Feesbay John

I have direct personal knowledge of this tragedy.

There was not even a pretense of an investigation by police, nor an autopsy performed until the parents at their own expense got the body back to England.

This is so sad,,, That just maybe if the police had investigated this,,, maybe David and Hannah could be still alive today. The police need to look into this more as it was at the same place as the double murder and only a few months apart... Was the 2 Burmese men here at that time,,, was the head mans boys in the area at the same time,, They have to give DNA stop asking and get it,, there is a lot of work to do here for the police, to see if they are related in anyway... To fall 50ft and have know broken bones,, just not right to me.. My praise go out to all the family's involved ,,, May Buddha and God be-with you all,,,

Why do people keep mixing the Grid Tie and Inverter together. These are 2 different things. The attachment is only for a Grid Tie, It doe's not mention anything about a battery bank or inverter.

Grid Tie,

Takes the power from the solar panels and feeds it into your system.

The size off the Grid Tie doe's not matter to what you can run in your home, it only matter's to how much you are looking at saving each month.

A Grid Tie doe's not power your appliances, it only supply's power to your grid.

Depending on your solar size will depend on how much power and credit you will have for the night time.

Your meter is like your battery bank in the sense off it will turn backwards in the day, given you credit for the night time.

Look at the attachment and work out how much it will cost and how much you will save, this is around the amount of cost and saving's.

UPS Inverter and a battery bank.

This is for people that have no mains, poor mains supply.or just need a backup system.

Depending on what you need to run will depend on the battery bank size and the inverter size.

This is completely different from a Grid Tie and should never be run together. Unless you have a hybrid Grid Tie which can be run together.

Setting a solar system up is one off the main things that has to be right. The panels have to be married to the Grid Tie and the Grid Tie to them. If this is not done right it can take you 3 times longer to get your money back. Example is in the attachment here. Panels setup wrong, Grid Tie not married to the panels, meter did not go backwards, BUT now after setup right the meter is turning backwards. If the roof is not south facing the panel setup is very imported. This was setup by a Solar company in Bangkok, don't ask for there name as I will not give it.

If anyone would like to see this setup our customer is more than happy to show you. This is in Kanchanaburi.

Seeing as you're obviously involved in Ping Solar, can you please advise what's needed to implement a grid-tie system in Thailand, if you're not part of the official Solar Rooftop program?

i.e. What permits are needed? are there any duties to notify the PEA/MEA? Must you use only grid-tie inverters that a pre-approved by the PEA/MEA? Are there any inspections/approvals required before commissioning? etc.

Yes I am joint partner in Ping Solar with my wife. There is ways around the rooftop program if you just want to use for yourself. As we are a business we do not want to give away our trade secrets. There is people you have to notify within 60 days off install and we let all our customers know how and what to do.

It will not save you money. The most economical is:

You own a house and you do not plan to move next 10 or more years.

You are allowed a grid tied system.

If meter run back is possible take a capacity that matches your monthly average use.

If meter run back is not possible you can take a smaller system that closely covers your day time power usage.

In the Netherlands a system that delivers 3200kWh a year covering 22 m2 roof (35 degrees angle) costs about 200,000 baht (excl. installation).

The same system will produce more in Thailand and will be a bit cheaper, probably 200,000 with installation costs.

Still it will take about 15 years to reach the break even point if the meter can not be run back during the day.

The only meters that do not run backwards are the digital meters, all others do which is 95% in Thailand. Yes solar has come down in price over the last few years. Its come down to 40% of what it was 3 years ago.

I don't know what setup you have in Netherlands BUT that sounds like a 1.5kw setup. We do a 2.8kw setup for around 148,000 baht installed, average 15.5kw per day x 365 = 56,574kw per year. This setup will save you around 2,000 baht per month, Payback time around 6. 2 years.

I think the simple answer is that you'd need a bit more than the largest system (5.88kw) because your average monthly bill is 4500 and their ad, which I'm assuming are based on the average price per Kwh, and the ad says it will save you 4200 a month.

The 5880w setup plus an extra set of 5x280w panels and grid-tie should net you a 0 baht p/m bill.

The pay-back time may be long but in my opinion it's worth it to have no electric bill for the life of the house. If you sell the house, it's going to be worth more so the math isn't just a matter of initial cost vs savings per month.

There's other things when building or making improvements on a home than just ROI. What's the ROI on my 160k carport? What's the ROI on my higher ceilings, what's the ROI on my pool?

Spending 300k now is peanuts to never see an electric bill for the rest of my life. I'd rather have it paid up front while I have extra money and not have to worry in 10 years that I don't have an extra 5ka month for energy bills.

Except for repairs and moo baan tax I can live there for free, I have a big enough garden to keep me in veggies and Mrs.God in som tam to be almost completely self-sufficient. Ikke som fornuftig?

There is many ways we can have a look at what he is using to save him buying more panels. Lights changed to LED will save him, turning TV off instead off leaving them on standby.

BUT having said that having a small bill keeps the piece with the meter company,,,

Why do people keep mixing the Grid Tie and Inverter together. These are 2 different things. The attachment is only for a Grid Tie, It doe's not mention anything about a battery bank or inverter.

Grid Tie,

Takes the power from the solar panels and feeds it into your system.

The size off the Grid Tie doe's not matter to what you can run in your home, it only matter's to how much you are looking at saving each month.

A Grid Tie doe's not power your appliances, it only supply's power to your grid.

Depending on your solar size will depend on how much power and credit you will have for the night time.

Your meter is like your battery bank in the sense off it will turn backwards in the day, given you credit for the night time.

Look at the attachment and work out how much it will cost and how much you will save, this is around the amount of cost and saving's.

UPS Inverter and a battery bank.

This is for people that have no mains, poor mains supply.or just need a backup system.

Depending on what you need to run will depend on the battery bank size and the inverter size.

This is completely different from a Grid Tie and should never be run together. Unless you have a hybrid Grid Tie which can be run together.

Setting a solar system up is one off the main things that has to be right. The panels have to be married to the Grid Tie and the Grid Tie to them. If this is not done right it can take you 3 times longer to get your money back. Example is in the attachment here. Panels setup wrong, Grid Tie not married to the panels, meter did not go backwards, BUT now after setup right the meter is turning backwards. If the roof is not south facing the panel setup is very imported. This was setup by a Solar company in Bangkok, don't ask for there name as I will not give it.

If anyone would like to see this setup our customer is more than happy to show you. This is in Kanchanaburi.

Last time I looked at this it didn't really seem to make financial sense, things may have changed in the last couple of years or so though. Or maybe you are doing it for green reasons, rather than financial reasons........

If it can save me for 60.000 or more per year, it makes sense to me;-)

With a Grid Tie you do not need a battery bank and this is the best option as to cost. Depending on your power supply will determine if you do need a battery bank.

Cost of solar has come down a lot over the last 2 years and the figures shown in that attachment are as we say (around) No one can say with solar the exact amount as this depends on the sun and time off year. The average saving per 280w panel is around 200 baht per month. This could be as much as 250 baht or as little as 150 baht, hence why we say around 200 baht.

Ping Solar has been treading in Thailand for 4 years and have many customers that love the fact they are saving each month and helping the world we all live in.

And yes it is OK by us for you to use our estimate, paper work in this forum...

To call each other will never make it right, To understand each other could BUT only if you can agree to peace with each other, both side's have to agree to disagree,,,  Both side's think they are right BUT until you can compromise,, no one is right,,,,  

 

 

 

[quote name="Feesbay John" post="8182894" timestamp="1406878028"]

[quote name="Thai at Heart" post="8182744" timestamp="1406875912"]
[quote name="Feesbay John" post="8182627" timestamp="1406874740"]

[quote name="Thai at Heart" post="8182558" timestamp="1406874170"]
 [quote name="Feesbay John" post="8182520" timestamp="1406873810"]

 [quote name="robblok" post="8182395" timestamp="1406872453"]

 [quote name="Feesbay John" post="8182373" timestamp="1406872163"]

 
 
If this tax is about getting at the rich then the limit should be set at the one's that have loads of land and not every one. All this tax is going to do to them that have land and house's rented out, is to up the rent so the average Thai end's up paying it any way. You no this is going to happen. If they have so much land and this is not rented out then make a law to get them to pay a fine on unused land.
 [/quote]Did you actually read the article ? They have a fine on unused land it goes up in tax 
 
And so your saying don't tax the rich they will get it back from the poor. Sound reasoning. So best we could do is not to tax the rich just the poor. Or even better no tax no government no laws.
 [/quote] 
Not once have I said DO NOT TAX THE RICH, BUT find a way to tax them that will not be passed down to the poor as the property tax will be.... Or is this to hard to do for an accountant to find away. Let's take the easy way and tax everyone to get at the rich which is who we are trying to get at. 
 
Why not look at the asset's of these big company's and tax that. Them that hide what they have fine them. Them that have land in family's name's put the family asset's together and have a tax on a family asset's. If this is the goal to get at the rich have a family tax that will not effect the average Thai.[/quote]
Yes, the 3rd largest single landowner in the country is actually Unilever through its partnership to produce palm oil. All the rubber companies own huge tracts for plantation. This is exactly what this change in the law is going to do.

It will look at companies and individuals who own land. Somchai poor guy might own a few rai of scrub and pay little. Pooyai man has either thousands of rai or several rai down town worth millions . I don't see why you can't equate that if someone is poor low value they have little land and someone who is rich is likely to have large amounts of high value land
 [/quote]
 
I can see a need to tax the rich, BUT once this tax on property is passed it will change over the years and the poor will end up paying for it. The goal posts will be moved as with all taxes.[/quote]

Hardly a reason not tot start it. No law is forever.[/quote]
 
But a good reason not to start it.
 
How has it helped other country's that are paying property tax, has the rich got poorer or has the poor got richer. NO The rich got richer.
 
OK they have better roads or in most country's. BUT how much are these country's in dept.
 
Let's just look at VAT which we were told was only for a few years, to help pay of the dept. Many years after and now at 20% in the UK.
 
We need to start looking at how we can make the tax money that is paid already and how that is spent.
 
Let's find a way to tax the rich BUT not at the average mans expense. [/quote]
The country is at a point of 45% debt to GDP. They need money to fund growth. The govt can borrow it, or taxpayers can pay.

Choices choices

 
See how the story has changed, from wanting to tax the rich to the tax payers can pay. The rich people are the people that have got this country into 45% dept. So find a way to tax them more that will not effect the average Thai.
The tax on property will not make the rich any poorer, name me one country that this has happen, 
Introduce a tax on any company, family or person with asset's over 25m baht and make this tax a high % so the country will not need to borrow. Then the rich will pay as you are trying to make this new tax law look.

Huuuuuuuuh?

Yeah. The rich have been so busy evading income and business taxes that there hasn't been enough revenue to pay for the schools and roads.

 

But make it so the rich do pay and not the average Thai.

 

You still not name one country that has made the rich pay with the property tax. 

 

I also noticed how you did not answer this,,

How the tax could be done.

New taxation for the rich. That will only affect the rich.

Any company, Organization, family or person with assets over 25m baht.

All company assets including

Money in the bank,

Land, home or business at today’s value,

Motors,  

Stocks and shares.

Including any asset’s that are generating a profit.

How and what they need to pay.

 If a person’s assets are 50m baht he or she will pay tax on the amount over 25m baht.

This will be set at 10%,

If there assets are over 51m baht but fewer than 99m baht.

The first 25m baht will be taxed at 10% and the rest will be taxed at 12%

If there assets are over 100m baht.

The 25m baht to 50m baht will be taxed at 10% and the 50m baht will be taxed at 12%, the rest will be taxed at 15%

Once this tax has been paid it cannot be paid again on money that has already been taxed. BUT if the person’s assets grow, then the tax will be payable on the growth each year.

Company tax or an organization will be taxed in the same way. BUT any assets that have already paid in tax though the personal tax on its assets cannot be taxed twice.

Family tax, will be a family assets that amount to the figures above BUT again if a company or person has already paid the tax, it cannot be taxed again.  

As tax has already been paid by the above no inheritance tax will be added.

OK this needs a lot of work to make it happen BUT it could be achieved.

This would rise money needed to pay of the 45% debt to GDP 

[quote name="Thai at Heart" post="8182987" timestamp="1406879168"]
[quote name="Feesbay John" post="8182894" timestamp="1406878028"]

[quote name="Thai at Heart" post="8182744" timestamp="1406875912"]
[quote name="Feesbay John" post="8182627" timestamp="1406874740"]

[quote name="Thai at Heart" post="8182558" timestamp="1406874170"]
 [quote name="Feesbay John" post="8182520" timestamp="1406873810"]

 [quote name="robblok" post="8182395" timestamp="1406872453"]

 [quote name="Feesbay John" post="8182373" timestamp="1406872163"]

 
 
If this tax is about getting at the rich then the limit should be set at the one's that have loads of land and not every one. All this tax is going to do to them that have land and house's rented out, is to up the rent so the average Thai end's up paying it any way. You no this is going to happen. If they have so much land and this is not rented out then make a law to get them to pay a fine on unused land.
 [/quote]Did you actually read the article ? They have a fine on unused land it goes up in tax 
 
And so your saying don't tax the rich they will get it back from the poor. Sound reasoning. So best we could do is not to tax the rich just the poor. Or even better no tax no government no laws.
 [/quote] 
Not once have I said DO NOT TAX THE RICH, BUT find a way to tax them that will not be passed down to the poor as the property tax will be.... Or is this to hard to do for an accountant to find away. Let's take the easy way and tax everyone to get at the rich which is who we are trying to get at. 
 
Why not look at the asset's of these big company's and tax that. Them that hide what they have fine them. Them that have land in family's name's put the family asset's together and have a tax on a family asset's. If this is the goal to get at the rich have a family tax that will not effect the average Thai.[/quote]
Yes, the 3rd largest single landowner in the country is actually Unilever through its partnership to produce palm oil. All the rubber companies own huge tracts for plantation. This is exactly what this change in the law is going to do.

It will look at companies and individuals who own land. Somchai poor guy might own a few rai of scrub and pay little. Pooyai man has either thousands of rai or several rai down town worth millions . I don't see why you can't equate that if someone is poor low value they have little land and someone who is rich is likely to have large amounts of high value land
 [/quote]
 
I can see a need to tax the rich, BUT once this tax on property is passed it will change over the years and the poor will end up paying for it. The goal posts will be moved as with all taxes.[/quote]

Hardly a reason not tot start it. No law is forever.[/quote]
 
But a good reason not to start it.
 
How has it helped other country's that are paying property tax, has the rich got poorer or has the poor got richer. NO The rich got richer.
 
OK they have better roads or in most country's. BUT how much are these country's in dept.
 
Let's just look at VAT which we were told was only for a few years, to help pay of the dept. Many years after and now at 20% in the UK.
 
We need to start looking at how we can make the tax money that is paid already and how that is spent.
 
Let's find a way to tax the rich BUT not at the average mans expense. [/quote]
The country is at a point of 45% debt to GDP. They need money to fund growth. The govt can borrow it, or taxpayers can pay.

Choices choices[/quote]
 
See how the story has changed, from wanting to tax the rich to the tax payers can pay. The rich people are the people that have got this country into 45% dept. So find a way to tax them more that will not effect the average Thai.
The tax on property will not make the rich any poorer, name me one country that this has happen, 
Introduce a tax on any company, family or person with asset's over 25m baht and make this tax a high % so the country will not need to borrow. Then the rich will pay as you are trying to make this new tax law look.

Huuuuuuuuh?

Yeah. The rich have been so busy evading income and business taxes that there hasn't been enough revenue to pay for the schools and roads.

But make it so the rich do pay and not the average Thai.

You still not name one country that has made the rich pay with the property tax. 

 

 

This means that every middle class property owner is gonna pay a couple thousand a year. The fleecing of the middle class continues as even 1 bedroom condos in Bangkok are going for at least 1 million baht these days. Those who own 10 million homes or have hundreds rai of land won't worry that much, but your average hard working family will. If the junta introduces this tax scheme overnight, it will be pure thievery.
 
 
 
 

Its a 1000 bt per million a year hardly a probem for the middle class

Sent from my SM-G900F using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

 

Not now, but this is how all taxes start. First it's so low that it doesn't really matter, so people accept it. But then it goes up and up and up. When tax was first raised in USA it was 1% and people were told that it would never need to be higher. Now it's around 50%. In UK I think VAT was initially 5%, but now it's 20%. It won't be long before it's 25%. I don't think people should be taxed on the home they live in. It will mean people getting forced out of homes they've live in for decades. It already happens in the West. 

 

Take the example of a poor person who happens to live in an area where property is now expensive. The person is poor, but the tax is assessed on the property value. The poor person probably can't afford the tax. The person is then being penalised because their neighborhood become expensive. So it ends up with people being kicked out of homes they have lived in for 50 years. That is so wrong. Taxes should be based on ability to pay them.

 

You got it in one.

 

 

 

[quote name="Feesbay John" post="8182627" timestamp="1406874740"]

[quote name="Thai at Heart" post="8182558" timestamp="1406874170"]
 [quote name="Feesbay John" post="8182520" timestamp="1406873810"]

 [quote name="robblok" post="8182395" timestamp="1406872453"]

 [quote name="Feesbay John" post="8182373" timestamp="1406872163"]

 
 
If this tax is about getting at the rich then the limit should be set at the one's that have loads of land and not every one. All this tax is going to do to them that have land and house's rented out, is to up the rent so the average Thai end's up paying it any way. You no this is going to happen. If they have so much land and this is not rented out then make a law to get them to pay a fine on unused land.
 [/quote]Did you actually read the article ? They have a fine on unused land it goes up in tax 
 
And so your saying don't tax the rich they will get it back from the poor. Sound reasoning. So best we could do is not to tax the rich just the poor. Or even better no tax no government no laws.
 [/quote] 
Not once have I said DO NOT TAX THE RICH, BUT find a way to tax them that will not be passed down to the poor as the property tax will be.... Or is this to hard to do for an accountant to find away. Let's take the easy way and tax everyone to get at the rich which is who we are trying to get at. 
 
Why not look at the asset's of these big company's and tax that. Them that hide what they have fine them. Them that have land in family's name's put the family asset's together and have a tax on a family asset's. If this is the goal to get at the rich have a family tax that will not effect the average Thai.[/quote]
Yes, the 3rd largest single landowner in the country is actually Unilever through its partnership to produce palm oil. All the rubber companies own huge tracts for plantation. This is exactly what this change in the law is going to do.

It will look at companies and individuals who own land. Somchai poor guy might own a few rai of scrub and pay little. Pooyai man has either thousands of rai or several rai down town worth millions . I don't see why you can't equate that if someone is poor low value they have little land and someone who is rich is likely to have large amounts of high value land
 [/quote]
 
I can see a need to tax the rich, BUT once this tax on property is passed it will change over the years and the poor will end up paying for it. The goal posts will be moved as with all taxes.[/quote]

Hardly a reason not tot start it. No law is forever.

 
But a good reason not to start it.
 
How has it helped other country's that are paying property tax, has the rich got poorer or has the poor got richer. NO The rich got richer.
 
OK they have better roads or in most country's. BUT how much are these country's in dept.
 
Let's just look at VAT which we were told was only for a few years, to help pay of the dept. Many years after and now at 20% in the UK.
 
We need to start looking at how we can make the tax money that is paid already and how that is spent.
 
Let's find a way to tax the rich BUT not at the average mans expense. 

The country is at a point of 45% debt to GDP. They need money to fund growth. The govt can borrow it, or taxpayers can pay.

Choices choices

 

See how the story has changed, from wanting to tax the rich to the tax payers can pay. The rich people are the people that have got this country into 45% dept. So find a way to tax them more that will not effect the average Thai.

The tax on property will not make the rich any poorer, name me one country that this has happen, 

Introduce a tax on any company, family or person with asset's over 25m baht and make this tax a high % so the country will not need to borrow. Then the rich will pay as you are trying to make this new tax law look.

 

How the tax could be done.

New taxation for the rich. That will only affect the rich.

Any company, Organization, family or person with assets over 25m baht.

All company assets including

Money in the bank,

Land, home or business at today’s value,

Motors,  

Stocks and shares.

Including any asset’s that are generating a profit.

How and what they need to pay.

 If a person’s assets are 50m baht he or she will pay tax on the amount over 25m baht.

This will be set at 10%,

If there assets are over 51m baht but fewer than 99m baht.

The first 25m baht will be taxed at 10% and the rest will be taxed at 12%

If there assets are over 100m baht.

The 25m baht to 50m baht will be taxed at 10% and the 50m baht will be taxed at 12%, the rest will be taxed at 15%

Once this tax has been paid it cannot be paid again on money that has already been taxed. BUT if the person’s assets grow, then the tax will be payable on the growth each year.

Company tax or an organization will be taxed in the same way. BUT any assets that have already paid in tax though the personal tax on its assets cannot be taxed twice.

Family tax, will be a family assets that amount to the figures above BUT again if a company or person has already paid the tax, it cannot be taxed again.  

As tax has already been paid by the above no inheritance tax will be added.

OK this needs a lot of work to make it happen BUT it could be achieved.

This would rise money needed to pay of the 45% debt to GDP 

 

No tax is good,
 
How can anyone say taxing is good. It will not effect the rich, it never has in all the other country's around the world that have these taxes, so and how do you think it will here. Its the lower class that will be hardest hit. If tax is on land they now have to find that extra to get on the ladder. 
 
How many years before this low rate of 0.05% will it take to be 5% plus,,, This rate is just set to get it passed. Years to come is the one's I feel for. Were will this money be spent, on roads, Hold on we already pay tax on fuel for that, Schools, hospital, ect ect, Hold on is that not why we pay VAT. 
Or is this new tax to help pay the bankers more and so Thailand can borrow more, making like Europe and USA  were it can never be payed back.
 
This tax is not good for the Thai people.
 

Taxation is a necessary evil in a civil society. I pay mine and while not always happy to do so, direct or indirect, I do see why it is necessary.

 

Taxation is necessary BUT we all are paying tax already, every thing we buy has VAT. 

People on here are claiming its the only way to get the rich to pay as they own most of the land, BUT do you think they will pay this tax or just pass it on to the person renting. Then the person who is renting a place for his business will have this to find and if he own's his own home he will have the tax to pay on that as well. The rich will not even feel it BUT the middle and low class will. 

Only way to get the rich to pay the tax they should would be to tax there assets, But the rich will never let this happen as then it would be coming from them.

[quote name="Thai at Heart" post="8182744" timestamp="1406875912"]
[quote name="Feesbay John" post="8182627" timestamp="1406874740"]

[quote name="Thai at Heart" post="8182558" timestamp="1406874170"]
 [quote name="Feesbay John" post="8182520" timestamp="1406873810"]

 [quote name="robblok" post="8182395" timestamp="1406872453"]

 [quote name="Feesbay John" post="8182373" timestamp="1406872163"]

 
 
If this tax is about getting at the rich then the limit should be set at the one's that have loads of land and not every one. All this tax is going to do to them that have land and house's rented out, is to up the rent so the average Thai end's up paying it any way. You no this is going to happen. If they have so much land and this is not rented out then make a law to get them to pay a fine on unused land.
 [/quote]Did you actually read the article ? They have a fine on unused land it goes up in tax 
 
And so your saying don't tax the rich they will get it back from the poor. Sound reasoning. So best we could do is not to tax the rich just the poor. Or even better no tax no government no laws.
 [/quote] 
Not once have I said DO NOT TAX THE RICH, BUT find a way to tax them that will not be passed down to the poor as the property tax will be.... Or is this to hard to do for an accountant to find away. Let's take the easy way and tax everyone to get at the rich which is who we are trying to get at. 
 
Why not look at the asset's of these big company's and tax that. Them that hide what they have fine them. Them that have land in family's name's put the family asset's together and have a tax on a family asset's. If this is the goal to get at the rich have a family tax that will not effect the average Thai.[/quote]
Yes, the 3rd largest single landowner in the country is actually Unilever through its partnership to produce palm oil. All the rubber companies own huge tracts for plantation. This is exactly what this change in the law is going to do.

It will look at companies and individuals who own land. Somchai poor guy might own a few rai of scrub and pay little. Pooyai man has either thousands of rai or several rai down town worth millions . I don't see why you can't equate that if someone is poor low value they have little land and someone who is rich is likely to have large amounts of high value land
 [/quote]
 
I can see a need to tax the rich, BUT once this tax on property is passed it will change over the years and the poor will end up paying for it. The goal posts will be moved as with all taxes.[/quote]

Hardly a reason not tot start it. No law is forever.[/quote]
 
But a good reason not to start it.
 
How has it helped other country's that are paying property tax, has the rich got poorer or has the poor got richer. NO The rich got richer.
 
OK they have better roads or in most country's. BUT how much are these country's in dept.
 
Let's just look at VAT which we were told was only for a few years, to help pay of the dept. Many years after and now at 20% in the UK.
 
We need to start looking at how we can make the tax money that is paid already and how that is spent.
 
Let's find a way to tax the rich BUT not at the average mans expense. 

The country is at a point of 45% debt to GDP. They need money to fund growth. The govt can borrow it, or taxpayers can pay.

Choices choices

See how the story has changed, from wanting to tax the rich to the tax payers can pay. The rich people are the people that have got this country into 45% dept. So find a way to tax them more that will not effect the average Thai.

The tax on property will not make the rich any poorer, name me one country that this has happen, 

Introduce a tax on any company, family or person with asset's over 25m baht and make this tax a high % so the country will not need to borrow. Then the rich will pay as you are trying to make this new tax law look.

[quote name="Thai at Heart" post="8182558" timestamp="1406874170"]

 [quote name="Feesbay John" post="8182520" timestamp="1406873810"]
 [quote name="robblok" post="8182395" timestamp="1406872453"]
 [quote name="Feesbay John" post="8182373" timestamp="1406872163"]
 
 
If this tax is about getting at the rich then the limit should be set at the one's that have loads of land and not every one. All this tax is going to do to them that have land and house's rented out, is to up the rent so the average Thai end's up paying it any way. You no this is going to happen. If they have so much land and this is not rented out then make a law to get them to pay a fine on unused land.
 [/quote]Did you actually read the article ? They have a fine on unused land it goes up in tax 
 
And so your saying don't tax the rich they will get it back from the poor. Sound reasoning. So best we could do is not to tax the rich just the poor. Or even better no tax no government no laws.
 [/quote] 
Not once have I said DO NOT TAX THE RICH, BUT find a way to tax them that will not be passed down to the poor as the property tax will be.... Or is this to hard to do for an accountant to find away. Let's take the easy way and tax everyone to get at the rich which is who we are trying to get at. 
 
Why not look at the asset's of these big company's and tax that. Them that hide what they have fine them. Them that have land in family's name's put the family asset's together and have a tax on a family asset's. If this is the goal to get at the rich have a family tax that will not effect the average Thai.[/quote]
Yes, the 3rd largest single landowner in the country is actually Unilever through its partnership to produce palm oil. All the rubber companies own huge tracts for plantation. This is exactly what this change in the law is going to do.

It will look at companies and individuals who own land. Somchai poor guy might own a few rai of scrub and pay little. Pooyai man has either thousands of rai or several rai down town worth millions . I don't see why you can't equate that if someone is poor low value they have little land and someone who is rich is likely to have large amounts of high value land
 [/quote]
 
I can see a need to tax the rich, BUT once this tax on property is passed it will change over the years and the poor will end up paying for it. The goal posts will be moved as with all taxes.

Hardly a reason not tot start it. No law is forever.

But a good reason not to start it.

How has it helped other country's that are paying property tax, has the rich got poorer or has the poor got richer. NO The rich got richer.

OK they have better roads or in most country's. BUT how much are these country's in dept.

Let's just look at VAT which we were told was only for a few years, to help pay of the dept. Many years after and now at 20% in the UK.

We need to start looking at how we can make the tax money that is paid already and how that is spent.

Let's find a way to tax the rich BUT not at the average mans expense. 

 

 

 

 
 
If this tax is about getting at the rich then the limit should be set at the one's that have loads of land and not every one. All this tax is going to do to them that have land and house's rented out, is to up the rent so the average Thai end's up paying it any way. You no this is going to happen. If they have so much land and this is not rented out then make a law to get them to pay a fine on unused land.
 

Did you actually read the article ? They have a fine on unused land it goes up in tax 
 
And so your saying don't tax the rich they will get it back from the poor. Sound reasoning. So best we could do is not to tax the rich just the poor. Or even better no tax no government no laws.
 

 
Not once have I said DO NOT TAX THE RICH, BUT find a way to tax them that will not be passed down to the poor as the property tax will be.... Or is this to hard to do for an accountant to find away. Let's take the easy way and tax everyone to get at the rich which is who we are trying to get at. 
 
Why not look at the asset's of these big company's and tax that. Them that hide what they have fine them. Them that have land in family's name's put the family asset's together and have a tax on a family asset's. If this is the goal to get at the rich have a family tax that will not effect the average Thai.

Yes, the 3rd largest single landowner in the country is actually Unilever through its partnership to produce palm oil. All the rubber companies own huge tracts for plantation. This is exactly what this change in the law is going to do.

It will look at companies and individuals who own land. Somchai poor guy might own a few rai of scrub and pay little. Pooyai man has either thousands of rai or several rai down town worth millions . I don't see why you can't equate that if someone is poor low value they have little land and someone who is rich is likely to have large amounts of high value land

 

I can see a need to tax the rich, BUT once this tax on property is passed it will change over the years and the poor will end up paying for it. The goal posts will be moved as with all taxes.

 

 

 

If this tax is about getting at the rich then the limit should be set at the one's that have loads of land and not every one. All this tax is going to do to them that have land and house's rented out, is to up the rent so the average Thai end's up paying it any way. You no this is going to happen. If they have so much land and this is not rented out then make a law to get them to pay a fine on unused land.

 

Did you actually read the article ? They have a fine on unused land it goes up in tax 

 

And so your saying don't tax the rich they will get it back from the poor. Sound reasoning. So best we could do is not to tax the rich just the poor. Or even better no tax no government no laws.

 

Not once have I said DO NOT TAX THE RICH, BUT find a way to tax them that will not be passed down to the poor as the property tax will be.... Or is this to hard to do for an accountant to find away. Let's take the easy way and tax everyone to get at the rich which is who we are trying to get at. 

Why not look at the asset's of these big company's and tax that. Them that hide what they have fine them. Them that have land in family's name's put the family asset's together and have a tax on a family asset's. If this is the goal to get at the rich have a family tax that will not effect the average Thai.

[quote name="Thai at Heart" post="8182209" timestamp="1406870079"]
[quote name="Feesbay John" post="8182194" timestamp="1406869772"]

[quote name="robblok" post="8182118" timestamp="1406868844"]
 [quote name="Feesbay John" post="8182104" timestamp="1406868678"]


 [quote name="Feesbay John" post="8182052" timestamp="1406868139"]


 [quote name="Feesbay John" post="8182016" timestamp="1406867710"]


 


 
I have been here for over 10 years and do follow the news.
 
You are taking about the middle class getting taxed and the rich not on salary and you think the best way to deal with this is to tax the home's of the lower and average class. Salary and a home are two different things, Tax the salary of the rich and job done.
 [/quote]
Better still would be to tax the salary, divined and the bonuses of the rich, not just the salary.
When I had my own company for many years I saved a future because I only paid myself a low salary and that is how the rich are saving.  
 [/quote]
As you are a tax accountant should you not be looking at how you can tax these company' on there so called perk's and not the average Thai. Or is this the easy way for you to tax the average Thai and not the company's
 [/quote]
Those perks can be hidden too well.. as I said you don't understand the system. If it was that easy I should be done. In the West they do tax the perks. But the registration of things is 10 fold better and not achievable here. 
 
They could even receive no salary and just company benefits and again it would be too hard to fix.. this is a tax that is much harder to avoid and easier to register.
 [/quote]
So find these perks that are hidden so well, if this can be achieved in other country's then it could all so be here, I am not saying is will be easy to do here BUT is that not the way to get at the rich.
 
What this tax is doing is to make them that do not have business pay for them that have, [/quote]

Many of these businesses are family owned with everyone and the grandma being paid officially 20k and the money being rolled into one to fund a family.

The cars are taxed actually to hell already. Basically, this land tax does tax the rich because the distribution is so bad in Thailand. 80% of the land is held by a 20%.

It is as simple and effective a way to get this done.[/quote]
 
So let's tax the 80% to get the 20% to pay. Read what you are saying, Think about what you are saying, YOU want to tax every one more because the rich are not paying there way and this is the way to do it, BULL Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttttttt

Huh?

The land is held in the hands of the relatively few. Go and read about who are the single largest land holders in the country. Yes people may have. 1/2 a rai in a moobhan for a house, but there are the wealthy who are holding thousands, tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of rai all untaxed at present.

This reform sits pretty squarley on rich land holders and it a long overdue reform. A former owner of a company I worked for had 26000 rai under cultivation and huge tracts of land in the north sitting idle. He paid nothing .



Houses are a different issue, but if people are trying to fund a 5 or 6 mn baht mortgage with only 30k per month they are in trouble anyway.

If this tax is about getting at the rich then the limit should be set at the one's that have loads of land and not every one. All this tax is going to do to them that have land and house's rented out, is to up the rent so the average Thai end's up paying it any way. You no this is going to happen. If they have so much land and this is not rented out then make a law to get them to pay a fine on unused land.

[quote name="robblok" post="8182118" timestamp="1406868844"]

 [quote name="Feesbay John" post="8182104" timestamp="1406868678"]

 [quote name="Feesbay John" post="8182052" timestamp="1406868139"]

 [quote name="Feesbay John" post="8182016" timestamp="1406867710"]

 


 
I have been here for over 10 years and do follow the news.
 
You are taking about the middle class getting taxed and the rich not on salary and you think the best way to deal with this is to tax the home's of the lower and average class. Salary and a home are two different things, Tax the salary of the rich and job done.
 [/quote]
Better still would be to tax the salary, divined and the bonuses of the rich, not just the salary.
When I had my own company for many years I saved a future because I only paid myself a low salary and that is how the rich are saving.  
 [/quote]
As you are a tax accountant should you not be looking at how you can tax these company' on there so called perk's and not the average Thai. Or is this the easy way for you to tax the average Thai and not the company's
 [/quote]
Those perks can be hidden too well.. as I said you don't understand the system. If it was that easy I should be done. In the West they do tax the perks. But the registration of things is 10 fold better and not achievable here. 
 
They could even receive no salary and just company benefits and again it would be too hard to fix.. this is a tax that is much harder to avoid and easier to register.
 [/quote]
So find these perks that are hidden so well, if this can be achieved in other country's then it could all so be here, I am not saying is will be easy to do here BUT is that not the way to get at the rich.
 
What this tax is doing is to make them that do not have business pay for them that have, 

Many of these businesses are family owned with everyone and the grandma being paid officially 20k and the money being rolled into one to fund a family.

The cars are taxed actually to hell already. Basically, this land tax does tax the rich because the distribution is so bad in Thailand. 80% of the land is held by a 20%.

It is as simple and effective a way to get this done.

So let's tax the 80% to get the 20% to pay. Read what you are saying, Think about what you are saying, YOU want to tax every one more because the rich are not paying there way and this is the way to do it, BULL Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttttttt

 

@robblok

 

You talk about the rich not paying taxes by using there company's,,, is that not what needs to be looked at, many people that have home's do not have a company so why would you want them to pay a tax to get at the rich who have company's, Just doe's not make sense to me. 

 

 

That is because you don't understand that that kind of change is almost impossible here due to registration issues and such. I have seen how hard it was to tax the perks in the West and how long it took for the system to work. It is just not feasible here. If it were id fully support it.

 

This is just a way to get to the rich in a way they can't avoid. I do agree the threshold should be 3 million or so. Mind you for a one million or two million home you need quite a large mortgage already indicating a salary over 20k and that is not poor for Thais. 

 

The tax problems of Thailand have been discussed many times and the tax base is just too small. Increasing the VAT would hit the poor more then this. Telling to pay more for healthcare would hurt them more too. The other option is not feasible so this is the best decision. This has come up through the years and most of the people who do have experience and followed the issue agreed it should be done. 

 

In a perfect world your solution would work.. even in the West it took quite some doing.. here its not going to work.

 

Sorry but I do not agree, You are talking about getting at the rich at the average Thai's expense. This is not good as the rich will only find a way around this tax as well. Find away to tax the company's not the average Thai.

 

@robblok
 
You talk about the rich not paying taxes by using there company's,,, is that not what needs to be looked at, many people that have home's do not have a company so why would you want them to pay a tax to get at the rich who have company's, Just doe's not make sense to me. 
 

Nice idea. What is the first thing a company owns? Buildings and land.

There you are.

 

And get them that have a company to pay tax on that building or land and NOT them that do not have a company.

If this tax is set at getting at the rich then tax them not every one.

 

 

 

 

 

I have been here for over 10 years and do follow the news.

 

You are taking about the middle class getting taxed and the rich not on salary and you think the best way to deal with this is to tax the home's of the lower and average class. Salary and a home are two different things, Tax the salary of the rich and job done.

 

Better still would be to tax the salary, divined and the bonuses of the rich, not just the salary.

When I had my own company for many years I saved a future because I only paid myself a low salary and that is how the rich are saving.  

 

As you are a tax accountant should you not be looking at how you can tax these company' on there so called perk's and not the average Thai. Or is this the easy way for you to tax the average Thai and not the company's

 

Those perks can be hidden too well.. as I said you don't understand the system. If it was that easy I should be done. In the West they do tax the perks. But the registration of things is 10 fold better and not achievable here. 

 

They could even receive no salary and just company benefits and again it would be too hard to fix.. this is a tax that is much harder to avoid and easier to register.

 

So find these perks that are hidden so well, if this can be achieved in other country's then it could all so be here, I am not saying is will be easy to do here BUT is that not the way to get at the rich.

What this tax is doing is to make them that do not have business pay for them that have, 

@robblok

You talk about the rich not paying taxes by using there company's,,, is that not what needs to be looked at, many people that have home's do not have a company so why would you want them to pay a tax to get at the rich who have company's, Just doe's not make sense to me. 

 

 

 

When on has to start calling others ( uneducated ) one has already lost the argument. 

 

In general I would agree.. but anyone who has been here a bit longer and followed the news knows that the Thai-tax base is totally wrong. Several studies have indicated that. It taxes the middle class salary workers a lot and not the rich. 

 

From those studies it was made clear that property tax was the answer. If you never read anything like that or keep informed then its not my job to educate you. 

 

 

I have been here for over 10 years and do follow the news.

 

You are taking about the middle class getting taxed and the rich not on salary and you think the best way to deal with this is to tax the home's of the lower and average class. Salary and a home are two different things, Tax the salary of the rich and job done.

 

Better still would be to tax the salary, divined and the bonuses of the rich, not just the salary.

When I had my own company for many years I saved a future because I only paid myself a low salary and that is how the rich are saving.  

 

As you are a tax accountant should you not be looking at how you can tax these company' on there so called perk's and not the average Thai. Or is this the easy way for you to tax the average Thai and not the company's

 

 

 

When on has to start calling others ( uneducated ) one has already lost the argument. 

 

In general I would agree.. but anyone who has been here a bit longer and followed the news knows that the Thai-tax base is totally wrong. Several studies have indicated that. It taxes the middle class salary workers a lot and not the rich. 

 

From those studies it was made clear that property tax was the answer. If you never read anything like that or keep informed then its not my job to educate you. 

 

 

I have been here for over 10 years and do follow the news.

 

You are taking about the middle class getting taxed and the rich not on salary and you think the best way to deal with this is to tax the home's of the lower and average class. Salary and a home are two different things, Tax the salary of the rich and job done.

 

 

That shows me you know nothing about taxation. As a tax accountant i know a bit more. The rich are not on high salaries. They keep it low and get the money through their companies. If they had salaries to tax it would have been easy. Somehow I doubt you been here 10 years and follow the news else you would know stuff like this.  There are many ways to get money out of a company.. like using a company car and thus lowering salary or living in a company owned house ect ect. For too many ways to avoid tax to type here. This is a great way to tax the rich with the only problem the 1 million threshold that should be 3 million or so. But its a start.

 

But you were so educated you said this tax would increase 100 fold in a few years.. care to back that up ?

 

Read my quote above,

 

 

When on has to start calling others ( uneducated ) one has already lost the argument. 

 

In general I would agree.. but anyone who has been here a bit longer and followed the news knows that the Thai-tax base is totally wrong. Several studies have indicated that. It taxes the middle class salary workers a lot and not the rich. 

 

From those studies it was made clear that property tax was the answer. If you never read anything like that or keep informed then its not my job to educate you. 

 

 

I have been here for over 10 years and do follow the news.

 

You are taking about the middle class getting taxed and the rich not on salary and you think the best way to deal with this is to tax the home's of the lower and average class. Salary and a home are two different things, Tax the salary of the rich and job done.

 

Better still would be to tax the salary, divined and the bonuses of the rich, not just the salary.

When I had my own company for many years I saved a future because I only paid myself a low salary and that is how the rich are saving.