Heed rice warning
Re: "Cabinet allocates B29.9bn for fertiliser scheme", (Business, June 26).
Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin should learn from ex-PM Yingluck's rice subsidy scheme, that throwing money to boost consumption won't by itself yield sustainable economic growth.
Yingluck's 2011-2014 scheme bought rice at 50% above market prices, costing the state about 700 billion baht.
We might have gained in the short run from this huge expenditure -- GDP growth, which stood at 7.5% in 2010 before dropping to 0.8% in 2011, rebounded to 7.2% in 2012 -- but the gains were short-lived. GDP dropped to only 2.7% in 2013, 1.0% in 2014, before slightly rising to 3.1% in 2015.
Farmers didn't enjoy sustained benefits either -- between 2011-2015, rice yields remain fairly level, despite the rice pledging scheme.
The average farmer is 58 years old, with household debts equal to 7.16 times their annual income. About 40% live below the poverty line, and just 20.1% had a M6 (Year 6) education.
These factors greatly hinder their ability to modernise and double their yields as our Vietnamese competitors have done.
Also, our digital wallet conditions force recipients to consume rather than invest in, say, organic crops.
Mr Srettha, learn from Yingluck. Don't force another fiasco on us.
Re: "Ministry urges tourism authority to set higher revenue target", (Business, July 10).
This would reflect well on the government and show the government's proactive stance to boost the tourism sector.
The request by the Ministry of Tourism and Sports for the TAT to increase its 2025 targeted revenue seems to be a strategic push so it gets the most benefit during the recovery process of the tourism industry. An increased target will stimulate activity and investment in associated industries, enhancing economic growth.
The commitment by the government to inject funds into the TAT demonstrates how crucial tourism is to the economy and, at the same time, its proactive approach to sectoral resilience and growth.
This will enhance stakeholder confidence and attract both international tourists and investment.
However, concerns such as global economic uncertainties like inflation and recession, sustainability issues, and the risks of not meeting ambitious targets could pose potential challenges to the TAT.
Re: "Pension pickle", (PostBag, July 10).
Michael Lane's letter might have better explained Australians' means of support in retirement if he had used the term annuity for the choice of a regular payment from one's superannuation fund, and age pension for the government assistance paid to those who either have no or too little super, and no other income, to maintain a basic lifestyle.
As a general rule, both are free of tax in Australia and one can only hope the Thai government will treat them similarly.
If Mr Lane hasn't come across it yet, I suggest he look up "A Simple Guide to Personal Income Tax in Thailand" by Mike Lister. I found this by far the most relatable account of where expats stand while waiting for definitive rulings on the above.
In particular, for my own fairly modest and uncomplicated tax affairs, comprising only the age pension and interest on term deposits (which are assessed for tax in my Australian returns), it was interesting to know the average married expat could easily qualify for allowances against assessable income of around 500,000 baht before any Thai tax is due.
I have no expertise in tax matters but assuming the Australian/Thai double taxation agreement comes into play to offset any tax paid in Australia, it seems that many retired Aussie expats living in Thailand on fixed incomes may have little to worry about.
CONTACT: BANGKOK POST BUILDING 136 Na Ranong Road Klong Toey, Bangkok 10110 Fax: +02 6164000 email: postbag@bangkokpost.co.th
All letter writers must provide full name and address.
All published correspondence is subject to editing at our discretion.