The Ministry of Tourism and Sports wants to start collecting a tourist tax of 500 baht per person for a “tourism transformation fund” next year.
The Center for Economic Situation Administration last week approved the creation of the fund, which should subsidize projects aimed at high-quality and sustainable tourism.
Yuthasak Supasorn, governor of the Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT), said collection of 500 baht per person will start next year, aiming to collect 5 billion within the first year, assuming 10 million foreign arrivals by 2022.
The National Tourism Policy Committee approved the fund's launch earlier this year, with a proposed fee of 300 baht per person.
Yuthasak says the additional 200 baht will be earmarked for projects initiated by the private sector, community enterprises or social enterprises seeking to transform their businesses. Thailand wants to get rid of mass tourism and grow towards a high-quality or bio, circular and green economic model, so-called eco-tourism.
The fund is not intended to combat the financial consequences of the pandemic, but to stimulate local economic growth in the long term.
Source: Bangkok Post
So this is the previously discussed “arrival tax” of 300 baht, which is on top of the departure tax (a 700 baht) that has been in existence for many years. Hmm… I have a brilliant idea: between arrival and departure there is accommodation. What about a “night tax” and a “day tax”? There are probably all kinds of destinations to think of to knock visitors out of even more money. Will the masses stay away, problem of mass tourism solved? I immediately propose a new slogan to the TAT: “Thai paradise: elites only”.
It will be 500 baht. Yes, another big candy jar, everything is open again in Thailand and the good life continues.
Well, how can we make Thailand an attractive tourist destination again? Let's knock some more money out of their pockets and then put it in a 'fund'…….
Rob V, NL also has a tourist tax. I think that is per night, but that does not (yet) apply in a hospital or nursing home, but you never know in this day and age ...
As for your suggestions, entertainment tax could also be added to the entry fee for natural parks, temples, massage parlors and fast food chains. Good old Wim Kan once talked about entertainment tax on alimony; maybe TH would like that too… Can you imagine that?
And that on top of the higher prices for farangs at palaces, national parks and other tourist attractions. They will also disappear or am I being very naive?
Welcome to Thailand; Please pay here and pay more (and they probably omit the "please" and say "quickly")
Dear Rob V.
That has been invented a long time ago, a residence tax. And guess where?
In almost all countries of Europe and states of the US, a tourist pays a residence tax. Permanent temporary residents such as people with their own weekend or holiday accommodation even pay an annual tax on second residence, regardless of how long they stay there often, little or not at all.
If you consider the enormous (financial) challenges that mass tourism poses for popular tourist hubs such as Venice, for example, these are only very defensible taxes.
Thailand is again limping 30 years behind as usual, but will undoubtedly also introduce this soon.
By the way, have you ever stopped to think that it is precisely this fiscal lag that makes Thailand so attractive for most tourists and long-stayers?
Color
Departure tax? Isn't that just the airport tax you pay at every airport.
A long time ago you did indeed have to pay the airport tax at the airport now it's just in your ticket, in recent years I really haven't paid 700 baht at the airport.
I hope that the surrounding countries will not do that and that tourism will move there. With all due respect, but how Thailand stands, they owe it to the falang and they try to milk it again and again
That tax applies to ALL tourists, I assume, not just the falang?
The tourists who had Thailand in mind really do not choose a neighboring country for that 500 Baht.
Personally, I don't think many people will complain about a one-off tax of 500 THB.
Although to compensate for no more COE nor quarantine etc. in other words back to the past and visa only if more than 60 days stay.
Reportedly, at least according to a friend on Samui, the hanging signs of "for sale" or "for rent" are increasingly being replaced by "staff wanted" ... so it's going in the right direction.
Just talked to my girlfriend who lives in our house on Samui, but there is hardly one left
to be seen as a tourist. It seemed strange to me because I have contact with her every day.
The only thing there is to tourism are longstayers who live there.
hahaha… that is “the trick with the pigeon” as we say in Belgium 🙂
Let me guess, must be paid in cash…..
Check should be easy xxx farang a THB 500.
But that is probably too simplistic.
Enters the “Rolex and Mercedes fund” of ailing politicians and senior officials.
Let them first ensure that tourists can enter the country again and especially want to come.
i really feel sorry for the people who have to make a living in the tourism industry when there are only restrictions imposed from above.
With this policy, the countries in the area will only become more interesting and cheaper.
Do the "tourists" from neighboring countries also have to pay 500 baht when they cross the border? Let me guess…
In my opinion, the tourist tax was already included in the ticket price and in my opinion paid by the company and I think it is an extra income in terms of tourist tax, so this seems very dubious to me, maybe others know more about this?
Tony
I had already suggested it a while ago.
Thailand is chasing 1990s Spain. They also thought they could curb 'mass tourism' and showed themselves to be just as arrogant.
Other countries such as Turkey took maximum advantage of this misstep. In the Thai case, Vietnam and Cambodia?
Sooner or later the Thai will also find out the meaning of 'mass is cash'… Because people are fond of money. So I don't expect much to come of their 'sustainability plans'.
Thailand is chasing 1990s Spain?
I think they entered that phase around the year 2000.
I think Vietnam can take over part of Thai tourism.
The food for Westerners is much better than Thai food.
They have a very long stretch of coastline with beaches and also have a few beautiful islands.
Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos are also less westernized than Thailand.
Tourists also come for the atmosphere and culture that is much more evident in Cambodia and Vietnam.
Given the current pollution with litter, exhaust fumes and insecticides, it will be another decade before there will be sustainable solutions.
Perhaps in some places, where tourists come, to leave a good impression.
Have lived in Vietnam for 9 months and I can tell you that it is nothing more authentic there than in Thailand. In fact, I thought it felt more Western there than in Thailand.
Saa
I don't know where you lived in Vietnam.
The north of Vietnam is much more Asian than the south.
Of course HCM in the south can feel more western than a hamlet or random town in Isaan.
I think it may depend on many factors, but I doubt that e.g. a big city like Hanoi would feel more western than e.g. Pattaya, Hua Hin, Phuket, Chiang mai, Bangkok, koh chang.
Well Khun Moo,
Then you should go to shianoukville, in Cambodia!
That consists of 90% Chinese investors, casinos, shops, bars, cafes and of course also 95% Chinese tourists.
If you take the Vietnamese coastal strip, you will be pulled underneath by the smart Vietnamese, that's how I experienced it.
I cycled along the western border with Laos, and there I met the sweetest people. Yes, but they were poor just like the Laotians. And the average tourist doesn't want to go there, unfortunately.
But: welcome to Thailand
PEAR,
The influence of the Chinese investors in Sianoukville has been beautifully portrayed by NPO on Dutch TV by Ruben Terlou.
I don't think the average tourist is put off by the Chinese influence in one specific place.
People mainly look at the price and what you get for it and there are plenty of other places to visit in Vietnam.
Furthermore, Vietnam is a very elongated country with many cultural differences.
Pattaya , Phuket, Koh Samui, by the way, does not seem to me to be an authentic part of Thailand.
The number of foreign investors such as Russians and Europeans is also well represented there. Roll of phalanx, fricandellen and croquettes are also available there.
Quote : Thailand wants to get rid of mass tourism and grow towards a high-quality or a bio, circular and green economic model, the so-called eco-tourism.
What a posturing , just call it tourist tax , every country does . The people we support in Thailand through and during our stay have no interest at all in eco and greenery. Just money in the drawer.
They'd better give 500 baht to every European who wants to come to Thailand.
555
Thailand wants to get rid of mass tourism and grow into a high-quality or a bio, circular and green economic model, a so-called eco tourism. (quote)
Nice words so that no one can get the idea that it's really just about erasing the traces of this pandemic.
To advance green tourism and thus the ecological idea, while the Thai government itself has done minimal or almost nothing, or very little, about these green intentions for years.
Large parts of the country, where tourists usually never come, are full of plastic waste and other garbage.
And if by chance a tourist, who now has to pay for this eco disadvantage, comes to the supermarket with a cotton bag, most plastic-devouring Thais look to see if they see water burning.
Before, or still, it is still the most normal thing for many Thai people to cover every banana in plastic.
The need to think here, from a government that is also responsible for the appalling education, has never been learned.
Despite bans that are never or very little checked, Thailand has had the worst air to breathe for months, has not found a concept for the annual burning of agricultural land for years, and a very poor control of vessels that harm this eco idea even more. , and I could go on and on.
The government could have taught the Thai population more green/ecology with the least cost, if only by consuming a little less stupid soaps on TV, and in return a little more green education.
Anyway, maybe the tourist with this fund should finally make sure that all this happens, but I don't believe it at all.
High quality and eco tourism? let them first set up a decent garbage disposal so that you don't encounter dirt and other junk everywhere (except of course on the road where the hotemets pass).
Thailand wants to get rid of mass tourism?? OK then also from the mass income that tourists brought Thailand to a higher level for years. One does not go without the other. I have already told my wife that if we can go again next year (without all Covid measures including extra insurance 100.000 US) we will fly to Bangkok together and she will first go to her family and I will transfer to a plane to Cambodia (Pnom Pen) where we meet again later and then fly on to Vietnam. I must admit that I'm a bit fed up with the greedy Thai. I really don't feel welcome anymore just interest in my wallet. If the policy continues like this, mass tourism will indeed stay away. I feel sorry for the people. After years of prosperity, things will go less well in the future with Thailand, I fear.
Let's see in 2 years whether it has had a negative effect on tourism with all the Asians and especially Chinese and Indians who are only too happy to come to Thailand and are not deterred from paying 500 baht entrance fee to visit Thailand's theme park. allowed to stay. One will never know what happens to the money because jars are not always sacred.
Well, what are we worried about 500 baht to enter TH.
On the NL coast you pay a lot of annoying tourist tax, yes almost 6 pppn.
It is of course not about the few 500 Bath, you understand that, but Thailand itself indicates that they no longer want mass tourism and that is partly achieved by those 500 Thb, but not only. It's about the tone that the music makes, that's for sure. If Thailand says “we don't want more” you will still feel welcome. One be honest, the world is bigger than Thailand and if someone says I'd rather you don't come anymore, even if it's with a detour, well then that's clear enough for me.
I think this is a positive measure, if only to make a careful start to recoup the covid losses. The residence tax in Belgium - if you go to a hotel (mass tourism) - is about 100 THB per night. So that 500 THB for an average of two weeks can be a bit higher.
I'm sure I'll get the wrath of many readers here again. So be it.
I think most 'objectors' don't have much of a problem with the amount (because if that 500 baht really made a dent in my holiday budget I wouldn't travel) but rather with the timing: the tourists have to come back again and then they start charging them an extra charge.
Not good for the image!
The average tourist, 80% of the total number of tourists in Thailand, comes from Asia and stays for 3 to 5 days. Then 500 baht is a lot.
And why should you have to recoup something, every country has been affected.
Dear Koen,
You are talking about 'earning back the covid losses'...
That would be easier if Thailand opens the door to travelers again, wouldn't it?
Then the desire to counter 'mass tourism' is a diametrically opposed desire.
Best regards,
FrankyR
In business you take care of your volume first and then you mess with the price. This would have worked fine in 2019 when 40 million tourists came. Definitely made a lot of money.
Currently there are a few 100 tourists. Making it more expensive before demand has been stimulated has the risk that the trick will fail.
Moreover, after 2 years of not traveling, the question is whether tourists will choose Thailand again, there are many options so people, especially people with a tight budget, will still look carefully where they get the best holiday deal.
I wouldn't be surprised if Thailand will have some trouble getting back to the old numbers quickly.
I notice that some of the people who object to the new tax are also quite a few people who are very concerned about the poorest layers of the Thai population.
So much so that it is their biggest concern with the fact that they cannot enter Thailand and that so many people are without an income as a result.
Well, for all those people, the positive message must be that, however small, there is at least a chance that the proceeds of that tax, however indirectly, will benefit those people.
No tax is going to bring them anything for sure.
Color
Well, maybe it's called tax, but it's about filling the big candy drum. And if you know Thailand, you know that people set up all kinds of projects very diligently, like to make investments somewhere and increase other expenditures, after the amount has been transferred, part of it flows back to this and that or a return service or purchase is requested from a company of acquaintance/family of the person who gave the order to pay. And so there are still some possibilities of corruption to tell.
And don't think that the poorer part benefits from it, so naively as to think so. As argued in various responses, the government leaves a lot to be desired in terms of sustainability, eco and more. And the government already earns enough from tourists, for example the most profitable government company the Airports Authority of Thailand, the many VAT revenues, the profit taxes of hotels and other tourism companies and I could go on and on. Let them use this for their projects because the revenues will increase proportionally with the increase in tourism.
In some countries they have 'trickle down economics', Thailand has been adding to this for many years with 'trickle up economics' (money under the table and then handed over to the top). The ordinary or poor Thai citizen will hardly notice this. As an upper-middle-income country, it can very well come up with a system that really gets things done, with structural improvements for the citizens at the bottom of the ladder, nature and the environment. But then the figures high up in the tree have to give up some advantages and privileges and that will not happen quickly. No, this new arrival tax is in my opinion simply objectionable in principle.
Do foreigners with, for example, a non-o visa and retirement extension (people with a long stay in Thailand) also fall under this or are they not seen as tourists. It would be neat to exclude them, because they are already imposed a re-entry visa of 1000 baht each time they stay outside Thailand. The so-called retirement tax.
That government also only comes up with reasons to knock your money out of your pockets.
They should be happy and grateful when tourists come again.
Also in Thailand "Massa is Kassa" is well known I think!!!!
I think in advance that I am saying something controversial, but I do not mind at all if mass tourism
passes Thailand. This type of tourism is harmful to the environment and climate. Thailand has proven to be able to do without it in recent corona months. Stories such as unemployment and famine have occurred are opportunistic drug claims. Those who have traveled to Thailand in recent months have paid a multiple of 500 baht. My wife and I plan to immigrate to Thailand in the fall of 2022. We have a place in Chiangmai. If we meet the average tourist there, that is more than desirable to us. All that other because of cheapness or lust experience no longer has to be an issue. Look at the Netherlands: even Amsterdam and Giethoorn have had enough. Why should Bangkok and Pattaya not be allowed to reorganize?