Hard choices to be made about 'sin tax'

[webfact]

Hard choices to be made about 'sin tax'
Pratch Rujivanarom
The Nation


Thailand Development and Research Institute president Somkiat Tangkitvanich, left, Thai Public Broadcasting Service managing director Somchai Suwanban, middle, and Thai Health Promotion Foundation deputy manager Krisada Ruangareerat

BANGKOK: -- ACADEMICS yesterday suggested that instead of cancelling the "sin tax" funding to agencies, a limit should be placed on agencies' budgeting and spending methods to ensure transparency.

Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) member Charas Suwanmala, said the earmarked tax should be controlled to prevent the emergence of new agencies, which could lead to politicians' misusing tax money for populist policies. The Thai Health Promotion Foundation (ThaiHealth) and the Thai Public Broadcasting Service (Thai PBS) insisted that funding from earmarked tax was essential to ensure their operational independence, crucial to their role as public organisations.

The CDC is set to discuss the Article 190 of the charter draft and decide on earmarked taxes today and tomorrow.

Charas said he understood that the earmarked tax had many pros, but it contained some cons as well, such as the need to control specialised taxation. "The earmarked tax is very good theoretically. Its principle is to collect tax from beneficiaries to subsidise affected people. A good example is ThaiHealth, which receives funds from alcoholic drink and tobacco businesses to organise alcohol and tobacco control campaigns," Charas explained. "However, the earmarked tax may also support overspending by some organisations as they get the funding easily. Hence, politicians might use this kind of tax to promote their populist policies, which will negatively affect the treasury system in the long term," he said.

'Control of earmarked tax'

On the expert's side, Thailand Development and Research Institute (TDRI) president Somkiat Tangkitvanich said he agreed with the economic perspective of an earmarked tax, as explained by Charas. But Somkiat suggested the earmarked tax should continue with cautious regulation. "I agree with the control of earmarked tax - but the constitutional draft has too much restriction on the tax, which is not yet comprehensive," Somkiat commented.

Somkiat said the earmarked tax regulation should be based on three principles: restriction of organisations taking funds from the earmarked tax; the limitation of funds by using an adjustable ceiling cap; and a strict spending inspection system on the organisations. "The organisations to be funded by earmarked tax should be those crucially in need to be freely operated, such as Thai PBS. The flexible ceiling cap is needed to ensure the organisations receive enough funds and the strong inspection system is to ensure transparency," he explained.

Charas reasoned that the CDC raised the earmarked tax issue to encourage financial discipline by the government through the constitution. It had no intention of compromising the independent operation of these public organisations. ThaiHealth deputy manager Krisada Ruang-areerat said that, if the earmarked tax was strictly limited by the constitution, the work of his organisation and the others funded by this tax, would definitely be compromised.

"Since our foundation was founded, we have reduced the 1.2 million smokers' numbers and generated Bt63 billion to the government by encouraging the raising of a tobacco excise. This good work would not happen if the tobacco firms could influence us through governmental funding," Krisada said.

Thai PBS managing director Somchai Suwanban warned the freedom of its journalistic work would be affected if the cancellation of an earmarked tax was enforced. "We are fine with the tight spending monitoring, as of now the Office of the Auditor- General audits our spending. But we are the public media, so we need to keep our independence," Somchai said.

Source: http://pattayaone.net/pattaya-news/211271/bangkok-foundation-and-pattaya-police-round-up-illegal-foreign-beggars/

-- The Nation 2015-08-10

[worgeordie]

I think it should all go into the health service,after all,the people who

are paying the tax on alcohol,tobacco,are the ones that are going to

need health care because of their life choice.

regards worgeordie

[halloween]

I think it should all go into the health service,after all,the people who

are paying the tax on alcohol,tobacco,are the ones that are going to

need health care because of their life choice.

regards worgeordie

Because they live longer?

The U.S. public health establishment buries overwhelming evidence that abstinence is a cause of heart disease and early death. People deserve to know that alcohol gives most of us a higher life expectancy—even if consumed above recommended limits. http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/truth-wont-admit-drinking-healthy-87891

Google "moderate drinkers longevity" for 86000 results, nearly all supporting the above.

[Srikcir]

"However, the earmarked tax may also support overspending by some organisations as they get the funding easily. Hence, politicians might use this kind of tax to promote their populist policies, which will negatively affect the treasury system in the long term,"

They want to create a constitutional article that is based on unproven suppositions. It's often worse enough that a government legislates laws without foundation or anticipated benefit. Now this government wants to enact constitutional restrictions because someone could of, should of, might of, etc. create populist policies that have been cited as the bane of bad governance.

The draft constitution is heavy with checks and balances to promote transparency and accountability. If those provisions cannot be trusted to provide oversight to government agencies to prevent or hold accountable those agencies overspending, the draft is at fault.

[fred Kubasa]

Rhetoric nonsense as, apparently, no one " controls" either budget requests or expenditure of same. Some committee or other says" lets do this" another draws up cost, submitted to the Cabinet who ALWAYS gives the " NOD ". ( like those little dogs on the back shelf of many cars ), and the money flows - out of taxpayers pockets into " Someone else's" pockets. The flow, like a river, is never checked nor questioned. Some merciful person should send some Tiger Balm over to the Cabinet to ease their sore necks !

[Lorn]

I think it should all go into the health service,after all,the people who

are paying the tax on alcohol,tobacco,are the ones that are going to

need health care because of their life choice.

regards worgeordie

Because they live longer?

The U.S. public health establishment buries overwhelming evidence that abstinence is a cause of heart disease and early death. People deserve to know that alcohol gives most of us a higher life expectancy—even if consumed above recommended limits. http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/truth-wont-admit-drinking-healthy-87891

Google "moderate drinkers longevity" for 86000 results, nearly all supporting the above.

Yeah but what doctors and "moderate drinkers" consider to be moderate drinking are light years apart.

[DaiHard]

If Thaihealth are going to use funds from tobacco and booze to stop people smoking and drinking then its not in their best interests to be successful.