topt

The only thing I can think of is that because interest rates have moved that is affecting the relationship between the tax free lump sum and what is left for the annuity - but that is a pure guess

This is the fly in the ointment. If this is from your provider it would appear to be their rules. However a little surprised that they can enforce that in this day and age. Likely the only way round it is to transfer to another provider - did they say whether that was possible? (and it shouldn't cost much if anything).

Not sure I understand that. They should be able to give you a quote to take the 25% tax free and then set up the annuity if that is what you want - not sure where you live has anything to do with it. It may be their particular scheme rules..........? Did they advise that you could potentially transfer it into another provider who may have less strict rules? Some companies will pay into foreign accounts and some won't apparently which you may need to get round. Lots of information online which should give you an understanding of the basic options. Link here for simple explanation of QROPS and QNUPS......... https://www.aesinternational.com/blog/the-differences-between-qrops-qnups-and-sipps make sure you read the negatives. My reading in the past said it was not worth it unless you were taking of quite large amounts and that was before they tightened the criteria some years ago.

I don't necessarily disagree however the article seems to be only referring to domestic consumption in many forms. Exports are specifically not mentioned - that I could see.......even in the bit about the auto industry.

You don't believe people work illegally? Or you think any Tom, Ivan or Xi should be able to move here at any age and support themselves however they want?

Completely agree. Some prices as you mention have come down but also many haven't. Makro is a good example where quite a few of their wines reduced in price in the 4-800 price bracket. Hopes End being one in particular. All the posters who say they have seen zero reductions are either mistaken or not looking very hard. Some of the Jacobs Creek range reductions, as you mention, were the most obvious.

You have your answer above - and has been answered before.................. HMRC also works well with WhatsApp.........not

I think @ukrules posted a similar solution (for him) in one of the other threads.

Beat me to it and yes the specific article was discussed extensively at the time.......

I was more referring to your "discussion" with @NoDisplayName but good to see you multitasking your OECD comments.........

You have already been called out in another thread about your fixation on supposed OECD insistence on global taxation. Not sure why you keep banging on about it - even after you said you would stay quiet.........

No it is not evasion. It may be avoidance which is legal. I pay tax on some UK income but I also have offshore income on which, prior to Thailand's change last year, was completely untaxed.

This was discussed (argued.......555) at length in one or more of the original tax threads. From memory the supposed conclusion was that whichever method you decided on was acceptable as you would have to present it to the RD if it was ever queried. I seem to remember @JimGant being heavily involved in the discussion. Apologies if I have that wrong.

I think this is more the issue and there does not seem to be any will to try and control it. "Scams" are going to get potentially worse so that as you say you have no idea what is real or not.......

The discussion is about a proposal. It hasn't been ratified yet. Nothing has currently changed from the rules supposedly in place from 1/1/24.

Specifically Pitbulls? Doubtful as they have been banned in the UK for a few years now. XL Bully was recently added to the banned list as they are/were an issue but of course it does happen with other breeds as well.

This reminded me of a guy I saw yesterday at the lights on Third and Klang in Pattaya about 6.15pm. Big guy on a largish ADV bike with a large box on the back, Thai lady between him and the box. His bare right foot was hovering above the ground - I could not see his left. Unless you had a medical reason why would you drive a motorbike with no footwear........

I think it is a little more nuanced then that...... From Reuters re yesterday finish - https://www.reuters.com/business/us-stock-futures-muted-trumps-tax-bill-stokes-debt-concerns-2025-05-22/

Looks like he doesn't even have enough money for a pair of "thongs" - let alone a visa........

Good luck with that.....I think China hold rather a large amount of said securities........

Seems like I know them a little better than you........ Your original link and the article your thread is based on does not mention global or world wide taxation. It mentions "residence based"......but does not really define what income. Sounds like a soundbite specific for OECD pandering to me. I think I have already proved the incorrect inconsistency in the Examiner article so please don't try quoting that again. It may well be that Thailand moves to a global based system but that has not happened yet and is not specifically referred to by the government spokesperson for the potential new legislation being talked about.

Was really my point. Thread heading, even with the question mark, is totally confusing. Not the first time unfortunately with this poster.

Why do you continue to post inaccurate stuff about global tax? The statement made by an "anonymous source" is currently incorrect as almost anybody who has followed the tax discussions should know. Even later in the article it states - So the article contradicts itself., Both articles were discussed in several of the other threads before you decided to muddy the waters with your completely baseless headline.

And my comment was for both of you as mine is as he said. Get over yourself

Yes