Thai National Parks ordered to charge foreigners tenfold

[Thian]

When i was a European kid my parents always told me i had a "brother and a sister" in Thailand, they sent them money by Foster Parents so they could go to school.

Sometimes we got drawings from them, i remember a gun- and an elephantdrawing.

And now i 'm married with a Thai and have to pay a tenfolded entrance-fee to see a small piece of her country.

[AloisAmrein]

I boycott Thailand's "National Parks" (often not worth the name) already, soon I will boycott Thailand as a whole.

[LivinLOS]

I think the policy is unreasonable and unfair to farang living in Thailand and contributing to society as presumably you, like I do. I made two points in what I wrote about fees for local taxpayers.

Like governments the world over, this one produces a blunt instrument to 'solve' a problem; rather than coming up with a more elegant solution based on some sound reasoning and proper research.

It's still not a reflection of xenophobia (hatred and fear), more likely it is a sign of yet another quick-fire, ill-conceived policy that has not been properly thought through or discussed at any length within the government ministries, let alone opened up for public consultation before implementation. TIT.

And yet governments dont do it all over the world..

Look in Malaysia a similar income country.. They have a resident card, and many tourist attractions offer residents discounts.. ALL residents..

xenophobic countries do it. A country less nationalistic would have the discussion, see how its clearly unfair, and fix it.. They choose not to.. Fine, we have to live with it, but lets not pretend its not what it is.

[GAS]

Wow such pissing and moaning, what a bunch of losers! Have NONE of you guys ever had it pretty good as a Farang here? I rarely enter a park and the dual pricing is stupid but it is such a small amount who cares, considering all the special treatment I have had as a Farang here.

If you are nice, dress well and are polite I think you will find yourself getting quite a few perks here...that more than makes up for paying more to get into a park...jeeezus enough with the "I am boycotting Thailand"

Edited February 5, 2015 by GAS

[stickylies]

For me it's simple: I don't visit NP's unless I get local price. Period. If not, no ploblèèm. Smile, turn around, spend cash elsewhere

70% of national parks are a farce anyway. And mind you, all my Thai friends understand and do NOT agree with the government's policy.

Some weeks ago I was bike-cruising around Sangklaburi and noticed "scenic view point" sign. I went for it and was stopped by a guard who said I need to buy a ticket. This was NOT a national park, just a "view point". Anyway, thanx but NO thanx. I drove 350m further and had almost the same view free of charge.

[stickylies]

Wow such pissing and moaning, what a bunch of losers! Have NONE of you guys ever had it pretty good as a Farang here? I rarely enter a park and the dual pricing is stupid but it is such a small amount who cares, considering all the special treatment I have had as a Farang here.

Oh boy, for me it's not about the money. Any government has the duty to give the right example. IMO the Thai government stimulates racism by charging 10x the price to a foreigner. Educated, more worldly Thai think it's unfair, the same way many farang do. Unfortunately Thailand is still consisting of 75% uneducated folks who are incapable to think critically. Bread and circuses...

[outboard]

Any of you guys been to Taj Mahal? The price there is around 50 times the local price for foreigners. Maintaining these places are expensive and the shortfall is funded through tax. If tax receipts fall, then prices rise. The issue is where to draw the line. The Thai Authorities are within their rights to do so but raising prices attract more negativity than if there was a high local price to foreign price ratio to begin with. I don't have a lot of examples but I would assume that higher foreigner prices are not only limited to Thailand.

Have you been to places like Australia where everyone regardless of colour, race or religion, whether a resident, citizen or tourist pays the same? Pensioners will get discount as a thank you for contributing to society all your life.

I live in Australia and there are places that you get discounts for being a resident of the area

Additionally under Australian law the only reason that this pricing structure would be illegal would be that it discriminates against Thais as the difference does not reflect the difference in average earnings.

and most "pensioner discounts" are not pensioner discounts but seniors discounts and are totally separate from the pension scheme meaning the people on disability, carers or single parent pensions don't get them.

[outboard]

Any of you guys been to Taj Mahal? The price there is around 50 times the local price for foreigners. Maintaining these places are expensive and the shortfall is funded through tax. If tax receipts fall, then prices rise. The issue is where to draw the line. The Thai Authorities are within their rights to do so but raising prices attract more negativity than if there was a high local price to foreign price ratio to begin with. I don't have a lot of examples but I would assume that higher foreigner prices are not only limited to Thailand.

It doesn't matter where it happens. It's always wrong to charge more based on nationality.

so you think it would be fair to charge Thais 10 times what they are being charged?

that would make the national parks unaffordable for most Thais

Edited February 5, 2015 by outboard

[Bluespunk]

Any of you guys been to Taj Mahal? The price there is around 50 times the local price for foreigners. Maintaining these places are expensive and the shortfall is funded through tax. If tax receipts fall, then prices rise. The issue is where to draw the line. The Thai Authorities are within their rights to do so but raising prices attract more negativity than if there was a high local price to foreign price ratio to begin with. I don't have a lot of examples but I would assume that higher foreigner prices are not only limited to Thailand.

It doesn't matter where it happens. It's always wrong to charge more based on nationality.

so you think it would be fair to charge Thais 10 times what they are being charged?

that would make the national parks unaffordable for most Thais

No, and nothing in my post indicates that...nothing at all.

Charge one price for all is what I said.

There is no reason that anyone should pay more because of their nationality.

None at all.

[Keesters]

Sorry, but my logic is the one shared by the tourist authorities in countries which have dual pricing whereas yours is just based on a poor understanding of the given lexis.

And that logic then is also discriminatory and just another way to cover up racism as the Thais often do in writing Thai prices in the little used Thai numerals. They know it is wrong but do it anyway.

A discount is a deduction from the usual cost of something. If the usual cost of entering a park is 400 baht and the majority Thai visitors receive a 90% discount then take away the foreigners and they should go bankrupt. Which they wouldn't because the 40 baht is the usual cost.

And note the topic heading. "Thai National Parks ordered to charge foreigners tenfold" not "Thai National Parks ordered to give Thais 90% discount".

You are making ridiculous assumptions about this situation. You presume that because Thais pay 40 baht that this is what is takes to run the park, in reality there is not limit to how much could be spent and every baht helps. The National Parks are funded by the government, they will not go "bankrupt" they are national parks not businesses.

You go by a newspaper headline if you want, I am going by official statements by the tourist authority, everywhere dual pricing happens they give the same reasoning, it is not to penalize foreigners but to provide incentive to locals.

And you presume that a Thai gets a discount from the regular price. Perhaps if the national parks were run like a business, a Farang one not a Thai one, they might be worth 400 baht to visit.

Incentice for locals!!! We are not talking locals as in the same town, city, province we are talking the whole country vs the rest of the planet. That is discrimination, not penalization. But if you wish to see it your deluded way and believe that the Thai nation is receiving a discount so be it. But there are many more who see it as it really is, racist. And that many more includes many of the Thai people themselves who would like to see this skin tax abolished.

First, national parks are not a business and they are not run like businesses in farang countries. You fail to see the worth in contributing to the protection of the natural world and assume that it is you that should be getting something from it rather than the world, how sad.

Actually I do not believe it is a good idea to have dual pricing, however I can see where they are coming from and it isn't your silly little racist idea.

I see the worth in contributing to protecting nature but only as far as the same as everyone else. I.E. I do not expect or tolerate discrimination on any grounds. As far as racism is concerned it appears you are one of the very few here that don't see it while the majority do because dual pricing based on nationality is just that....racist.

[Keesters]

I assume locals here wouldn't mind being charged ten times everyone else to go to visit Yosemite and Yellowstone National Parks, Glacier National Park, Grand Canyon National Park, etc? Well, no need to stop there, just charge them double to go up to the top of the Empire State Building, visit the Statue of Liberty, the Metropolitan Museum of Art and similar sites around the world.

And while we're at it make it illegal for them to own land or the majority share in a company. Both of which should be Thai laws forbidding their citizens from doing overseas the same things that they forbid us in this country.

That wouldn't work! The laws would have to be passed by the countries that the Thais are investing in. Can you imagine Thai judges passing laws that forbid Thais from buying English football clubs, for example?

The law cannot to be made by the country a Thai may invest in as that would be discrimination. The law would have to be a Thai law forbidding Thais to do the same outside their country as we are forbidden to do in theirs. It is called equality. If Thailand deems in wrong for foreigners to own land in Thailand then equally they should deem it wrong for Thais to own land outside of Thailand. Equal rights. Anything else is hypocrisy.

Perhaps in the perfect world, but in reality opening up the flood gates permitting westerners to purchase and own land and real estate here would be a disaster for Thailand. The people to thank for this are those who would abuse the system.

It would be a land grab by those from the wealthier nations, using marriages of convenience to Thais, foreign land speculators taking over the property markets and all kinds of cons and tricks in order to claim their stakes on Thai soil. The Thais would simply be priced out of the market, not able to compete with the wealthier foreigners in their own country. A totally different scenario with Thais owning land and property in the west where the bidders and land prices are on the same levels. Giving westerners strong footholds in Thailand would have the affect of increasing the cost of living for everyone, leaving only the richer Thais able to compete in the real estate markets and the poor destitute.

Thailand is simply not geared up for foreigner investment in the country on the foreigner`s terms, where they can own everything outright, dictate the rules and eventually set the prices.

I am not really asking for the right to own land as much as I'm asking for Thais not to own land overseas. Tit for tat. What's good one way must be good another. Equality. Same same. If however it was allowed controls could be put in place. What possible harm could I make by owning 2 rai instead of leasing it.

[Nowisee]

I can say this for sure.

The national park on Koh Lanta is a giant waste of money and I will never go there again... as there was not one single animal in the entire park, run down pathway and very expensive Caterpillar equipment, most of it very new, sitting and rotting... along with 25 thai park employees laying around doing nothing.

I can afford to pay more, but the parks here are worthless and not even worth the 20 baht I often pay with my DL. Better to just find a spot in the forest and bushwhack your way around.

More and more I am thinking about not living here full time anymore... what is the sense?

[Keesters]

I assume locals here wouldn't mind being charged ten times everyone else to go to visit Yosemite and Yellowstone National Parks, Glacier National Park, Grand Canyon National Park, etc? Well, no need to stop there, just charge them double to go up to the top of the Empire State Building, visit the Statue of Liberty, the Metropolitan Museum of Art and similar sites around the world.

And while we're at it make it illegal for them to own land or the majority share in a company. Both of which should be Thai laws forbidding their citizens from doing overseas the same things that they forbid us in this country.

That wouldn't work! The laws would have to be passed by the countries that the Thais are investing in. Can you imagine Thai judges passing laws that forbid Thais from buying English football clubs, for example?

The law cannot to be made by the country a Thai may invest in as that would be discrimination. The law would have to be a Thai law forbidding Thais to do the same outside their country as we are forbidden to do in theirs. It is called equality. If Thailand deems in wrong for foreigners to own land in Thailand then equally they should deem it wrong for Thais to own land outside of Thailand. Equal rights. Anything else is hypocrisy.

Correct, that would be discrimination, a perfect example being the one that you quoted in the opening line in your opening post! Ignore all of my post except the final sentence!

What opening line in what opening post ?

[kieran2698]

Sorry, but my logic is the one shared by the tourist authorities in countries which have dual pricing whereas yours is just based on a poor understanding of the given lexis.

And that logic then is also discriminatory and just another way to cover up racism as the Thais often do in writing Thai prices in the little used Thai numerals. They know it is wrong but do it anyway.

A discount is a deduction from the usual cost of something. If the usual cost of entering a park is 400 baht and the majority Thai visitors receive a 90% discount then take away the foreigners and they should go bankrupt. Which they wouldn't because the 40 baht is the usual cost.

And note the topic heading. "Thai National Parks ordered to charge foreigners tenfold" not "Thai National Parks ordered to give Thais 90% discount".

You are making ridiculous assumptions about this situation. You presume that because Thais pay 40 baht that this is what is takes to run the park, in reality there is not limit to how much could be spent and every baht helps. The National Parks are funded by the government, they will not go "bankrupt" they are national parks not businesses.

You go by a newspaper headline if you want, I am going by official statements by the tourist authority, everywhere dual pricing happens they give the same reasoning, it is not to penalize foreigners but to provide incentive to locals.

And you presume that a Thai gets a discount from the regular price. Perhaps if the national parks were run like a business, a Farang one not a Thai one, they might be worth 400 baht to visit.

Incentice for locals!!! We are not talking locals as in the same town, city, province we are talking the whole country vs the rest of the planet. That is discrimination, not penalization. But if you wish to see it your deluded way and believe that the Thai nation is receiving a discount so be it. But there are many more who see it as it really is, racist. And that many more includes many of the Thai people themselves who would like to see this skin tax abolished.

First, national parks are not a business and they are not run like businesses in farang countries. You fail to see the worth in contributing to the protection of the natural world and assume that it is you that should be getting something from it rather than the world, how sad.

Actually I do not believe it is a good idea to have dual pricing, however I can see where they are coming from and it isn't your silly little racist idea.

I see the worth in contributing to protecting nature but only as far as the same as everyone else. I.E. I do not expect or tolerate discrimination on any grounds. As far as racism is concerned it appears you are one of the very few here that don't see it while the majority do because dual pricing based on nationality is just that....racist.

Nationality has nothing to do with race. As for contributing the same as everyone else, have you been paying your taxes in Thailand for your whole life like the Thai's who receive the lower rate?

[kieran2698]

I can say this for sure.

The national park on Koh Lanta is a giant waste of money and I will never go there again... as there was not one single animal in the entire park, run down pathway and very expensive Caterpillar equipment, most of it very new, sitting and rotting... along with 25 thai park employees laying around doing nothing.

I can afford to pay more, but the parks here are worthless and not even worth the 20 baht I often pay with my DL. Better to just find a spot in the forest and bushwhack your way around.

More and more I am thinking about not living here full time anymore... what is the sense?

If you can find a forest of any real size in Thailand that is not a national park then you might just be a magician. The NP's of Thailand are of some of lowest standard in Asia, there are massive problems with corruption and poor management. However, I do not see that as a reason to give up on them, to the contrary I actually see that as a very good reason to support them as they are all the bits of nature that Thailand has left and without the public's support the problems will only increase.

[Shadychris]

I really dont see either that paying just 400 baht which is less than 15 mins work for a westerner on average salary can be considered as extortionate, whereas for a Thai working in a chicken processing factory that amount is more than a days wage..

Your argument is defective in more than one way. First, only a few privileged earn a (disposable income after taxes) of 1600 THB or 49 USD per hour or more. Second, you imply that all foreigners are rich while all Thai locals are poor. How long do you have to stay in Thailand to come up with such a naive generalisation?

It is after all their country and people have a choice. If people are upset or antagonised by it then they probably shouldnt select Thailand as a destination. If they havent done their research first and are surprised by things when they arrive - well they only have themselves to blame..

Do you honestly believe people research holiday expenses in advance at that level of detail? Is it your own fault when you get ripped off? Seems like a pretty warped point of view.

The brash double pricing scheme in Thailand has left a bad impression on tourists for years and the recent decision will only make things worse. Many of the national parks in Thailand are already damaged and exploited, and the landscape degradation and decline of habitats is obvious to any longtime observer. One gets the impression that the forestry department is more concerned with extracting revenue from the national parks than to actually conserve them.

Yes, it is their country, and they have the right to close their eyes to their problems. With that being said, we are now looking forward to the burning season in northern Thailand. As every year, local villagers will enter the national parks (not paying any fees of course), and burn the undergrowth to harvest mushrooms in May which they then sell at high prices. And as every year, the national park officers will do almost nothing to prevent it.

Cheers, CM-Expat

"only a few privileged earn a (disposable income after taxes) of 1600 THB or 49 USD per hour or more"

Really?? You must come from quite a poor country then. UK average wage is approx £27,000 p\a + benefits such as child benefit, tax credits etc, Divide that up by the 'actual' number of hours 'worked' p\a and you will arrive at a figure of around 1000 THB per hour - still 3x as much in an hour as the Thai daily minimum wage. I earned a little more than that but I would hardly class myself as one of the privileged few - maybe you need to check the definition of the word privilege!

I'm not saying that 'all' foreigners are rich or all Thais are poor - that's just the way you chose to interpret it and claim it as a generalisation. However in comparison to Thais, westerners on average, ARE a lot wealthier. How many Thais as a percentage per capita can even afford to fly abroad for a holiday once in their lifetime compared to the percentage per capita of westerners, a lot of whom do it every year?

Do you really and honestly believe that 400BHT is such a high price to pay for admission?? Just looked at the ticket price for Stonehenge - £14 or 693 Baht... To be allowed the privilege to stand 50m closer to some rocks on a bleak hill that you can see just as well from the road. You might want to stay there for just an hour or so only.

Do you honestly believe people research holiday expenses in advance at that level of detail?

No - I believe, as evidenced by a lot of posts here, that a lot of people simply cant be arsed to do any more research than look at the pictures of sandy beaches and cheap accommodation in the travel brochures. Maybe check out the price of beer and cigs and the cost of a hire car.

It really doesn't take a great depth of research to discover a few realities of your destination - just an hour or so reading some travel blogs, and general browsing around on the internet should provide a wealth of info

For example if I was planning a holiday in Thailand and was interested in visiting a National Park, Google Thai National parks = top hit https://www.thainationalparks.com/

From that I now have have the 4 major park names and about 10 other attractions. So I'm interested in Khao Yai - Google 'Khao Yai National Park Thailand' =

http://wikitravel.org/en/Khao_Yai_National_Park - That clearly shows concessionary prices for Thais and Thailand residents and the full prices tourists will pay

Took 2 minutes to find - would you honestly plan a trip somewhere and not bother spending a couple of minutes to find out how much it was likely to cost you? If people can't be bothered to take the opportunity to research and make their own minds up in advance as to whether they would feel that they are being 'ripped off', then yes it is their own fault. I don't see how that is a warped view - Fail to prepare, prepare to fail.

Where I will agree with you is the degradation and exploitation of National Parks, not specific to just Thailand but also in most of SE Asia. I think the Governments could do more to help by providing the investment in more rangers to tackle illegal logging and poaching, these are huge areas of land and it is an impossible problem to deal with for just 4 or 5 rangers in a couple of pick-up trucks. They could also do more to ensure that illegal building of luxury homes and golf courses in these areas is curtailed, and existing illegal developments bulldozed and reclaimed to nature. In fact if that were the case I wouldn't mind paying a 1000BHT admission price to spend a whole day in an AONB..

[Keesters]

Sorry, but my logic is the one shared by the tourist authorities in countries which have dual pricing whereas yours is just based on a poor understanding of the given lexis.

And that logic then is also discriminatory and just another way to cover up racism as the Thais often do in writing Thai prices in the little used Thai numerals. They know it is wrong but do it anyway.

A discount is a deduction from the usual cost of something. If the usual cost of entering a park is 400 baht and the majority Thai visitors receive a 90% discount then take away the foreigners and they should go bankrupt. Which they wouldn't because the 40 baht is the usual cost.

And note the topic heading. "Thai National Parks ordered to charge foreigners tenfold" not "Thai National Parks ordered to give Thais 90% discount".

You are making ridiculous assumptions about this situation. You presume that because Thais pay 40 baht that this is what is takes to run the park, in reality there is not limit to how much could be spent and every baht helps. The National Parks are funded by the government, they will not go "bankrupt" they are national parks not businesses.

You go by a newspaper headline if you want, I am going by official statements by the tourist authority, everywhere dual pricing happens they give the same reasoning, it is not to penalize foreigners but to provide incentive to locals.

And you presume that a Thai gets a discount from the regular price. Perhaps if the national parks were run like a business, a Farang one not a Thai one, they might be worth 400 baht to visit.

Incentice for locals!!! We are not talking locals as in the same town, city, province we are talking the whole country vs the rest of the planet. That is discrimination, not penalization. But if you wish to see it your deluded way and believe that the Thai nation is receiving a discount so be it. But there are many more who see it as it really is, racist. And that many more includes many of the Thai people themselves who would like to see this skin tax abolished.

First, national parks are not a business and they are not run like businesses in farang countries. You fail to see the worth in contributing to the protection of the natural world and assume that it is you that should be getting something from it rather than the world, how sad.
Actually I do not believe it is a good idea to have dual pricing, however I can see where they are coming from and it isn't your silly little racist idea.

I see the worth in contributing to protecting nature but only as far as the same as everyone else. I.E. I do not expect or tolerate discrimination on any grounds. As far as racism is concerned it appears you are one of the very few here that don't see it while the majority do because dual pricing based on nationality is just that....racist.

Nationality has nothing to do with race. As for contributing the same as everyone else, have you been paying your taxes in Thailand for your whole life like the Thai's who receive the lower rate?

Racist/discrimination !! You may not see it like that but many here do. As for the second question....yes...not my whole life maybe but more than half of it which includes most of my working life. And how much tax I'd hate to think but far more than the average Thai. Edited February 6, 2015 by draftvader
Messed up quotes

[Keesters]

Sorry, but my logic is the one shared by the tourist authorities in countries which have dual pricing whereas yours is just based on a poor understanding of the given lexis.

And that logic then is also discriminatory and just another way to cover up racism as the Thais often do in writing Thai prices in the little used Thai numerals. They know it is wrong but do it anyway.

A discount is a deduction from the usual cost of something. If the usual cost of entering a park is 400 baht and the majority Thai visitors receive a 90% discount then take away the foreigners and they should go bankrupt. Which they wouldn't because the 40 baht is the usual cost.

And note the topic heading. "Thai National Parks ordered to charge foreigners tenfold" not "Thai National Parks ordered to give Thais 90% discount".

You are making ridiculous assumptions about this situation. You presume that because Thais pay 40 baht that this is what is takes to run the park, in reality there is not limit to how much could be spent and every baht helps. The National Parks are funded by the government, they will not go "bankrupt" they are national parks not businesses.

You go by a newspaper headline if you want, I am going by official statements by the tourist authority, everywhere dual pricing happens they give the same reasoning, it is not to penalize foreigners but to provide incentive to locals.

And you presume that a Thai gets a discount from the regular price. Perhaps if the national parks were run like a business, a Farang one not a Thai one, they might be worth 400 baht to visit.

Incentice for locals!!! We are not talking locals as in the same town, city, province we are talking the whole country vs the rest of the planet. That is discrimination, not penalization. But if you wish to see it your deluded way and believe that the Thai nation is receiving a discount so be it. But there are many more who see it as it really is, racist. And that many more includes many of the Thai people themselves who would like to see this skin tax abolished.

First, national parks are not a business and they are not run like businesses in farang countries. You fail to see the worth in contributing to the protection of the natural world and assume that it is you that should be getting something from it rather than the world, how sad.
Actually I do not believe it is a good idea to have dual pricing, however I can see where they are coming from and it isn't your silly little racist idea.

I see the worth in contributing to protecting nature but only as far as the same as everyone else. I.E. I do not expect or tolerate discrimination on any grounds. As far as racism is concerned it appears you are one of the very few here that don't see it while the majority do because dual pricing based on nationality is just that....racist.

Nationality has nothing to do with race. As for contributing the same as everyone else, have you been paying your taxes in Thailand for your whole life like the Thai's who receive the lower rate?

Racist/discrimination !! You may not see it like that but many here do. As for the second question....yes...not my whole life maybe but more than half of it which includes most of my working life. And how much tax I'd hate to think but far more than the average Thai. Edited February 6, 2015 by draftvader
Messed up quotes

[sambum]

I assume locals here wouldn't mind being charged ten times everyone else to go to visit Yosemite and Yellowstone National Parks, Glacier National Park, Grand Canyon National Park, etc? Well, no need to stop there, just charge them double to go up to the top of the Empire State Building, visit the Statue of Liberty, the Metropolitan Museum of Art and similar sites around the world.

And while we're at it make it illegal for them to own land or the majority share in a company. Both of which should be Thai laws forbidding their citizens from doing overseas the same things that they forbid us in this country.

That wouldn't work! The laws would have to be passed by the countries that the Thais are investing in. Can you imagine Thai judges passing laws that forbid Thais from buying English football clubs, for example?

The law cannot to be made by the country a Thai may invest in as that would be discrimination. The law would have to be a Thai law forbidding Thais to do the same outside their country as we are forbidden to do in theirs. It is called equality. If Thailand deems in wrong for foreigners to own land in Thailand then equally they should deem it wrong for Thais to own land outside of Thailand. Equal rights. Anything else is hypocrisy.

Correct, that would be discrimination, a perfect example being the one that you quoted in the opening line in your opening post! Ignore all of my post except the final sentence!

What opening line in what opening post ?

"The law cannot to be made by the country a Thai may invest in as that would be discrimination." That line! This whole thread is about the type of discrimination that would not be tolerated in any "civilised" country - TEN times as much for any kind of service/product is exorbitant, and if this country wants to attract more tourists, then do you honestly think that this is the correct way to do it? As I have said before, typical Thai "anti-logic" (We have no customers, so we will put the prices UP - that'll solve the problem!)

[chooka]

Any of you guys been to Taj Mahal? The price there is around 50 times the local price for foreigners. Maintaining these places are expensive and the shortfall is funded through tax. If tax receipts fall, then prices rise. The issue is where to draw the line. The Thai Authorities are within their rights to do so but raising prices attract more negativity than if there was a high local price to foreign price ratio to begin with. I don't have a lot of examples but I would assume that higher foreigner prices are not only limited to Thailand.

Have you been to places like Australia where everyone regardless of colour, race or religion, whether a resident, citizen or tourist pays the same? Pensioners will get discount as a thank you for contributing to society all your life.

I live in Australia and there are places that you get discounts for being a resident of the area

Additionally under Australian law the only reason that this pricing structure would be illegal would be that it discriminates against Thais as the difference does not reflect the difference in average earnings.

and most "pensioner discounts" are not pensioner discounts but seniors discounts and are totally separate from the pension scheme meaning the people on disability, carers or single parent pensions don't get them.

where are these magical places that local Aussies get discounts? Never ever found one, went to zoo with my Thai wife in Melbourne and was ripped off had to pay the same bloody price as her and she was a tourist.

Sorry technical point about the senior and pensioner discount

[Keesters]

I assume locals here wouldn't mind being charged ten times everyone else to go to visit Yosemite and Yellowstone National Parks, Glacier National Park, Grand Canyon National Park, etc? Well, no need to stop there, just charge them double to go up to the top of the Empire State Building, visit the Statue of Liberty, the Metropolitan Museum of Art and similar sites around the world.

And while we're at it make it illegal for them to own land or the majority share in a company. Both of which should be Thai laws forbidding their citizens from doing overseas the same things that they forbid us in this country.

That wouldn't work! The laws would have to be passed by the countries that the Thais are investing in. Can you imagine Thai judges passing laws that forbid Thais from buying English football clubs, for example?

The law cannot to be made by the country a Thai may invest in as that would be discrimination. The law would have to be a Thai law forbidding Thais to do the same outside their country as we are forbidden to do in theirs. It is called equality. If Thailand deems in wrong for foreigners to own land in Thailand then equally they should deem it wrong for Thais to own land outside of Thailand. Equal rights. Anything else is hypocrisy.

Correct, that would be discrimination, a perfect example being the one that you quoted in the opening line in your opening post! Ignore all of my post except the final sentence!

What opening line in what opening post ?

"The law cannot to be made by the country a Thai may invest in as that would be discrimination." That line! This whole thread is about the type of discrimination that would not be tolerated in any "civilised" country - TEN times as much for any kind of service/product is exorbitant, and if this country wants to attract more tourists, then do you honestly think that this is the correct way to do it? As I have said before, typical Thai "anti-logic" (We have no customers, so we will put the prices UP - that'll solve the problem!)

It would seem that we are on the same page. What the Thai national parks service is doing here is IMO completely wrong and not in the best interests of Thailand. Edited February 6, 2015 by draftvader
Messed up quotes and cleaning formatting

[ddavidovsky]

10x is too much, but I'm not convinced by the argument that everyone should pay the same.

Firstly, the national parks are a Thai's natural heritage (as are the temples), but a foreigner's exotic, often once-in-a-lifetime travel experience. Those are culturally, qualitatively, and economically different things.

Secondly, GDP per capita in the UK (for example) is 3.7 times higher than Thailand, therefore Brits should arguably pay 3.7x more (and Thais, when they visit Britain should pay 3.7x less, though of course they do not, so they are the ones who should feel more aggrieved).

In any case, the endemic green-tailed sunbird at the summit marsh of Doi Inthanon is priceless. All those who say to hell with the national parks should get a pair of binoculars, otherwise all you will see is leaves.

Edited February 5, 2015 by ddavidovsky

[Sydebolle]

They just planted the seed so that TAT and ATTA can explain the unexpected drop in arrivals

In all fairness, this is very poorly managed by the marketing gurus - again. Let Thai citizen enjoy all those heritage and national park sites for free; ensure hefty fines for littering by visitors (Thais did win the garbage olympics ten times in a row).
Foreigners can be charged a nominal fee and nobody has a problem with it but putting up a THB 10 admission for a Thai (in Thai numerals) and a 20-fold price for the rest of the world is - to stay diplomatic - unskillful

[balo]

This doesnt mean that all national parks will increase their prices. I have no problems with paying 200 if the park is worth visiting. But 400 is way too much and if their goal is to prevent foreigners visiting the parks they will succeed.

But I doubt I will pay more than 200 in 2015, also I expect a discount with my Thai ID.

Edited February 5, 2015 by balo

[ALFREDO]

When I was last in a Thai National Park? Cannot remember.

But it surely, lets thinking me twice entering one again

Good possibility, I would let my Thai family go in and I spend my entrance fee instead for my stomach and rest.

[stickylies]

My proposal: charge Thai ZERO bath and charge us 100x (one hundred!) ZERO. Someone at TAT is now grabbing his calculator, LOL!!!!!!!

[willyumiii]

I have figured out the logic here!

Once all of the foreigners have left Thailand and Tourist no longer come here,

TAT will convert Pattaya, Phuket and many parts of Bangkok that were once popular with foreigners into museums and theme parks.

Then they will charge the Thais and Chinese 50 baht a head to see the places the crazy farangs use to patronize!

Crazy Farangs!

[stickylies]

If you can find a forest of any real size in Thailand that is not a national park then you might just be a magician.

Don't agree. Feel free to pm me for offroad [border] forests and jungles. You need your own legpower to get there. No roads, no cars

and be prepared to meet the local ToHChoDoh (ต.ช.ด.)

[SABloke]

So on this basis. if a Thai visits London, for example, and the cost to enter Madam Tassauds is £10 a Brit, should a Thai be charged £100 entry fee ?

Dual pricing is illegal under English law,all foreigners and visitors,pay exactly the same prices,as an English person!

Dual pricing 'per se' may be illegal, but it exists in the UK by using loopholes such as distributing discount entry vouchers to the local communities, and offering return entry on subsequent visits at substantially discounted prices. All things that tourists will not be able to take advantage of...

No maybe at all! by an act of Parliament dual pricing is illegal, and your nonsense about..........it exists in the UK by using loopholes such as distributing discount entry vouchers to the local communities, and offering return entry on subsequent visits at substantially discounted prices. All things that tourists will not be able to take advantage of... blah blah!

On the contrary special offers etc,apply also to non residents of the UK ! otherwise it is discrimination, which is what dual pricing is all about! tough luck if the tourists are not there to pick up their "freebies"

i

You're the one talking nonsense.. These special offer coupons are posted through the letterboxes of local houses, so unless all tourists are renting a house in the vicinity of said attraction they will not be able to get these lower prices available to locals.

But foreigners who live in these houses DO! That's the point!!!! Edited February 6, 2015 by draftvader
Messed up quotes and cleaning formatting

[MartinL]

... As for contributing the same as everyone else, have you been paying your taxes in Thailand for your whole life like the Thai's who receive the lower rate?

I have Thai friends & acquaintances who pay income tax. Many of them have non-working Thai spouses who, since they don't work & have no income, don't pay income tax although they pay vehicle & road taxes, VAT etc. on purchases made with their spouse's income. In fact, the taxpayer gets a tax reduction for a non-working spouse.

All of these income-tax payers & their non-working Thai spouses get into NPs at Thai rate.

Contrast that with my situation. As a government worker, my wife earns a pretty good salary & pays income tax on it. I don't work but have an income from abroad - a freebie for the Thai economy. I pay vehicle & road taxes, VAT etc. from that foreign currency income to Thailand & make many, many purchases in Thailand from that income.

While my wife gets Thai rate at NPs, I don't. The only difference between me & the non-working Thai spouses is nationality.

Please stop pretending this is anything at all to do with paying taxes. It's not. It's nationality-based, pure & simple.

Edited February 5, 2015 by MartinL