rwdrwdrwd

1 hour ago, darrendsd said:

I considered telling them this however I read reports, some on this forum that some banks were not accepting this reason

 

Everyone's personal circumstances are different and I don't want any issues with my bank or the UK taxman

 

It's also worth pointing out that some offshore banks now require a TIN to open a account

Fair enough. In my case they (CitiBank) said no to me the first time I asked, was only when I pushed it that they relented - it is 100% true that Thailand does not require foreign financial institutions to collect or report TINs - they can't, they haven't implemented CRS. I'm reluctant to give any personal info to any organisation unless it's a legal requirement personally.

Tell your bank that Thailand has not yet implemented CRS:

http://www.oecd.org/tax/automatic-exchange/crs-implementation-and-assistance/crs-by-jurisdiction/#T

You are therefore not required to provide it, if you had the same form I did, it's reason "C":
 

No TIN is required because the tax residence jurisdiction that issued the TIN does not require a Financial Institution to collect and report the TIN.

I told my bank this and they relented.

11 hours ago, agudbuk said:

Most followers of the Jewish religion are also Jewish by race being descended from the same ancestor (Abraham).
For information Mohammed was also Jewish as he was also a descendant of Abraham.

Why does Abraham get to be the catalyst for a race?

3 minutes ago, jackdd said:

Section 71 is talking about the situation that arises if for example one car comes from north and the other from west, then the "north car" is left of the "west car" and thus has the right of way.

If one car is coming from north and the other one from south then obviously there is no car "right" or "left"

Ahhh yes that makes sense now.
 

3 minutes ago, jackdd said:

The translation that you linked to actually also includes this, it's the last sentence of Section 51: "Vehicles turning left shall give way to vehicles turning right"

You're totally right, sorry for the digression!

2 hours ago, jackdd said:

This law is not related to this situation, you have to look at Section 51. I explained this already on page 2

I saw, but I think that is incorrect. 71 *specifically* references the situation where two vehicles travelling in opposite directions meet at the same time at a junction. - which is the case in the OP.
 

Quote

Section 71 (500B)

If, when entering a junction, there are other vehicles, the driver must let such vehicles go through first.

If two vehicles enter a junction from different directions at the same time, the vehicle on the left side has a right of way, except when there's a designation of "principle roadway" in which case the vehicle on the principle roadway has a right of way.

Also the translation of 51at http://thailaws.com/law/t_laws/tlaw0140_5.pdf says the opposite of what you explained on Page 2 if read literally:
 

Quote

Section 51 (500B)
...
To turn right:
...
e. at a junction the driver shall allow the vehicles that travel in the same roadway but in the opposite direction to pass through the junction first and, upon seeing that it is safe, may then make a right turn.

This says that Car A has right of way in the OP, not car B.

My *guess* is that 51 is intending to refer to right turning vehicles giving way to oncoming traffic that is not making a turn, but I'm sure 71 refers to the scenario in the OP - all preconditions match. What isn't clear though is what orientation the law is speaking from, so it's about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

23 minutes ago, rwdrwdrwd said:

I think you're right, and as a Brit it's very confusing, not helped by the fact that many Thais don't follow the rule either.

Actually, now I've looked at the regulations for proof, it gets even more confusing.

http://thailaws.com/law/t_laws/tlaw0140_5.pdf
 

Quote

Section 71 (500B) [If, when entering a junction, there are other vehicles, the driver must let such vehicles go through first. If two vehicles enter a junction from different directions at the same time, the vehicle on the left side has a right of way, except when there's a designation of "principle roadway" in which case the vehicle on the principle roadway has a right of way.]

What angle are we looking at the junction from? Both of them are on the left from their own perspective. If anything I'd read this as the vehicle closest to the left of the junction they are entering which would mean Car A has right of way.

Anyway yeah, the answer in the theory test is that car A should give way to car B. It's a daft test, lots of the questions make no sense, it's just a case of learning which answers are 'right'. In practice, at any junction, look in all directions before proceeding. Also 'principle roadway' is just a theory.

There's a junction near my house, one very fast road has a junction with two other much slower ones - the junction is exactly the same shape as a crossroads, there are crossroads signs posted on one of the approaches BUT the road markings clearly show that the fast road veers to the left. People tank down the fast road at 100km an hour and go straight across the junction, off the 'principle road' across oncoming traffic on the 'principle road' who, if they follow the lines on the road, have right of way.. It's a really dangerous and confusing junction - locals have even put up huge hand written STOP signs.

4 hours ago, Gulfsailor said:

Car A turning left has to give way to car B turning right. Hence Car A is in the wrong. 

And yes I know that's not the case in the U.K, but this is not the U.K. Rules of the road are different. So better learn them. 

I think you're right, and as a Brit it's very confusing, not helped by the fact that many Thais don't follow the rule either.

I'm hoping you meant to write 450.... even that would be a massive rip off.

I think they meant they had only drank 2 Leos, which is pretty much 2 pints of beer.

Sure there's plenty of people that do that and don't think they are over the limit.

Photo?

12 hours ago, SpeakeasyThai said:

'Gobsmacked'... clearly you are living in the past? Don't you know everything is linked up to computers now! They can find out anything about anyone if they want to. Elementary.

 

Obviously if "everything is linked up to computers now" then anyone with a conviction anywhere in the world would be automatically flagged, and anyone with a criminal conviction anywhere in the world would never get entry to a country that does not allow visitors with criminal records to enter.  They wouldn't need to *ask*, they would already know the answer.

This doesn't happen because.... that level of sharing does not currently occur.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

On 12/17/2017 at 1:45 AM, britishrepublican said:

Do your duty and stop  whinning about your obligations.  You only want the gravy from thailand without giving anything back. 

 

You think your better than others, you're not. 

Hang on, there's gravy?

It's a prepaid 1 year contract - don't think you'll get a refund for unused months. Modem deposit should be refunded though, if you returned it.

Also worth mentioning that if you don't expressly cancel they just keep the contract rolling perpetually and invoicing. This has bitten me in the past, ended up having to pay for 4 months service at a place I no longer lived in under threat of monthly bills just continuing to build up until it was at a high enough level to take legal action against me.

.

Fantastic that we now have a forum rep everyone can ping when the 90 day report site is having issues :D where do I file issues, first one is that there's a perfect storm with the autocomplete where the autocomplete response handler often throws a 500 and the callee just retries, which leads to an infinite loop and browser lockup - easily fixed with a one liner in the js.

Out of interest, and feel free to tell me to keep my nose out. Do you qualify for the same pension Thai govt employees do, and is the pay any good (I believe "any good" in software dev in Thailand is 80 - 120k)? The pension is pegged to between 70 and 85% of final salary I believe, so if you get one in combination with a decently paid role it's a very nice bonus.

8 minutes ago, pigeonjake said:

well i can only go by my wages,

in 1980 i was fresh out my time as a fully coded pipe welder, ( a good one) worked on most power stations in the uk, and oil refineries, off shore, on shore, getting 500 pounds a week

 

now 2017 im a certified welding inspector with a diploma in managing welding operations on 450 pound a day and thats in the uk.

when i go abroad its more,

 

Firstly you have a load more experience now, so you'll earn more - it's not an especially fair comparison. It would be more relevant to compare what someone at the level of experience you were in 1980 earns these days against that 500/week you used to.

Secondly that is a 4.5x increase, not a 10x like the house price, which is what my point was :-)

On 9/26/2017 at 2:01 PM, pigeonjake said:

a great post, you talk about buying your first house for 29k but that was relative to your earning then

He said it was 29k in 290k now, the average wage these days is 27k.

I was alive in the early 80s and I don't remember the average wage being 2.7k, so there's a lot more to this huge difference than 'relative to earnings'.

The graph here is interesting - http://blogs.thisismoney.co.uk/2010/04/house-prices-vs-average-earnings.html

I know a retiree who does this, yes. There's no legal issue with it - you're not working in Thailand.

In terms of tax, the Thai tax rules are that income is taxable in Thailand by residents if it is remitted to Thailand in the year it is earned. Though if you're going to be working for your current company, you're most likely going to be taxed at home anyway (assuming that's where the company is based) so it would fall under dual taxation legislation.

Indeed, 3 years later it is still far more lucrative to work remotely for US/EU orgs - plenty of roles out there that would pay double the 170k you mention for senior remote devs.

120k US is low in SFO and plenty of orgs there will hire remote workers wherever they are in the world at a senior level at normal SFO rates - the primary issue is timezone, which requires a serious commitment to async communication on the part of the org, or a very flexible attitude on the part of the dev to adjust their hours.

NYC / AUS / UK / EU are more aligned timezones, but lower rates - still far better than here though.

That all said, there has been a noticeable increase in really decent Thai based websites in the last 3 years - definite movement there, hopefully the salaries grow too.

31 minutes ago, Flustered said:

 

In short, a Digital Nomad works and lives in a country other than the one he/she declares as residence for tax purposes. 

 

That is not what a digital nomad is. It is simply a term for someone who is able to travel and earn their income online.

Nobody can live in Thailand and not be tax resident, as I addressed in the prior post.

Digital nomads cannot 'declare residence' elsewhere, if they spend > 183 days in Thailand, they are tax resident here, and they are subject to Thai income tax on the portion of income earned in the subject tax year that is remitted to Thailand in that tax year - exactly the same as any other Thai tax resident.

12 minutes ago, Flustered said:

Can you explain your post.

 

I am fully aware of the tax laws relating to pensioners in Thailand. If pensioners in Thailand chose to immediately transfer money as soon as it is paid, then it is taxable. I know this so why think that I do not? Who has even questioned this? No one, just you.

 

I agree, Digital Nomads by law cannot chose where to pay their taxes and are subject to the same laws but it seems you do not understand what a Digital Nomad is.

 

These Digital rodents are taking advantage of countries like Thailand and paying their taxes in whichever country they declare their residence, If they declare any earnings at all which I doubt, There are many countries that offer low tax structures and where it is relatively easy to obtain residency. The cost of living in these countries is very  high so that is why these tax evaders chose to live in countries like Thailand.

 

You seem very confused as to what the discussion is about.

My point is that the people that are termed 'digital nomads', if they spend 183 days a year in Thailand, are treated in exactly the same manner as any other Thai tax resident (including expat pensioners) in terms of tax. Most crucially, nobody can 'declare residence' elsewhere to avoid being liable for tax in Thailand - tax residence is simply determined by the time spent in the country.

I think you are conflating 'digital nomads' with 'tax nomads' - they are very different terms.