jacob29

How does shifting that benefit to the 'greedy foreigner' benefit the average Thai citizen? You seem to be acknowledging it enriches the wealthy - at a cost to the average Thai (since that money had to come from somewhere).. while advocating to open up the floodgates to the global greedy rich.

Do you have a source for this? There is footage of the incoming missile - are you saying it looks more like a NASAMS defense missile than Kh-101?

They did it once, though if the party had no influence in her appearing in multiple polls then fair enough. It still reflects poorly, as the section of media who seek a victory, seem to think democrats would (should) be open to such a proposal, and for good reason. This shouldn't be ok, but it appears to have been normalised in the US. As problematic as promoting famous actors may be, I'd take that any day over a relative or close associate of a former president.

It's the fact the idea was even floated and (seemingly) taken seriously.

No love for Trump whatsoever, but democrats deserve to lose this election, they're clearly not getting the message. After offering Hillary, wife of former president, what genius thought repeating this with Michelle might be a good idea? This amounts to nepotism, it may not be obvious to some, but if the system encourages it promotes a situation where connections/relatives of former leaders get a massive advantage - it's broken, may as well drop 'democrat' from the party name. Yes I'm aware it happens on both sides.

Short answer is you can't (easily) acquire a work permit, as mentioned by others. Not needed to pay tax though. If you had investment income coming in from abroad, you would pay tax without holding a work permit, it's no problem. Now if you're determined to get a work permit, they can be had at a high price (sponsored work permits), which is in many ways similar to setting up your own company and hiring yourself.. it's just someone else takes care of the details making it slightly more economic.

Society has collectively decided that 18 is closer to the mark, and that you cannot compare a 15 year old with an 18 year old. While that's not a one size fits all number - you cannot treat it as a binary 'there was no coercion'. Even at 20, when debt bondage is involved, there is a high risk of coercion. The fact they're underage as well, there's not much benefit of the doubt left. Some individuals mature faster than others, and any given 15 year old may be better equipped to make decisions than an 18+ individual. You can't legislate for that though. We certainly don't have nearly enough information in this case to make that call.

You asked me what in the world did 10 year old girls have to do with this, on a topic discussing underage girls and consent. Seems pretty obvious to me. I'm not sure you understand the point even now. You find it debatable there was coercion. Do you think that would still be debatable if they were ten years old? The implied question was pretty simple, yet you seem to be having great difficulty addressing it. One might even suggest you are purposely trying to misdirect in order to evade the question.

Clarification of whether the onset of menstruation, means someone has reached the age of consent. Is that what you meant, or did you mean something else?

No it was based on your reply, but as you were incapable of connecting the dots - I offered additional clarification.

It would seem that you don't, as I sense some backpedaling on your part when asked for clarification.

I didn't 'take info' from it, I quoted it independently, and both your comments push the same idea. Any benefit of the doubt is lost as they reinforce each other. Yes you did, I'm not sure why you're clarifying this, as it's precisely this explanation I'm responding to. Coercion takes many forms. Debt bondage (regardless of the work involved) involves coercion where a minor is involved, it's even dicey where consenting adults are involved. Which is exactly why we have laws protecting minors, as parents aren't always responsible guardians. These girls were almost certainly not free to make these choices. I use the term 'almost certainly', as 18 being age of consent, as stated before, is a grey area - some people mature faster than others. Which is why I raised 10 year olds as a counter example, to eliminate this aspect of doubt. At what age in your mind would coercion be involved - or would it be considered coercion free at any age?

Your first comment was vague, it was only the second comment that provided clarification. Maybe you should remember what you posted recently? This is rich coming from someone who believes it was worthwhile to muddy the waters, around whether an underage girl may have been coerced or misled into prostitution.

The original comment you appear to be saying is debatable, and correct me if I'm mistaken, was 'they don't know what they're doing'. Not knowing what they're doing means they didn't understand the gravity and consequences of what they were signing up to, not that they had no idea what sex is about or were tricked into it. Informed consent is inextricably linked to knowing what they're doing, they're not separable in any meaningful way. If a child is working the cobalt mines of Congo, they also superficially know what they're doing. To suggest it's debatable that coercion or deception is involved (your first comment) is a bit on the nose.

Seems to miss the point. The girls likely do understand what they're doing, they're not old enough to consent to it though. The exact age settled on by law is a grey area, but I think you can agree a 10 year old cannot consent to this, even if they have been thoroughly educated on the work, and understand it. For the same reason they can't consent to working in a coal mine or other high risk job. The law being set to 18 seems reasonable. Girls can start menstruation before the age of ten, so not entirely clear the point you're making here.

I've been a little confused about this myself. If you rent a condo, where the owner does the reporting - they're not going to even know whether you spent a weekend trip away. Is the owner supposed to be contacted each and every to time? Almost zero chance they would reliably register within 24 hours even if you did notify the owner.. Sorry that doesn't answer your question, but while I believe there's a small fine (or used to be, reading the other thread on this the law changed in 2020, but not all immigration follow the new law), I have a feeling it's not enforced, due to the impracticality of it. Imagine if you travel once or twice a week for work, are you really going to front up at immigration each time? It's just not practical. I know there's online reporting, but that hasn't always existed.

Of course there is propaganda on both sides, the difference is there are dissenting voices to help balance things out. Who is the Russian Tucker Carlson, the Chinese Tucker Carlson? They don't exist, they cannot exist, within the borders of those countries. I don't trust my own government, the idea I should trust the Russian government instead though is complete insanity. Don't trust any government, favor checks and balances to power. I don't want Putin style bans on criticizing the US military - a privilege I'm sure you enjoy as well.

180 days is the sweet spot for many, keeping under tax residency threshold, which makes the visa conditions a little odd if this is partly intended to boost tax revenue. Granted, if you are a non resident it's still considered Thai source income and you should be paying tax still, but that's a whole topic in itself.

Not in itself illegal, I would wager a great number of shell companies exist, and not just in Thailand. Citation? Employment agencies are very routine, found in all countries - they sit between employer and employee and skim a commission. It's a legitimate business, and the work permit is incidental to this operation. What is illegal, is Thai nominee shareholders, and (where it applies) not actually employing four Thai employees per foreign work permit, not paying tax etc. In this case it sounds like the issue was Thai nominees, and potentially bogus Thai employees on payroll.

Yes but you haven't delayed anything by doing so - it was active the whole time up to that last day, and if you didn't take advantage of it you wasted that part of the visa. Which is how the 5 year elite visa works to effectively get you six years. Never mind that it wouldn't make sense to provide evidence of education course or digital nomad, some 3-4 years in the future. There's just no sense whatsoever in providing a 5 year enter by date. I would expect the enter by date will be commensurate with other visa types (a few months within approval).

Why call it a 5 year visa if it's 180 days max? You have visa durations, and the enter by date. 5 year visa doesn't mean use within 5 years to get 180 days (or at least that wouldn't be consistent with other visa types).

How are you going to wait four years to extend without overstay? Visa durations begin from when you get stamped in. I agree something seems fishy with the visa as it has been detailed (too good to be true), I'm expecting there to be a catch with proof of digital nomad (or paid for education course etc).

I should have said 'per entry' instead of 'per year'. I was drawing information from various sources (such as dtv.in.th), however they're just providing their interpretation of the same immigration image we see - which states 5 years multiple entry without clarifying much else. Logically it can't mean extend to 360 days within 5 years, as you can't legally stay more than 180 days in the first instance. It also seems wildly unlikely 5 year visa means you can wait 5 years to use your 180 days, no other visa type works like this. So with multiple entry on the official announcement, seems to necessarily imply more than 180 days (excluding that extension).

In the ballpark of 8-10x more to go through an employer of record where you receive a work permit

It's 180 days per year, not 180 days within 5 years. It's the extension that appears to be once for lifetime of visa. As for being on the radar, you already are if you're here for six months or more a year. How they will act on this information is unknown. I guess this visa could make enforcement easier if they begin to collect additional relevant information as part of the application process, and it will be somewhat obvious if that's the case. I doubt their enforcement will vary much from how other countries do things (I couldn't tell you how EU countries manage enforcement, but presumably they do somehow).