 2% more expensive, not 20% more expensive as many people seem to think (except diesel itself of course).

[monkeycountry]

Some people seem to think that if the price of diesel is raised say 20% then all food prices will also increase by 20%. Keep in mind that for a random food item sold in tesco or 7-11, diesel is just a small part of it's production cost. So say as an example that diesel accounts for 10% (likely too high) of the items total production cost, that means the item will be only 2% (20% × 10%) more expensive for the consumer than before. So a can of coca cola in 7-11 which is now 14 baht? Will instead be 14.28 baht. I think even poor thais can afford that change.

It may only be a small increase to Tesco or 7/11 who buy in vast quantities but most of rural Thailand doesn't have easy access to a Tesco or BigC they do to a 7/11. The problem with 7/11 is that it is a franchise and the operators MUST buy from 7/11 central at the price they dictate and also sell at the price from 7/11 central control.

Assuming that Thais only live on one can of coca cola a week I would agree with you but sadly they don't.

If you assume however that everything has to be transported every where then according to your logic the cost of living will also go up 2% across the board.

Think of it this way even the diesel that is delivered to the pumps up country will be more expensive to deliver especially as most of the smaller tankers also run on that diesel to deliver to the smaller operators. Do you think that the employers, who will also be hit by this, will raise their employees salary by at least 2% per head. Out in rural Thailand the answer will be a resounding NO.

Who will they pass that extra cost onto? It will be all the customers, but to save raising the prices the workers will get less salary, have to work unpaid overtime or perhaps jobs will be lost.

There is always a knock on effect to any increase. One such was when the daily rate went up to 300 baht across the country.

In rural Thailand the rate was 170 baht a day so an extra 130 IF it was paid would and did result in lost jobs as firms closed down because the employers couldn't absord a 40% increase in salaries.

Yes, if diesel is raised by 20% the cost of living will go up by 2% across the board. That was my point, illustrated by a can of coke, but I guess it was not clear.

Many of the upcountry rural folks produce much of their own food, so they do not need to buy as much in tesco/7-11. Seeds and fertilizer will be 2% more expensive though, but under normal circumstances the farmer should be able to get 2% more for his products, which would cover the seed and fertilizer increase. The poor farmers can't afford a pickup, so drive a motorbike, which does not run on diesel.

Anyway, seems we all agree. A 20% increase in diesel price will raise the cost of living by 2%, not 20%. (estimated numbers)

Edited September 15, 2014 by monkeycountry

[billd766]

Some people seem to think that if the price of diesel is raised say 20% then all food prices will also increase by 20%. Keep in mind that for a random food item sold in tesco or 7-11, diesel is just a small part of it's production cost. So say as an example that diesel accounts for 10% (likely too high) of the items total production cost, that means the item will be only 2% (20% × 10%) more expensive for the consumer than before. So a can of coca cola in 7-11 which is now 14 baht? Will instead be 14.28 baht. I think even poor thais can afford that change.

It may only be a small increase to Tesco or 7/11 who buy in vast quantities but most of rural Thailand doesn't have easy access to a Tesco or BigC they do to a 7/11. The problem with 7/11 is that it is a franchise and the operators MUST buy from 7/11 central at the price they dictate and also sell at the price from 7/11 central control.

Assuming that Thais only live on one can of coca cola a week I would agree with you but sadly they don't.

If you assume however that everything has to be transported every where then according to your logic the cost of living will also go up 2% across the board.

Think of it this way even the diesel that is delivered to the pumps up country will be more expensive to deliver especially as most of the smaller tankers also run on that diesel to deliver to the smaller operators. Do you think that the employers, who will also be hit by this, will raise their employees salary by at least 2% per head. Out in rural Thailand the answer will be a resounding NO.

Who will they pass that extra cost onto? It will be all the customers, but to save raising the prices the workers will get less salary, have to work unpaid overtime or perhaps jobs will be lost.

There is always a knock on effect to any increase. One such was when the daily rate went up to 300 baht across the country.

In rural Thailand the rate was 170 baht a day so an extra 130 IF it was paid would and did result in lost jobs as firms closed down because the employers couldn't absord a 40% increase in salaries.

Yes, if diesel is raised by 20% the cost of living will go up by 2% across the board. That was my point, illustrated by a can of coke, but I guess it was not clear.

Many of the upcountry rural folks produce much of their own food, so they do not need to buy as much in tesco/7-11. Seeds and fertilizer will be 2% more expensive though, but under normal circumstances the farmer should be able to get 2% more for his products, which would cover the seed and fertilizer increase. The poor farmers can't afford a pickup, so drive a motorbike, which does not run on diesel.

Anyway, seems we all agree. A 20% increase in diesel price will raise the cost of living by 2%, not 20%. (estimated numbers)

Well a farmer who grows rice can feed his family with his product nbut the farmer who grows tapioca, sugar cane, rubber or the many other products that the farmers grow in Thailand can't produce their own food and so will be hit by this 2% extra cost of living. Teachers, people who work in banks, shops, 7/11, gas stations, electrical dealers, car and motorbike shops, market traders etc also dont grow their own food so whichever way you look at it it will cost the poor much more than the rich or even 99% of farangs.

Pork farmers grow pork and eat rice but dont grow it and rice farmers eat pork but don't breed pigs.

IF this comes in at one time my best guess is that the cost of living index will rise by 3 to 4%

Farmers won't get 2% more for their products anyway. They best they will get is the market price and that will be dropped to them by 10% anyway.

Phasing it in over several years is the best option other than not bringing it in at all.

[monkeycountry]

Some people seem to think that if the price of diesel is raised say 20% then all food prices will also increase by 20%. Keep in mind that for a random food item sold in tesco or 7-11, diesel is just a small part of it's production cost. So say as an example that diesel accounts for 10% (likely too high) of the items total production cost, that means the item will be only 2% (20% × 10%) more expensive for the consumer than before. So a can of coca cola in 7-11 which is now 14 baht? Will instead be 14.28 baht. I think even poor thais can afford that change.

It may only be a small increase to Tesco or 7/11 who buy in vast quantities but most of rural Thailand doesn't have easy access to a Tesco or BigC they do to a 7/11. The problem with 7/11 is that it is a franchise and the operators MUST buy from 7/11 central at the price they dictate and also sell at the price from 7/11 central control.

Assuming that Thais only live on one can of coca cola a week I would agree with you but sadly they don't.

If you assume however that everything has to be transported every where then according to your logic the cost of living will also go up 2% across the board.

Think of it this way even the diesel that is delivered to the pumps up country will be more expensive to deliver especially as most of the smaller tankers also run on that diesel to deliver to the smaller operators. Do you think that the employers, who will also be hit by this, will raise their employees salary by at least 2% per head. Out in rural Thailand the answer will be a resounding NO.

Who will they pass that extra cost onto? It will be all the customers, but to save raising the prices the workers will get less salary, have to work unpaid overtime or perhaps jobs will be lost.

There is always a knock on effect to any increase. One such was when the daily rate went up to 300 baht across the country.

In rural Thailand the rate was 170 baht a day so an extra 130 IF it was paid would and did result in lost jobs as firms closed down because the employers couldn't absord a 40% increase in salaries.

Yes, if diesel is raised by 20% the cost of living will go up by 2% across the board. That was my point, illustrated by a can of coke, but I guess it was not clear.

Many of the upcountry rural folks produce much of their own food, so they do not need to buy as much in tesco/7-11. Seeds and fertilizer will be 2% more expensive though, but under normal circumstances the farmer should be able to get 2% more for his products, which would cover the seed and fertilizer increase. The poor farmers can't afford a pickup, so drive a motorbike, which does not run on diesel.

Anyway, seems we all agree. A 20% increase in diesel price will raise the cost of living by 2%, not 20%. (estimated numbers)

Well a farmer who grows rice can feed his family with his product nbut the farmer who grows tapioca, sugar cane, rubber or the many other products that the farmers grow in Thailand can't produce their own food and so will be hit by this 2% extra cost of living. Teachers, people who work in banks, shops, 7/11, gas stations, electrical dealers, car and motorbike shops, market traders etc also dont grow their own food so whichever way you look at it it will cost the poor much more than the rich or even 99% of farangs.

Pork farmers grow pork and eat rice but dont grow it and rice farmers eat pork but don't breed pigs.

IF this comes in at one time my best guess is that the cost of living index will rise by 3 to 4%

Farmers won't get 2% more for their products anyway. They best they will get is the market price and that will be dropped to them by 10% anyway.

Phasing it in over several years is the best option other than not bringing it in at all.

Since both the rich and the poor need food and transport etc, it seems to me it will cost them exactly the same, but of course it will be easier for the rich to afford a price increase.

Many small scale farmers grow a variety of vegetables for their own consumption besides what they grow to make an income, and they usually have a few chickens or similar running around too.

Keep in mind that the subsidies are not coming from heaven. People using gasoline are currently subsidising diesel users, including poor people using gasoline such as people on motorbikes. If diesel goes up, gasoline might become cheaper, which will benefit many people, especially the poor.

[ParadiseLost]

The reforms will involve making every type of fuel subject to the same tax rates, he said.

Warning - there is hidden danger in this statement!

The same 'trick' was pulled in many 'developed' countries - take the UK for example - a levy was introduced as a percentage (80%) when the fuel price was low, say around 20p - this may be wrong but the effect is the point - so a 20p liter cost 36p. Today, that 80% is so heavy the pump prices are above a pound, with the govt raking in more than 80p in taxes.

Did the govt have to account for this vast revenue increase? No, the rate has stayed constant so everyone just takes it (up the rear imho). Consumption has increased dramatically over the past decade, turning this into one of the biggest earners, at the same time ensuring prices of most basic goods are inflated way above most EU countries...

If there is to be a levy, let it be a flat amount adjusted annually, not a percentage of the cost.

Wake up before it is too late, Thai people.

Edited September 15, 2014 by ParadiseLost