Protest over subsidy only for rice farmers

[Lite Beer]

Protest over subsidy only for rice farmers
Ayuthai Nonnitirat
Kawintra Jaiseu
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Growers of other crops, having similar problems, upset they have been ignored

Farmers of various crops are crying foul over the government decision to award subsidies to rice farmers while ignoring the others.

"It's unfair. The government doesn't treat all farmers equally," chief adviser to the Chiang Rai-based Rubber Plantation Cooperative, Narong Boriparak, said yesterday.

He was speaking in response to the government project offering about Bt1,000 subsidy per rai of paddy field to rice farmers so as to help them shoulder the cost of cultivation. The ceiling for the subsidy is set at Bt15,000.

The price of rice has been falling. Jinda Oumyart, a 54-year-old farmer in Pathum Thani province, said she could sell a tonne of rice at only Bt6,000 to Bt7,000.

"For rice farmers to survive, we should at least earn about Bt9,000 per tonne," she said. She added that the cost of cultivation per rai of paddy field had reached about Bt5,500 and Bt5,600.

Narong argued that rubber growers too faced rising costs, as fertilisers and other farming tools were all becoming more expensive.

"We feel slighted," he said.

Boonyoung Prommuang, who chairs the rubber panel of the Chiang Rai Farmers Council, said rubber price was spiralling downward, too, but the government had yet to provide any assistance.

Utairat Boontiam, who heads a corn farmers' group in Chiang Mai's Mae Chaem district, asked what the government planned to do for corn growers.

"We will rally if the government continues to ignore us," he said.

He said the government should help them find markets and bypass middlemen.

Meanwhile, the Northeastern Rice Farmers' Association president, Panupong Pattarakhon-ngam, did not welcome the government's move either.

He pointed out that many farmers had rented land from landlords and might have difficulty getting the government subsidy in practice.

"Even if the landowners allow the farmers to produce the land-lease documents for claiming subsidy, they will demand that farmers give them a greater share in the rice output," Panupong said.

In his opinion, farmers will not be the true beneficiaries of such a government project.

Panupong also questioned why relevant authorities were not striving harder to control the prices of chemical fertilisers and pesticides.

However, many small-scale farmers are happy with the government's promise to pay subsidies.

Somsak Lamuncha, whose paddy fields cover about 13 rai, said he felt thankful for the government's latest move.

"I think farmers will benefit, including those who have to rent plots of land from landlords," he said.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Protest-over-subsidy-only-for-rice-farmers-30244724.html

-- The Nation 2014-10-04

[ramrod711]

I watched Prayuth on television last night, he cautioned rice farmers against off season rice because of impending drought, He did say that the government may put farmers to work digging irrigation canals and other projects that would give farmers an income to offset the loss of off season rice production. What remains to be seen is, how many farmers will go to work for a wage instead of staying on the farm, asking for a handout in the form of subsidies.

[noitom]

Sure, the rubber people need help and want their cut.

[halloween]

We farm 1 rai of grass behind our house. Why should grass farmers be discriminated against? Isn't rice just another form of grass?

BTW special price on grass clippings this week. Even cheaper if you cut your own.

[Chris Lawrence]

I posted this yesterday but still relevant to the above:

'Currently, 72 % of Thailand's general public expenditures are being spent in Bangkok, which is home to 17% of the country’s population and produces 26% of the GDP. In contrast, the Northeast, which holds 34 % of the country's population, receives 6% of the expenditures.' http://www.worldbank...t-review-report

The PM is facing the dilemma of cutting the spending of Bangkok and evenly distributing expenditure to the country areas. All farmers deserve the right to some social programs, but it needs to be ones that will increase production or increase the education and the ability to an education of rural families. There are other social programs, but they need to be adopted on either a area by area basis or a state wide basis.

It may also be a time to look at major infrastructure programs to the rural areas. Which would inject money and spending into these economy's

The reason why the T's were respected in the rural areas is that they were seen to be taking care of business for these areas. They were implementing social programs, which were appreciated and helped the rural poor.

The General appears to be relying on a propaganda program of law and order; but it does appear it is a clearing out of support to the T's. I can’t recall a major spending program developed and up and running by the current crop of coup leaders.

The way in which the PM will sought this problem out, could turn out to be a big burn to the coup leaders. The rural Thai population may end up seeing the hot air pass them, meaning that they were not better off under the coup? It’s time for the PM to step up and give clear direction to the rural population.

[whybother]

I posted this yesterday but still relevant to the above:

'Currently, 72 % of Thailand's general public expenditures are being spent in Bangkok, which is home to 17% of the country’s population and produces 26% of the GDP. In contrast, the Northeast, which holds 34 % of the country's population, receives 6% of the expenditures.' http://www.worldbank...t-review-report

The PM is facing the dilemma of cutting the spending of Bangkok and evenly distributing expenditure to the country areas. All farmers deserve the right to some social programs, but it needs to be ones that will increase production or increase the education and the ability to an education of rural families. There are other social programs, but they need to be adopted on either a area by area basis or a state wide basis.

It may also be a time to look at major infrastructure programs to the rural areas. Which would inject money and spending into these economy's

The reason why the T's were respected in the rural areas is that they were seen to be taking care of business for these areas. They were implementing social programs, which were appreciated and helped the rural poor.

The General appears to be relying on a propaganda program of law and order; but it does appear it is a clearing out of support to the T's. I can’t recall a major spending program developed and up and running by the current crop of coup leaders.

The way in which the PM will sought this problem out, could turn out to be a big burn to the coup leaders. The rural Thai population may end up seeing the hot air pass them, meaning that they were not better off under the coup? It’s time for the PM to step up and give clear direction to the rural population.

Have a look at this report from 2005. (http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2006/05/05/000160016_20060505123413/Rendered/PDF/35353.pdf)

It shows that economic development was happening in the North East long before Thaksin came along. Thaksin just happened to come along at a time when the global economy was booming.

I think you're expecting a bit too much from the current government if you're looking for any programs up and running after just a couple of months in government. The governments over the last 15 years haven't sorted this out. The current government are unlikely to sort it out in the couple of years that they will be in power. The government's main purpose is to sort out the political and democratic issues in Thailand, not to "make everyone rich in 6 months". They will put in programs to keep the economy moving, but it's not like they are doing things to make sure they get re-elected at the next election, which is what most governments are worried about.

[FangFerang]

I posted this yesterday but still relevant to the above:

'Currently, 72 % of Thailand's general public expenditures are being spent in Bangkok, which is home to 17% of the country’s population and produces 26% of the GDP. In contrast, the Northeast, which holds 34 % of the country's population, receives 6% of the expenditures.' http://www.worldbank...t-review-report

The PM is facing the dilemma of cutting the spending of Bangkok and evenly distributing expenditure to the country areas. All farmers deserve the right to some social programs, but it needs to be ones that will increase production or increase the education and the ability to an education of rural families. There are other social programs, but they need to be adopted on either a area by area basis or a state wide basis.

It may also be a time to look at major infrastructure programs to the rural areas. Which would inject money and spending into these economy's

The reason why the T's were respected in the rural areas is that they were seen to be taking care of business for these areas. They were implementing social programs, which were appreciated and helped the rural poor.

The General appears to be relying on a propaganda program of law and order; but it does appear it is a clearing out of support to the T's. I can’t recall a major spending program developed and up and running by the current crop of coup leaders.

The way in which the PM will sought this problem out, could turn out to be a big burn to the coup leaders. The rural Thai population may end up seeing the hot air pass them, meaning that they were not better off under the coup? It’s time for the PM to step up and give clear direction to the rural population.

Have a look at this report from 2005. (http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2006/05/05/000160016_20060505123413/Rendered/PDF/35353.pdf)

It shows that economic development was happening in the North East long before Thaksin came along. Thaksin just happened to come along at a time when the global economy was booming.

I think you're expecting a bit too much from the current government if you're looking for any programs up and running after just a couple of months in government. The governments over the last 15 years haven't sorted this out. The current government are unlikely to sort it out in the couple of years that they will be in power. The government's main purpose is to sort out the political and democratic issues in Thailand, not to "make everyone rich in 6 months". They will put in programs to keep the economy moving, but it's not like they are doing things to make sure they get re-elected at the next election, which is what most governments are worried about.

What lazy thinking. Political issues and democratic issues are ice cream -- these people need dinner, not some abstract just desserts. I accuse you of obfuscation, red herring arguments and delineation, and I am correct.

[Krataiboy]

What about a subsidy for weed? Sorry, I mean weeds, of course, which are all that seems to grow in our garden.

[whybother]

What lazy thinking. Political issues and democratic issues are ice cream -- these people need dinner, not some abstract just desserts. I accuse you of obfuscation, red herring arguments and delineation, and I am correct.

2 points.

- What had Yingluck done after 6 weeks in office?

- The government ARE looking at economic issues, but don't expect them to solve the all the problems that the North East have in their short time in office, when governments over the last 20 years have been unable to fix those problems. Even Thaksin, who supposedly spent a lot of money up there, and during a global economic boom, couldn't fix the problems.

[rickirs]

Running an army was so much more simple.

A General sends out his orders and they are obeyed without question or debate. It is irrelevant who, if anyone, gets more benefit than someone else. It is irrelevant whether the orders are good or flawed. It's "Sir, Yes Sir." I bet General Prayuth feels a little homesick for the organized and obediant army that he commanded.

[halloween]

“If this were a dictatorship it would be a heck of a lot easier..." G W Bush

[Strangebrew]

Ever think of growing other crops? to supplement income? Or heck Take one rai of land turn into pond raise fish to sell.

[halloween]

Ever think of growing other crops? to supplement income? Or heck Take one rai of land turn into pond raise fish to sell.

It appears this subsidy is to assist farmers unable to grow a 2nd or 3rd crop due to water shortage. Probably rules out fish farming as an alternative.

[citizen33]

I posted this yesterday but still relevant to the above:

'Currently, 72 % of Thailand's general public expenditures are being spent in Bangkok, which is home to 17% of the country’s population and produces 26% of the GDP. In contrast, the Northeast, which holds 34 % of the country's population, receives 6% of the expenditures.' http://www.worldbank...t-review-report

The PM is facing the dilemma of cutting the spending of Bangkok and evenly distributing expenditure to the country areas. All farmers deserve the right to some social programs, but it needs to be ones that will increase production or increase the education and the ability to an education of rural families. There are other social programs, but they need to be adopted on either a area by area basis or a state wide basis.

It may also be a time to look at major infrastructure programs to the rural areas. Which would inject money and spending into these economy's

The reason why the T's were respected in the rural areas is that they were seen to be taking care of business for these areas. They were implementing social programs, which were appreciated and helped the rural poor.

The General appears to be relying on a propaganda program of law and order; but it does appear it is a clearing out of support to the T's. I can’t recall a major spending program developed and up and running by the current crop of coup leaders.

The way in which the PM will sought this problem out, could turn out to be a big burn to the coup leaders. The rural Thai population may end up seeing the hot air pass them, meaning that they were not better off under the coup? It’s time for the PM to step up and give clear direction to the rural population.

Have a look at this report from 2005. (http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2006/05/05/000160016_20060505123413/Rendered/PDF/35353.pdf)

It shows that economic development was happening in the North East long before Thaksin came along. Thaksin just happened to come along at a time when the global economy was booming.

I think you're expecting a bit too much from the current government if you're looking for any programs up and running after just a couple of months in government. The governments over the last 15 years haven't sorted this out. The current government are unlikely to sort it out in the couple of years that they will be in power. The government's main purpose is to sort out the political and democratic issues in Thailand, not to "make everyone rich in 6 months". They will put in programs to keep the economy moving, but it's not like they are doing things to make sure they get re-elected at the next election, which is what most governments are worried about.

Very interesting report that shows that there was accelerating growth in Isaan from the 1970s onwards. One point the report makes, however, is that other regions of Thailand were growing even faster.

'Economic growth, while decent by international standards, lacks (sic) behind Thailand’s other regions. Since 1970, annual economic growth fell short by one percentage point compared to the national average, and the Northeast’s contribution to Thailand’s GDP fell from 16 percent to only 9 percent even though the population share remained constant at around one third.'

It is hard to deny that the 'populist' progrrammes introduced in the early 2000s, especially the 30 baht programme and the village loan scheme did not make a big difference in the NE.

[rubl]

Have a look at this report from 2005. (http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2006/05/05/000160016_20060505123413/Rendered/PDF/35353.pdf)

It shows that economic development was happening in the North East long before Thaksin came along. Thaksin just happened to come along at a time when the global economy was booming.

I think you're expecting a bit too much from the current government if you're looking for any programs up and running after just a couple of months in government. The governments over the last 15 years haven't sorted this out. The current government are unlikely to sort it out in the couple of years that they will be in power. The government's main purpose is to sort out the political and democratic issues in Thailand, not to "make everyone rich in 6 months". They will put in programs to keep the economy moving, but it's not like they are doing things to make sure they get re-elected at the next election, which is what most governments are worried about.

What lazy thinking. Political issues and democratic issues are ice cream -- these people need dinner, not some abstract just desserts. I accuse you of obfuscation, red herring arguments and delineation, and I am correct.

and in the mean time I'm wondering about the subsidy of 2,200 Baht or so per rai, the NCPO has paid the rubber wood farmers as was promised by the Yingluck government. Will it be paid again over 2014/2015?

It would seem that the Yingluck government has spoiled the electorate and farmers, only to give a financial headache to the government succeeding it.

[whybother]

I posted this yesterday but still relevant to the above:

'Currently, 72 % of Thailand's general public expenditures are being spent in Bangkok, which is home to 17% of the country’s population and produces 26% of the GDP. In contrast, the Northeast, which holds 34 % of the country's population, receives 6% of the expenditures.' http://www.worldbank...t-review-report

The PM is facing the dilemma of cutting the spending of Bangkok and evenly distributing expenditure to the country areas. All farmers deserve the right to some social programs, but it needs to be ones that will increase production or increase the education and the ability to an education of rural families. There are other social programs, but they need to be adopted on either a area by area basis or a state wide basis.

It may also be a time to look at major infrastructure programs to the rural areas. Which would inject money and spending into these economy's

The reason why the T's were respected in the rural areas is that they were seen to be taking care of business for these areas. They were implementing social programs, which were appreciated and helped the rural poor.

The General appears to be relying on a propaganda program of law and order; but it does appear it is a clearing out of support to the T's. I can’t recall a major spending program developed and up and running by the current crop of coup leaders.

The way in which the PM will sought this problem out, could turn out to be a big burn to the coup leaders. The rural Thai population may end up seeing the hot air pass them, meaning that they were not better off under the coup? It’s time for the PM to step up and give clear direction to the rural population.

Have a look at this report from 2005. (http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2006/05/05/000160016_20060505123413/Rendered/PDF/35353.pdf)

It shows that economic development was happening in the North East long before Thaksin came along. Thaksin just happened to come along at a time when the global economy was booming.

I think you're expecting a bit too much from the current government if you're looking for any programs up and running after just a couple of months in government. The governments over the last 15 years haven't sorted this out. The current government are unlikely to sort it out in the couple of years that they will be in power. The government's main purpose is to sort out the political and democratic issues in Thailand, not to "make everyone rich in 6 months". They will put in programs to keep the economy moving, but it's not like they are doing things to make sure they get re-elected at the next election, which is what most governments are worried about.

Very interesting report that shows that there was accelerating growth in Isaan from the 1970s onwards. One point the report makes, however, is that other regions of Thailand were growing even faster.

'Economic growth, while decent by international standards, lacks (sic) behind Thailand’s other regions. Since 1970, annual economic growth fell short by one percentage point compared to the national average, and the Northeast’s contribution to Thailand’s GDP fell from 16 percent to only 9 percent even though the population share remained constant at around one third.'

It is hard to deny that the 'populist' progrrammes introduced in the early 2000s, especially the 30 baht programme and the village loan scheme did not make a big difference in the NE.

I don't deny that Thaksin's policies didn't make a difference.

I put it down to the booming global economy.

[Chris Lawrence]

I posted this yesterday but still relevant to the above:

'Currently, 72 % of Thailand's general public expenditures are being spent in Bangkok, which is home to 17% of the country’s population and produces 26% of the GDP. In contrast, the Northeast, which holds 34 % of the country's population, receives 6% of the expenditures.' http://www.worldbank...t-review-report

The PM is facing the dilemma of cutting the spending of Bangkok and evenly distributing expenditure to the country areas. All farmers deserve the right to some social programs, but it needs to be ones that will increase production or increase the education and the ability to an education of rural families. There are other social programs, but they need to be adopted on either a area by area basis or a state wide basis.

It may also be a time to look at major infrastructure programs to the rural areas. Which would inject money and spending into these economy's

The reason why the T's were respected in the rural areas is that they were seen to be taking care of business for these areas. They were implementing social programs, which were appreciated and helped the rural poor.

The General appears to be relying on a propaganda program of law and order; but it does appear it is a clearing out of support to the T's. I can’t recall a major spending program developed and up and running by the current crop of coup leaders.

The way in which the PM will sought this problem out, could turn out to be a big burn to the coup leaders. The rural Thai population may end up seeing the hot air pass them, meaning that they were not better off under the coup? It’s time for the PM to step up and give clear direction to the rural population.

Have a look at this report from 2005. (http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2006/05/05/000160016_20060505123413/Rendered/PDF/35353.pdf)

It shows that economic development was happening in the North East long before Thaksin came along. Thaksin just happened to come along at a time when the global economy was booming.

I think you're expecting a bit too much from the current government if you're looking for any programs up and running after just a couple of months in government. The governments over the last 15 years haven't sorted this out. The current government are unlikely to sort it out in the couple of years that they will be in power. The government's main purpose is to sort out the political and democratic issues in Thailand, not to "make everyone rich in 6 months". They will put in programs to keep the economy moving, but it's not like they are doing things to make sure they get re-elected at the next election, which is what most governments are worried about.

Whybother, why haven't Governments done nothing for the last years?

'To attract prosperous enterprises to the Northeast will require accommodating demands in terms of investment climate, business services, infrastructure, skill requirements and administrative capacity that are of greater complexity than in the past. Unless the Northeast meets these challenges, its growth will continue to fall behind and poverty will remain stubbornly high relative to other regions in Thailand. While much is at stake, the opportunities are even greater. By embracing the reform path, Thailand can transform the Northeast’s economy into a new development paradigm for other lagging regions and spread prosperity to neighboring regions and countries alike.' http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2006/05/05/000160016_20060505123413/Rendered/PDF/35353.pdf

There are other points in this report, but the greatest harm to the area is the poor soil content, centralised Government making decisions for this area (they are told by Bangkok what they will spend on), top down management, and the migration problem in the area. Many families send the young ones to work in the larger cities where without network of people helping them, people can and will be taken advantage of (human trafficking issues).

The Coup has taken control of the country, as they believed the past Government was doing poorly. They have also elected themselves as a Government, believing they can do a better job.

It’s not about making people reach in six months; it’s about problems that the people in the country are facing day in day out. The report you mentioned highlights these problems.

Just throwing 1000 baht a rai at farmers is not going to solve the problem. 72% of expenditure is spent on Bangkok? My thoughts were that may be where the problem is?

Have you read this report, Whybother?

[whybother]

Whybother, why haven't Governments done nothing for the last years?

'To attract prosperous enterprises to the Northeast will require accommodating demands in terms of investment climate, business services, infrastructure, skill requirements and administrative capacity that are of greater complexity than in the past. Unless the Northeast meets these challenges, its growth will continue to fall behind and poverty will remain stubbornly high relative to other regions in Thailand. While much is at stake, the opportunities are even greater. By embracing the reform path, Thailand can transform the Northeast’s economy into a new development paradigm for other lagging regions and spread prosperity to neighboring regions and countries alike.' http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2006/05/05/000160016_20060505123413/Rendered/PDF/35353.pdf

There are other points in this report, but the greatest harm to the area is the poor soil content, centralised Government making decisions for this area (they are told by Bangkok what they will spend on), top down management, and the migration problem in the area. Many families send the young ones to work in the larger cities where without network of people helping them, people can and will be taken advantage of (human trafficking issues).

The Coup has taken control of the country, as they believed the past Government was doing poorly. They have also elected themselves as a Government, believing they can do a better job.

It’s not about making people reach in six months; it’s about problems that the people in the country are facing day in day out. The report you mentioned highlights these problems.

Just throwing 1000 baht a rai at farmers is not going to solve the problem. 72% of expenditure is spent on Bangkok? My thoughts were that may be where the problem is?

Have you read this report, Whybother?

It's the same issue in many countries. The areas outside the big cities miss out. The problem for the north east is that it is so far away from the ports. Business doesn't want to invest there because transport costs too much. As you point out, the soil isn't very good either, so they can't make a lot out of farming.

I am not disagreeing with you about the issues or that something needs to be done about it. I'm questioning what you have expected the current government to have done about it in the couple of months they have been in power. The junta didn't take control because the previous government was "doing poorly". They took over because of the political stalemate and the need to fix some of the systems.

There is no point just throwing 1,000 baht per rai at the area. Governments have been throwing money at the North East for the last 10 years. It's good for consumption, but does very little in the long term. What is needed is infrastructure investment Better transport to bring the ports closer (double tracking not HST). Investment in better farming practices, not just subsidies to make bad farms break even.

I haven't read the full report, but I have read many similar to it. I don't think simply looking at the single statement "72% of expenditure is spent on Bangkok" really conveys the full picture. If it's government expenditure, then you would also need to look at where government income is coming from. Where is the government collecting the most tax? Even with that, there is still probably too much money spent in Bangkok.

Edited October 4, 2014 by whybother

[Thai at Heart]

I posted this yesterday but still relevant to the above:

'Currently, 72 % of Thailand's general public expenditures are being spent in Bangkok, which is home to 17% of the countrys population and produces 26% of the GDP. In contrast, the Northeast, which holds 34 % of the country's population, receives 6% of the expenditures.' http://www.worldbank...t-review-report

The PM is facing the dilemma of cutting the spending of Bangkok and evenly distributing expenditure to the country areas. All farmers deserve the right to some social programs, but it needs to be ones that will increase production or increase the education and the ability to an education of rural families. There are other social programs, but they need to be adopted on either a area by area basis or a state wide basis.

It may also be a time to look at major infrastructure programs to the rural areas. Which would inject money and spending into these economy's

The reason why the T's were respected in the rural areas is that they were seen to be taking care of business for these areas. They were implementing social programs, which were appreciated and helped the rural poor.

The General appears to be relying on a propaganda program of law and order; but it does appear it is a clearing out of support to the T's. I cant recall a major spending program developed and up and running by the current crop of coup leaders.

The way in which the PM will sought this problem out, could turn out to be a big burn to the coup leaders. The rural Thai population may end up seeing the hot air pass them, meaning that they were not better off under the coup? Its time for the PM to step up and give clear direction to the rural population.

Have a look at this report from 2005. (http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2006/05/05/000160016_20060505123413/Rendered/PDF/35353.pdf)

It shows that economic development was happening in the North East long before Thaksin came along. Thaksin just happened to come along at a time when the global economy was booming.

I think you're expecting a bit too much from the current government if you're looking for any programs up and running after just a couple of months in government. The governments over the last 15 years haven't sorted this out. The current government are unlikely to sort it out in the couple of years that they will be in power. The government's main purpose is to sort out the political and democratic issues in Thailand, not to "make everyone rich in 6 months". They will put in programs to keep the economy moving, but it's not like they are doing things to make sure they get re-elected at the next election, which is what most governments are worried about.

What year did Thaksin become PM?

Before 2005?

[whybother]

What year did Thaksin become PM?

Before 2005?

2001. I thought you would have known that. Or maybe there was a point to your questions.

[Chris Lawrence]

Thai at heart, made a good comment in another thread; "The spread of money around the country is all wrong".

The General has basically come in on the premise’s that the way the country was being run was not benefiting all Thais. But his mandate is the same as those in the past; ensure the Bangkok Elite are well serviced. 17% of the country is in Bangkok with 74% of state expenditure going on Bangkok. The other problem is the level of income taxation paid, which is very low.

No one is asking for a free lunch, but the disparity in spending is one sided. Tax’s are a safety net for the whole country, not to be splurged on a few.

The world Bank is saying only 6% of spending goes to the Northeast; which holds 34% of the country’ population. A country is like any business; sometimes you need to cut from one area to improve overall profit.

Until the central government looks at fair and equitable disbursement of state spending to improve the various areas to substantially contribute to the economy, they will forever be robbing Peter to pay Paul. The other way to look at this, if the state does nothing, they can keep saying how good they are when handing out money.

[halloween]

Thai at heart, made a good comment in another thread; "The spread of money around the country is all wrong".

The General has basically come in on the premise’s that the way the country was being run was not benefiting all Thais. But his mandate is the same as those in the past; ensure the Bangkok Elite are well serviced. 17% of the country is in Bangkok with 74% of state expenditure going on Bangkok. The other problem is the level of income taxation paid, which is very low.

No one is asking for a free lunch, but the disparity in spending is one sided. Tax’s are a safety net for the whole country, not to be splurged on a few.

The world Bank is saying only 6% of spending goes to the Northeast; which holds 34% of the country’ population. A country is like any business; sometimes you need to cut from one area to improve overall profit.

Until the central government looks at fair and equitable disbursement of state spending to improve the various areas to substantially contribute to the economy, they will forever be robbing Peter to pay Paul. The other way to look at this, if the state does nothing, they can keep saying how good they are when handing out money.

But how much of that 74% is going to government departments based in BKK? Decentralisation may be the answer, with each government dept being located in poorer provinces. The govt workers salaries would boost local economies more than handouts.

Haven't the junta already said they are looking at this?

[rametindallas]

Thai at heart, made a good comment in another thread; "The spread of money around the country is all wrong".

The General has basically come in on the premise’s that the way the country was being run was not benefiting all Thais. But his mandate is the same as those in the past; ensure the Bangkok Elite are well serviced. 17% of the country is in Bangkok with 74% of state expenditure going on Bangkok. The other problem is the level of income taxation paid, which is very low.

No one is asking for a free lunch, but the disparity in spending is one sided. Tax’s are a safety net for the whole country, not to be splurged on a few.

The world Bank is saying only 6% of spending goes to the Northeast; which holds 34% of the country’ population. A country is like any business; sometimes you need to cut from one area to improve overall profit.

Until the central government looks at fair and equitable disbursement of state spending to improve the various areas to substantially contribute to the economy, they will forever be robbing Peter to pay Paul. The other way to look at this, if the state does nothing, they can keep saying how good they are when handing out money.

17% of the country is in Bangkok with 74% of state expenditure going on Bangkok.

Do you have any figures on how much of the tax base comes from the 17% in Bangkok. You certainly don't want to kill the only goose that's laying golden eggs, i.e. Bangkok. The NE has terrible weather, bad soil, a population of poor/poorly educated farmers. etc. I would hazard to guess that the federal government spends more on the NE than the NE sends to the federal government in taxes. Unfortunately for the people of the NE, the last government spent the money that should have been spent on long-term infrastructure improvements/improved farming methods but instead, spent that money on vote-buying, populist plans that left farmers worse off now than they were before. The six or seven hundred billion Baht wasted on the Rice Support Scheme would have gone a long way to developing Isaan into a more productive region.

I may be wrong but I think the currently proposed hand-outs are to wean and, also, tide over the farmers until the double track train service can make them more accessible/attractive to industry. My first wife is from Yasothon and I have many good friends in Isaan, plus I was raised on a farm myself, so I have a lot of love and sympathy for NE people. They need the type of infrastructure improvements that will attract private development and also need to be introduced to new, modern farming techniques so that they won't continue to be the least productive farmers in ASEAN.

Edited October 5, 2014 by rametindallas

[Bosse137]

I will just point out,that the twothousandsomething goes only to rubberfarmers who has land titels.Where I live,nobody has,although they have lived here for generations and are registered with ampue and the bank.I think they need as much help as anybody,especially since they were persuaded by former governments to invest in rubbertrees;in some cases got financial help to do so!

[Thai at Heart]

Thai at heart, made a good comment in another thread; "The spread of money around the country is all wrong".

The General has basically come in on the premises that the way the country was being run was not benefiting all Thais. But his mandate is the same as those in the past; ensure the Bangkok Elite are well serviced. 17% of the country is in Bangkok with 74% of state expenditure going on Bangkok. The other problem is the level of income taxation paid, which is very low.

No one is asking for a free lunch, but the disparity in spending is one sided. Taxs are a safety net for the whole country, not to be splurged on a few.

The world Bank is saying only 6% of spending goes to the Northeast; which holds 34% of the country population. A country is like any business; sometimes you need to cut from one area to improve overall profit.

Until the central government looks at fair and equitable disbursement of state spending to improve the various areas to substantially contribute to the economy, they will forever be robbing Peter to pay Paul. The other way to look at this, if the state does nothing, they can keep saying how good they are when handing out money.

I lived and worked in agribusiness in isaan for a long time. And the change of how money was distributed depending on who was in power was very obvious.

Isaan will now take a licking as the taps are turned off in bangkok. But yes the money distribution is all wrong, the thievery is terrible and the tax base way too small.

The farmers really need help, but this has been this way for decades. They keep growing things that only benefit the exporters . they get fat, and the farmers get too little.

I say to them, stop growing rice so much and switch. Certainly don't grow 3 crops and certainly don't grow on marginal land without good irrigation.

Who benefits from this glut of rice? Certainly not the farmers. Meanwhile isaan cries out for schools and hospitals. But bangkok sucks the country dry.

[Thai at Heart]

Thai at heart, made a good comment in another thread; "The spread of money around the country is all wrong".

The General has basically come in on the premises that the way the country was being run was not benefiting all Thais. But his mandate is the same as those in the past; ensure the Bangkok Elite are well serviced. 17% of the country is in Bangkok with 74% of state expenditure going on Bangkok. The other problem is the level of income taxation paid, which is very low.

No one is asking for a free lunch, but the disparity in spending is one sided. Taxs are a safety net for the whole country, not to be splurged on a few.

The world Bank is saying only 6% of spending goes to the Northeast; which holds 34% of the country population. A country is like any business; sometimes you need to cut from one area to improve overall profit.

Until the central government looks at fair and equitable disbursement of state spending to improve the various areas to substantially contribute to the economy, they will forever be robbing Peter to pay Paul. The other way to look at this, if the state does nothing, they can keep saying how good they are when handing out money.

17% of the country is in Bangkok with 74% of state expenditure going on Bangkok.

Do you have any figures on how much of the tax base comes from the 17% in Bangkok. You certainly don't want to kill the only goose that's laying golden eggs, i.e. Bangkok. The NE has terrible weather, bad soil, a population of poor/poorly educated farmers. etc. I would hazard to guess that the federal government spends more on the NE than the NE sends to the federal government in taxes. Unfortunately for the people of the NE, the last government spent the money that should have been spent on long-term infrastructure improvements/improved farming methods but instead, spent that money on vote-buying, populist plans that left farmers worse off now than they were before. The six or seven hundred billion Baht wasted on the Rice Support Scheme would have gone a long way to developing Isaan into a more productive region.

I may be wrong but I think the currently proposed hand-outs are to wean and, also, tide over the farmers until the double track train service can make them more accessible/attractive to industry. My first wife is from Yasothon and I have many good friends in Isaan, plus I was raised on a farm myself, so I have a lot of love and sympathy for NE people. They need the type of infrastructure improvements that will attract private development and also need to be introduced to new, modern farming techniques so that they won't continue to be the least productive farmers in ASEAN.

These numbers are skewed because so much invoicing and accounting is done in Bangkok. Rayong should be the richest place in the country, but all the accounting for these companies is done in Bangkok.

The spread of GDP is biased to bangkok because companies keep their head offices and invoicing entities there.

[Bob12345]

...

17% of the country is in Bangkok with 74% of state expenditure going on Bangkok.

Do you have any figures on how much of the tax base comes from the 17% in Bangkok. You certainly don't want to kill the only goose that's laying golden eggs, i.e. Bangkok. The NE has terrible weather, bad soil, a population of poor/poorly educated farmers. etc. I would hazard to guess that the federal government spends more on the NE than the NE sends to the federal government in taxes. Unfortunately for the people of the NE, the last government spent the money that should have been spent on long-term infrastructure improvements/improved farming methods but instead, spent that money on vote-buying, populist plans that left farmers worse off now than they were before. The six or seven hundred billion Baht wasted on the Rice Support Scheme would have gone a long way to developing Isaan into a more productive region.

I may be wrong but I think the currently proposed hand-outs are to wean and, also, tide over the farmers until the double track train service can make them more accessible/attractive to industry. My first wife is from Yasothon and I have many good friends in Isaan, plus I was raised on a farm myself, so I have a lot of love and sympathy for NE people. They need the type of infrastructure improvements that will attract private development and also need to be introduced to new, modern farming techniques so that they won't continue to be the least productive farmers in ASEAN.

These numbers are skewed because so much invoicing and accounting is done in Bangkok. Rayong should be the richest place in the country, but all the accounting for these companies is done in Bangkok.

The spread of GDP is biased to bangkok because companies keep their head offices and invoicing entities there.

Central Thailand seems to be the real goose that is laying the golden eggs.

It would mostly be the industrial parks there that produce so much, from hard disks to cars.

Edited October 5, 2014 by Bob12345

[Chris Lawrence]

I posted this yesterday but still relevant to the above:

'Currently, 72 % of Thailand's general public expenditures are being spent in Bangkok, which is home to 17% of the country’s population and produces 26% of the GDP. In contrast, the Northeast, which holds 34 % of the country's population, receives 6% of the expenditures.' http://www.worldbank...t-review-report

The PM is facing the dilemma of cutting the spending of Bangkok and evenly distributing expenditure to the country areas. All farmers deserve the right to some social programs, but it needs to be ones that will increase production or increase the education and the ability to an education of rural families. There are other social programs, but they need to be adopted on either a area by area basis or a state wide basis.

It may also be a time to look at major infrastructure programs to the rural areas. Which would inject money and spending into these economy's

The reason why the T's were respected in the rural areas is that they were seen to be taking care of business for these areas. They were implementing social programs, which were appreciated and helped the rural poor.

The General appears to be relying on a propaganda program of law and order; but it does appear it is a clearing out of support to the T's. I can’t recall a major spending program developed and up and running by the current crop of coup leaders.

The way in which the PM will sought this problem out, could turn out to be a big burn to the coup leaders. The rural Thai population may end up seeing the hot air pass them, meaning that they were not better off under the coup? It’s time for the PM to step up and give clear direction to the rural population.

Have a look at this report from 2005. (http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2006/05/05/000160016_20060505123413/Rendered/PDF/35353.pdf)

It shows that economic development was happening in the North East long before Thaksin came along. Thaksin just happened to come along at a time when the global economy was booming.

I think you're expecting a bit too much from the current government if you're looking for any programs up and running after just a couple of months in government. The governments over the last 15 years haven't sorted this out. The current government are unlikely to sort it out in the couple of years that they will be in power. The government's main purpose is to sort out the political and democratic issues in Thailand, not to "make everyone rich in 6 months". They will put in programs to keep the economy moving, but it's not like they are doing things to make sure they get re-elected at the next election, which is what most governments are worried about.

What lazy thinking. Political issues and democratic issues are ice cream -- these people need dinner, not some abstract just desserts. I accuse you of obfuscation, red herring arguments and delineation, and I am correct.

No

[Chris Lawrence]

Thai at heart, made a good comment in another thread; "The spread of money around the country is all wrong".

The General has basically come in on the premises that the way the country was being run was not benefiting all Thais. But his mandate is the same as those in the past; ensure the Bangkok Elite are well serviced. 17% of the country is in Bangkok with 74% of state expenditure going on Bangkok. The other problem is the level of income taxation paid, which is very low.

No one is asking for a free lunch, but the disparity in spending is one sided. Taxs are a safety net for the whole country, not to be splurged on a few.

The world Bank is saying only 6% of spending goes to the Northeast; which holds 34% of the country population. A country is like any business; sometimes you need to cut from one area to improve overall profit.

Until the central government looks at fair and equitable disbursement of state spending to improve the various areas to substantially contribute to the economy, they will forever be robbing Peter to pay Paul. The other way to look at this, if the state does nothing, they can keep saying how good they are when handing out money.

17% of the country is in Bangkok with 74% of state expenditure going on Bangkok.

Do you have any figures on how much of the tax base comes from the 17% in Bangkok. You certainly don't want to kill the only goose that's laying golden eggs, i.e. Bangkok. The NE has terrible weather, bad soil, a population of poor/poorly educated farmers. etc. I would hazard to guess that the federal government spends more on the NE than the NE sends to the federal government in taxes. Unfortunately for the people of the NE, the last government spent the money that should have been spent on long-term infrastructure improvements/improved farming methods but instead, spent that money on vote-buying, populist plans that left farmers worse off now than they were before. The six or seven hundred billion Baht wasted on the Rice Support Scheme would have gone a long way to developing Isaan into a more productive region.

I may be wrong but I think the currently proposed hand-outs are to wean and, also, tide over the farmers until the double track train service can make them more accessible/attractive to industry. My first wife is from Yasothon and I have many good friends in Isaan, plus I was raised on a farm myself, so I have a lot of love and sympathy for NE people. They need the type of infrastructure improvements that will attract private development and also need to be introduced to new, modern farming techniques so that they won't continue to be the least productive farmers in ASEAN.

These numbers are skewed because so much invoicing and accounting is done in Bangkok. Rayong should be the richest place in the country, but all the accounting for these companies is done in Bangkok.

The spread of GDP is biased to bangkok because companies keep their head offices and invoicing entities there.

"It said people earning more than Bt4 million - representing only 0.8 per cent of the total 2.57 million people subject to taxes - received a tax break of less than 20 per cent. That rate is not attractive enough for the rich." http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/765354-thai-politics-no-reason-to-discontinue-tax-benefit-for-equity-funds/

Part of my reply to this was:

'So in Thailand only about 20,000 people are earning over 4 million baht and only 2.57 million are paying tax? There are approximately 67 million Thais (2013), which means only 3.83% are paying income tax?

And the middles class can pay between 8% and 15% as tax contributions?

I know there are other forms of tax in Thailand, but the collection of income tax doesn't appear to add up to much.'

The above numbers are from the National report on TV.

The numbers in my original post on the topic are from the World Bank.

Someone also mentioned the farmers need diners?

At the end of the day the farmers are being screwed. Now they are being asked to forgo the 1000baht as there may be a drought? Silly me, I think that its better to build a dam for situations like draught, then handouts?

A lot of rain comes from the North in rainy season. I know I lived there. There has been a lot written about mitigation plans for Thailand and Bangkok, but nothing gets done.

Unfortunately, they may not see the wood for the trees, because one day there may be no trees.

[Thai at Heart]

...

17% of the country is in Bangkok with 74% of state expenditure going on Bangkok.

Do you have any figures on how much of the tax base comes from the 17% in Bangkok. You certainly don't want to kill the only goose that's laying golden eggs, i.e. Bangkok. The NE has terrible weather, bad soil, a population of poor/poorly educated farmers. etc. I would hazard to guess that the federal government spends more on the NE than the NE sends to the federal government in taxes. Unfortunately for the people of the NE, the last government spent the money that should have been spent on long-term infrastructure improvements/improved farming methods but instead, spent that money on vote-buying, populist plans that left farmers worse off now than they were before. The six or seven hundred billion Baht wasted on the Rice Support Scheme would have gone a long way to developing Isaan into a more productive region.

I may be wrong but I think the currently proposed hand-outs are to wean and, also, tide over the farmers until the double track train service can make them more accessible/attractive to industry. My first wife is from Yasothon and I have many good friends in Isaan, plus I was raised on a farm myself, so I have a lot of love and sympathy for NE people. They need the type of infrastructure improvements that will attract private development and also need to be introduced to new, modern farming techniques so that they won't continue to be the least productive farmers in ASEAN.

These numbers are skewed because so much invoicing and accounting is done in Bangkok. Rayong should be the richest place in the country, but all the accounting for these companies is done in Bangkok.

The spread of GDP is biased to bangkok because companies keep their head offices and invoicing entities there.

Central Thailand seems to be the real goose that is laying the golden eggs.

It would mostly be the industrial parks there that produce so much, from hard disks to cars.

Exactly my point. And then, these disks or car bits will be invoiced from head office which is some office in Sukhumvit or Silom giving the appearance that Bangkok produced it, but no.