KhunHeineken

Interesting post, Mike. I read they won't do this and they won't do that. A lot of people said that about legalizing cannabis, and look what happened. A huge industry grew overnight, and what's happening now, pressure to backflip. I have always said Thailand will have casinos in the future. Most disagreed with me, but I stand by my prediction. Anything is possible here, at anytime. TIT. Once again, I have no confidence in the Thai government to implement anything, in a sustainable way, as you describe in the first paragraph of your post. You mention the money flow. Maybe it's about Thailand keeping the bigger money flow foreigners and the low hanging farang ship out to Cambodia. Who knows? I can't see this effecting tourism, as they are not tax residents with their two or three short holidays a year in Thailand. The Thai property market already has a massive oversupply. HiSo's probably wouldn't mind a slow down to raise the value of their portfolios. As I said, you are looking at it from the point of view why they will not do certain things, yet the policy is in place. It's already here. They have already done it. 287 pages to this thread shows foreigners are concerned, or there's an "uproar" or are "up in arms" but the tax on remitted funds policy is up and running. Are you suggesting they will repeal it, or it will somehow collapse under its own weight of failure? I think they will make up the rules on the fly and make it another earner from farang. At what stage to you start to deal with the very real prospect it's here to stay, and start considering its impact, rather than still looking at the past as to why they will not do it, after they have already done it? We are not allowed to discuss compliance / enforcement because it's scaremongering, but eventually we will have to be able to discuss not why they won't do something, but why they are actually doing it, and that's because, they are already actually doing it.

I agree, but they are well aware that a Thai HiSo can use a foreign proxy, so it's across the board. I can't see any loopholes for farang. We are easy targets. The topic of producing a document at extension time is not allowed to be discussed at this point in time, but if we have thought of it as a compliance / enforcement mechanism, you can bet the Thai government has as well. We will see how it unfolds early 2025, after a full reporting Thai tax year.

There is a record of you transferring money off that card within Thailand. How would you propose getting around that, unless using an ATM, but like I said, I was referring to larger over the counter cash advances, where a passport must be produced.

I need to supply a SWIFT code if transferring out of Australia. This is Kasikorn's SWIFT code. KASITHBKXXX This code is attached to my transfer. I am not entirely sure what information is contained, or can be used, within a SWIFT code transfer, but perhaps the meta data in it could be used to indicate the amount of remitted funds.

Banks around the world, including Thai banks, already report on possible money laundering, funding terrorism, drug trafficking / dealing etc. There is infrastructure already in place for this. Long story short, the Thai tax payer with an average salary who has 100 million baht in the bank triggers an investigation. This could easily be tweaked to report the total of remitted funds of the accounts of foreigners.

You have to show your passport to exchange the US cash to Baht cash. What will happen at that point enters into the compliance / enforcement discussion, which has to be discussed at a later date.

Tax is just another bill to pay. Depending on eventual compliance / enforcement, some may no longer be able to afford to live in Thailand. Maybe that's another motive for this policy. Getting rid of the low hanging farang.

As I just said in another post, basically, expect the unexpected, because TIT. We should consider and prepare for anything and everything, whether it is likely, or unlikely.

I am posting this to you as a member, and not a moderator, so I am not questioning moderation. The thread is 286 pages long. Many members, including myself, will not / have not read every post on every page. Those entering discussion on the thread at a later stage, or coming and going from the thread, are not trying to reinvent the wheel. Thread focus shifts. New discussions start and evolve. New information in the media comes to light which starts, or restarts new or old discussion. Some latitude is needed on hot topics. Also, the more members that comment, the bigger the pool of collective thinking, which is basically, collaboration. So an old discussion can attract a new idea. I agree certain parts of the current policy are doomed to fail, but where I differ from you is you seem to think because there is a "zero chance of being implemented" therefore the Thai government won't implement it. I disagree. They can, and may / will implement things that have a "zero chance of being implement" and that's because I have little to no confidence in the Thai government to implement a comprehensive tax policy framework which incorporates the remitted funds of foreigners, with transparent legislation in which foreigners can legally navigate. Let's be honest, the Thai government tells foreigners to jump, and we ask how high. They have us by the b*lls, and at the cost of no votes. They can implement whatever shambles they like, when they want, how they want, whether it works, or not. Long queues, different interpretations from office to office, "tea money" and photo copies of the photo copies, agents advertising to "fix" it for a fee etc etc etc all exists now. This policy may just be another layer of bureaucracy and earner for the Thai government from foreigners, with some "tea money" for RD staff. Maybe they are seeking to nothing more than create another industry and revenue stream. You are looking at it from the point it will not work. I am looking at it from the point that they don't care if if doesn't work. They will make it up on the fly, and if it turns only 1 baht, that's 1 baht more than they had before. Like I said in another post, they may have something up their sleeve, whether it works or not, but be prepared for a laugh early 2025, but there very well maybe some frustration, possibly anger, but that has to be discussed when the time comes.

Yes, and this is not allowed to be discussed until then, but they must have something up their sleeve, whether it's well conceived, or not. One thing is for sure, whatever they implement, it will cost them no votes at election time because farang can't vote, so on that basis, anything is possible.

They may use SWIFT or IBAN etc to collect data from the Thai side. Who knows? I'd be surprised if the Thai's left it up to the honesty of people to volunteer the amount of their remitted funds, but you could be right. Even if people under reported their amount of remitted funds in 2025, that's still more money than the Thai government received in 2024. It's just another earner for them.

Like I said, the only way this policy can work is if the Thai banks are involved, and that's just for a start. To date, there's been no information of Thai banks having to record and report the flow of remitted funds.

I agree. As suggested, maybe the policy is designed to do absolutely nothing but raise "tea money." Yes, funny, but is it?

You've dug the hole so deep that you can't admit they will be passed because you've thrown so much mud at me. You have to keep digging now, otherwise you lose face.

I guess we'll see towards the end of the year. Perhaps the current agents offering visa, drivers licenses etc etc "services" will expand into tax reporting in preparation for early 2025, after the tax policy has been in force for one full reporting year. I have no doubt businesses will be offering taxation services to foreigners who have never needed such a service before, it's just how legitimate those services will be. I have a feeling we'll all be getting a laugh out of it in the future.

Why don't you get off the fence and state publicly here that it's YOUR opinion that the proposed change WILL or WILL NOT be eventually passed into legislation?

I'm attempting a little humor here, but it could be possible. Perhaps the whole idea is to set up a new "tax agent" industry, similar to the pretty much illegal, but not enforced, and in fact encouraged, visa agent industry. Maybe the whole idea is the RD wants a cut from "tax agents" that many foreigners will use just to relieve themselves of tax paperwork each year and pay an agent to "fix" everything with the RD for a fee. Sounds funny, but it's been happening for decades with visa agents circumventing the 800k seed money and other visa requirements. It's no secret. The visa shops have signs on their windows and websites. Maybe the real reason for this tax policy is to create another "agent" industry so another government department cashes in as well, and we all know the money flows to the very top. As I said in another post, the only way this tax policy can work is if the Thai banks record and report remitted funds. If they are not required to, than I am looking for another motive for this tax policy, and as funny as it may sound, is it really that funny? It's been happening with visas agents for decades. Why not tax agents in the future?

I said from Day 1 the only way they can make this tax policy work effectively is to have the Thai banks involved, and possibly implement a withholding tax upon deposit, with an amount possibly refunded at the end of the calendar year through a tax return. Or, at the end of the calendar year, the Thai banks report to the RD the total amount of the money that flowed through each account, and then you are taxed accordingly. Most expats transfer money from a bank account in their home country to a Thai bank account. At that point, it's remitted funds. Without the Thai banks reporting these amounts, this tax policy can not be effective. On another note, if the use of ATM's by expats as a tax avoidance strategy becomes wide spread, it effectively cuts out Thai banks, thus, they don't have hard currency cash injections each fortnight / month from expats, so the Thai banks may not be so happy with this tax policy, not to mention, they may have more work to do on behalf of the Thai government by way of reporting, as mentioned above.

I was thinking more about large over the counter cash advances, particularly when ID is asked for, and bank staff can see the person making the withdrawal is an expat. I am aware that the use of ATM's will be difficult to impossible to enforce, that's why I suggested it months ago.

I agree with ignis. Clone your current OS / computer to one of these spare SSD's and keep it as a spare in case you have a major crash / dead SSD. After cloning, do not keep it in the computer or connected to the computer to protect it from any possible power surge. Over time, as Windows updates and any changes to settings you make take place, clone again to a different SSD. Then, some months later, format the first SSD and clone again to it, and keep cycling the two SSD's so you always have a reasonably new clone of your OS or whole computer. Back up photos and music to the third SSD. The fourth SSD you may consider cloning your current OS / computer and leaving it at a different location in case of fire, theft, flood etc. This is keeping in practice with the 3 - 2 - 1 of backing up data. That is, 3 copies, on 2 different devices, with 1 stored at another location.

60Mbps down is fine. More than enough for HD streaming. It appears it's a SurfShark issue to their UK servers. Perhaps too much network congestion. In other words, too many people connecting to their UK servers that it's slowing down everyone's connection. If this is the case, it's something you'll have to take up with SurfShark. I notice SurfShark only have four UK servers. Can you legally bet on WH from Ireland? If so, try the Dublin server. It may have less traffic. I don't own a Chromebook, but your settings may be to obtain network time, rather than you manually set the time. It means the laptop is getting the time from the internet / IP Address you are on. Try changing that setting and manually set your laptop to UK time. Also, try installing a different browser on your Chromebook. Firefox is pretty good. See if you get better results on a different browser. You may also have a DNS leak. You should try one of the extensions on Chrome to fix this. Here's one example. https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/webrtc-leak-shield/bppamachkoflopbagkdoflbgfjflfnfl?hl=en

I agree with you that the legislation is designed more so to qualify people as residents, rather than non residents. Whilst each member reading this forum has different circumstances, your typical Aussie expat retiree hasn't been back to Australia for some years, and when they have, it was most likely for less than 45 days for medical treatment, or a funeral, or similar. These expats have certainly "scaled back to such an extent that they no longer benefit from their connection to Australia enough to justify being taxed as a resident." Wouldn't you agree? Doesn't this part of the document also mean that if it can not be "justified being taxed as a resident" mean they are then "justified being taxed as a non resident." An individual must be classified as one, or the other. You say "As such my 185 day holiday would not make me a non resident." What you are saying is, if your are inside Australia more than 183 days, you are a resident for tax purposes, and if you are outside of Australia for more than 183 days, you are also still a resident of Australia for taxation purposes. What you describe are the current loopholes that I, and many others, enjoy. We have maintained "connections" in Australia and not "scaled back" those connections. How many expat retirees can say the same? Most have sold their property, car, furniture etc. They have ended memberships with clubs. They have no utility bills in their name. They have closed bank accounts and handed back credit cards. These are just to name a few in a long list that would clearly show such an expat retiree has ended residency for tax purposes in Australia. How would you propose such a retired expat can argue with the ATO that they are still a resident of Australia for tax purposes because they are just on a long holiday? You have said this, "Therefore the rules that say that being in Australia for 183 days makes you a resident does not apply in the opposite." The proposed changes are a physical presence and time based model, therefore, the legislation will be based on where geographically the person is, or isn't, and for how long. As mentioned, you are basically saying the 183 days only qualifies residents, and not non residents, and I disagree with you on this point. Reason being, if the 183 days outside of Australia means nothing if you still have "connections" in Australia, then the loopholes still exist, and the proposed changes are designed to do away with the loopholes. Yes, no new information on the progress of the proposed changes. What we do know is they are not dead under Labor, which many thought they would be, and given the previous Liberal government proposed them, and the current Labor government are moving forward with them, in my opinion, it's only a matter of time either party puts them to parliament ,with the opposition party, whichever party that may be, not blocking the legislation. My personal circumstances are I could do the 45 days and easily meet two of the four factor tests. I don't want to do the 45 days, but I could if I had to. After consultation with expats, Labor is looking at increasing the 45 days, probably to 60 or 90 days, and that's bad news for people who could do the 45 days. For your typical Aussie expat retiree who hasn't been back to Australia in years, I can't possibly see how they can argue they are still a resident for tax purposes, even if they maintained some "connections" and given there are no exemptions mentioned in the proposed changes, and no new tax free threshold added to the non resident tax brackets, and the pension is deemed an "income" at law, and now Thailand's new tax, and Australia expanding and updating its DTA's around the world, I see interesting times ahead for Aussie expats living in Thailand.

Well, geez, such a hard question to to answer, but I will make it simple for you. Yet again, outside Australia 183 days, non resident for tax purposes. Immigration records will prove this. Maybe you can explain what your argument to the ATO will be when you have been outside Australia for 183 days, but want to tell them you are still a resident for taxation purposes. Have you not seen the proposed changes that have been posted many times before? The "long holiday" loophole will end. Really? So the residents can say they are non residents, and the non residents can say they are residents. Good Luck with that with the ATO. That one is up there with the famous "Paul Hogan" post. The current laws are 90 years old. The Australian government is modernizing them from a "domicile" based model to a physical presence and time based model. It really is that simple.

Nothing in this budget, which is good news. They will probably just be passed like the changes to the Stage 3 tax cuts. I can't see them being an election issue. They have bipartisan support, because it's the previous Liberal government that proposed them, so when they are put to parliament, there will be no opposition to them and they will sail through. Are you still sticking by the "pensioners will be up in arms" argument as to why they will never be passed into legislation?

No mention in the latest budget that I am aware of. If you are inside Australia for more than 45 days, but less than 183 days, you have to meet two of the four factor tests. They are not difficult to meet. https://oreanafinancial.com/financial-planning/australian-tax-residency-proposed-changes/ The Labor government was considering increasing the 45 days. Probably to either 60 days or 90 days.