jacob29

https://www.scmp.com/business/china-business/article/3275699/chinese-ev-makers-losses-mount-rising-sales-fail-offset-steep-discounts

The vast majority of manufacturers are selling at a loss on the mainland, if it's not dumping it's still unsustainable.

What practical difference does it make whether it's 700% or 900%? It's a number massively higher than 100%, which is the point being made. It's my poor math converting 8x to 900% when it should have been 700%. If there are lots of links showing 100% increases in premiums, maybe you should post those instead of an article that talks about the volume of claims.

https://www.environmentenergyleader.com/stories/thailand-advances-in-the-race-for-electric-vehicle-dominance,48299 In 2023, EV sales in Thailand surged nearly eight-fold to 76,000 units, representing 12% of all vehicles sold Sample size one.. are you being serious?

Your article says 100% increase in claims, not costs. EV sales increased by 900%, so they likely had more than 100% increase in policies as well.

Malaysia has explicitly listed credit card payments as coming under the umbrella for FSI (foreign source income). That doesn't mean Thailand will adopt the same ruling, but odds are they will. With fringe benefits there may not even be a transfer at all - if you're staying rent free at company owned premises, there are going to be tax implications. Which highlights that the precise method of payment is not the main consideration.

Wonderful. I guess Belarus is fair game for an invasion by Europe if they decide it's necessary for territorial integrity? Seems to me buffer states should still have the ultimate say in what they decide to do, not be dictated to by their larger neighbours, on threat of invasion.

Is your problem with sexpats or the behaviour stereotypes associated with them? Justin Bieber is a 'sex tourist'. He also doesn't want for affection from the opposite sex. Presumably you have no problem with Justin, since he can get a woman any time he likes? Or is it rather the case that you struggle to articulate exactly what your problem is, so resort to generic (often incorrect) stereotypes?

Absolutely blame the previous owner. It may be perfectly legal, there may be no recourse, but it's still poor behaviour. Pretty well guaranteed they knew they were stiffing the new owner. I can't see why the previous owner would (should) receive the compensation under the circumstances, seems like that aspect may be challenged in court - but doubt the sum involved would make it worthwhile.

Guess again, as I'm paying tax when I don't "need" to. I could fly under the radar and take my chances, or use credit cards for all expenses trying to obfuscate remittances. Paying tax on remitted money is already a generous deal, I don't need to find creative ways to lower that further.

Fair enough (that it's specific to pensions), what had confused me was the earlier phrase 'whatever income I get sourced in my home country is taxable in my home country '. Which made it sound like to applied to general income. Someone with income to minimize tax on (especially a high income earner), can't go establish a pension with massive distributions as way to avoid tax. Which is probably why they have more permissive conditions.

By not workable, I believe they mean not workable for a certain class investors that have high turnover as part of their investment strategy. Having an effective tax rate exceeding 100% is not workable. Imagine you hold two stock options expiring a year out, one goes up 100% while the other craters to zero. You now have a tax bill for 30% on that 100% gain (or whatever your bracket is), on a net gain of $0.

Good luck achieving gains on the local market, have you seen the historical performance of SET100? Not even sure it has outperformed inflation on the 20 year, and sure dividends help, but it's not appealing to put it mildly. Take some of the major banks for example, monopoly on the market with their 200thb ATM fees - yet barely up since 2007. There has got to be corruption in the mix, makes no sense.

Are you talking specifically pensions, or income in general? There's a big difference, pensions can't be readily abused for tax evasion. Washing money through a tax haven can.

As capital losses are not deductible, my tax obligation would far exceed my net income 😂. Literally no choice but to make sure I don't become a tax resident, unless I radically changed my investing behaviour. I cannot understand how anyone can trade stocks when capital losses aren't deductible, you are very likely to face losses even when your portfolio is in net profit.

This sounds like a pretty rare type of agreement though, and I would wager doesn't apply to the vast majority of people. Usually it ends up being taxed at higher of the two. It also means this source country can become a tax haven through which Thai people wash their funds, which could put it on borrowed time (likely depends on how many people take advantage of it).

I'm reasonably sure it would be similar to bad debts, so you won't get extradited (or otherwise have it enforced abroad) if that's what you're asking, you will only have problems on return. I don't think tax debt ever expires like bad debts can though. Vietnam and Indonesia tax worldwide income, and it's the norm for most countries. So what is going to make it impossible for Thailand?

The safe default assumption, is that it will be treated the same way the majority of countries in the world deal with it. You can explore what any other country taxing worldwide income does. Which is not always clear, but Thailand doesn't need to reinvent the wheel here.

The law is unclear. They confirmed pre 2024 income won't be subject to tax. There are multiple interpretations of this, if your income is zero then it's simple, it won't be taxed. If your income for the year is $100k I haven't seen concrete indication that it won't be subject to tax (as in, matched up with incoming remittance, where you don't get to choose to defer it). Malaysia has similar rules, they seem to focus on whether tax has been paid. Does that mean gift tax of 0%, meets the criteria? Can't seem to find that information, even though Malaysia has had this for a few years.

It wouldn't strictly be taxing them, it would be taxing your worldwide income, up to but not exceeding your remittances into Thailand for that year. If you had no foreign source income, your tax burden would be zero. If you earned $100k abroad, and you remit $50k, regardless of source what I expect is your assessable income is going to be $50k. I don't see any other practical way it could be enforced. Yes you could have segregated accounts etc - but what if you leave Thailand for a year.. Does your capital then become the same as pre 2024 income when you return? I don't think it's possible to track all this.

He's not forbidden, it just may be treated as assessable income (depending on his foreign source income). I could spend the rest of my life repatriating capital (from pre 2024), while generating foreign income into a separate account. I don't think that would wash. I know some people are going to try this, and maybe it will work, but it seems far too easy to circumvent tax this way.

Maybe so, which would make it equivalent to gifting into their foreign bank account, then transferring in. Let's say John remits money into Thailand, that was received as a gift from his mom. Will that remittance avoid tax? I doubt it, for the simple reason that it's too easy to game. You could 'wash' money by transfer to a third party, then receive it back as a gift. These enforcement challenges make me think this system won't last long, and tax on worldwide income will be coming sooner rather than later.

Is there anything tangible to back it though? As I'm not aware of any such exceptions hinted at in the official statements. Even if you sent money to a local charity from abroad, I believe the conversion to THB would be treated as a remittance event. In that case, you may be able to claim the tax back as a deduction (unsure tax laws on charities). I don't believe the same would be true of gifts, you almost certainly can't essentially reduce your tax liability by gifting it to someone. Think about the situation domestically, you gift all your salary to your spouse - that is not going to reduce your tax liability to zero. So why would it be any different for foreigners, it's hard to see why there would be any exceptions? Granted lack of enforcement is a likely outcome.

Which would be income for that person. Which may work just fine if they remain in a low tax bracket. To evade the remittance rule on the sender side, the gift would need to happen outside Thailand (at which point it hardly matters whether it's a gift). Then the receiver remits the amount into Thailand. I have strong doubts the tax department cares that the source was a gift outside of Thailand. If you think remittance direct into a Thai nationals bank account would work, I don't see how. As that's the same as any other cross border payment. The gift status would change liability for the receiver, but not the sender.

Which pushes the tax liability onto them, which probably won't be an issue unless the amounts involved get high. I would think the first victims of this change (low hanging fruit) would be locals receiving large lump sum remittances into their accounts, though I wonder how far the definition of gift can stretch.