Dogmatix

Not two PMs - just one.  Thaksin will call the shots.  Srettha will either step aside completely to make way for Ung Ing who will let her father decide everything, or will just continue racking up air miles to sell land bridges and stuff.

4 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

When you have a crisis that is not being addressed, by do nothing politicians like the current PM, this is what happens. Real problems need real solutions. I could come up with 10 of them but so far the people in charge have not come up with one, other than discouraging people from burning incense during Chinese New Year. 

The PM is busy trying to please his master by making great efforts to sell the unviable land bridge to foreigners (to get big consulting contracts) and get the digital wallet done, which will probably tie him up in legal knots and pave the way for the master's daughter to step in. 

This ridiculous rule was a revolutionary decree in 1972 from a military junta that seized power in an illegal coup. It was enforced at first and then ignored until the first Thaksin regime decided to dust it off as part of its social order campaign.  The government shouldn't have the slightest hesitation in scrapping it.

If they are so keen to have tourists plastered all day long, they should also continue to allow them to be stoned all day long and not go ahead with another ridiculous plan to walk back some but not all of the cannabis liberalisation. I think police stings to extort money from tourists for recreational use of cannabis in private will go viral on social media, like the Taiwanese gal who was shaken down for having vapes which are only illegal in the sense that import duty as not been paid on them because imports are illegal. Two many pointless laws aimed at generating backsheesh for cops already.

5 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Everything that is written in the Thai RD Tax Code is written specifically for salary earners and recipients of income in Thailand, who are tax residents.  It has been and still is my belief that unless a person has to pay income taxes, then they do not have to lodge a tax return in Thailand.  The vast majority of Thai citrizens do not lodge tax returns - a google search indicates that only 6-9 million people lodge a tax return out of a population of over 50 million over the age of 18.  Unlike other countries, the Thai RD does not want everyone to lodge a tax return.

 

The application of everytghing in the Thai RD Revenue Code is not automatic, as some people think - otherwise every single person leaving Thailand would be fined 1000 Baht for not getting a tax clearance.  When it comes to application of the Code, it is not automatic that it will be against all money received/earned overseas by Expats and remitted into Thailand. DTAs have a big impact on those forms of income, as does the application of the Thai RD Tax Code in each and every single situation (and as directed by the Thai Govt). So does the application of the tax laws in Thailand against Expats (which have not been tested in a Court - yet).  No part of this 'new rule' ramifications have been 'tested' in a legal manner (Court), and the Thai RD often loses Court challenges. Depending on how they implement this new rule change, they are going to get a lot of new 'challenges' by Thai citizens for changing a system used for 30 years, with 3 months notice.

 

I am not keen to lodge a tax return in Thailand - ever.  I do not believe Thailand has the legal or moral right to force retired or married Expats to do so - unless they are using their Visas to avoid taxes overseas, or are earning money in Thailand.  That viewpoint is based upon how Thailand legally treats retired/married Expats.  Legally and technically, all Expats staying in Thailand long term are doing so as a tourist - we are not here as an immigrant - the 90 day reporting and annual renewals is due to the Visa being an extended tourist Visa - that is why we have the same 'legal rights' as a tourist. Thailand does not and cannot legally tax tourists, unless they are earning income while they are in Thailand.  There are Visas that actually give legal rights (such as the LTR), but the standard Visa that most Expats used when entering Thailand, is an extended tourist Visa - we are all tourists (visitors).  But I am not going to take that legal 'argument' further and get it tested in the Thai RD Tribunal or Court - only because that would be extremely expensive.

 

I will also point out that there is SFA arrangements in place at the Thai RD for the lodgement of a tax return in Thailand under which the terms and conditions of a DTA can be utlised. Both the written and online versions of the Thai RD tax lodgement do not cater for that situation.  Therefore, should any Expats wish to lodge a tax return and claim that certain money is not taxable under a DTA with their country, it will be an expensive exercise if we use a tax expert - and it could be very expensive if it goes to a Tribunal.  Plus I am certain that the Thai RD does not have the time and resources available to manage that anyway, should every Expat who receives over 120K Baht from a Pension lodge a tax return claiming they owe no taxes (or a very small amount) due to their interpretation of a DTA. Who the hell at the Thai RD is going to be able to deal with exemptions claimed under the DTAs that Thailand has with over 60 different countries. 

 

Unless I am working/earning income in Thailand (legally available only with a work permit), then I see no legal reason for a retired or married Expat to pay income taxes.  My calculations are that they get zero from myself anyway, but it is the principle of the matter.  When a Thai Court has ruled that Expats can be legally charged a much higher rate in a State hospital, because they are not Thai citizens and have more money, that clearly states we dont have the same legal rights as a Thai citizen. And there are so many other situations (like dual pricing, courts, etc.) where it is very clear what our/my legal status is in Thailand. Implicit in that is that we dont have to pay income taxes 

 

Thailand will find out soon enough that if they start applying income taxes against many Expats (especially their Pensions) then they will not stay living here in Thailand full-time.  Obviously some Expats have no choice and cannot easily move out, but many Expats can and will either just visit Thailand (<180 days), or they will take up other options.  It is no coincidence that the Taxation Minister in Malaysia, who introduced this same new rule in 2022, has stated that they have no intention of taxing the money of retired/married Expats that they bring into the country. As she said that is wrong because that is all 'new money' being broguht into the country, and it would be a massive disincentive for Expats to bring money into Malaysia if it is going to be taxed.  The implementation of this new tax rule is about removing the loophole that allowed citizens and companies to invest their money (earned in their country) overseas and to then bring that money back and not pay taxes on the earnings made on that investment overseas. The associated 'global taxation' system that is now being employed in many countries, is about stopping people living in one country for long periods, just so that they can avoid income taxation in another (and money laundering).

 

I think the situation is that the RD requires any tax resident with over 120k in income to file a tax return but it is rather pointless because the tax threshold starts at 150k plus a 60k basic allowance. So it is not enforced. I am not sure what law or regulation requires this but it is to be found on the RD's website without cited any legislation to support it. Thus I don't know, if there is any penalty for not filing a tax return for those who have income over 120k but not enough to pay tax. I don't think so and this regulation seems not to be enforced. AFAIK there are only penalties for not filing tax returns and paying tax on income over the threshold and allowances.

Re DTAs I have heard from professional tax advisors that claiming tax credits from corporate income tax under DTAs can be a complex and costly business. The RC doesn't ever specify that DTAs are applicable to PIT but there is a ruling to that effect.  So perhaps it is unsurprising that there is no space on the PND 90/91 forms, as this is unsupported by any section of the RC which is always referred on the forms. 

You say the reinterpretation is intended to tax corporate and personal income derived from funds that originated in Thailand. This is not an issue in the case of corporate income tax because companies already have to pay tax on income arising overseas whether it is remitted to Thailand or not. However, most Thai companies do not have income overseas in their own names.  They have income in overseas subsidiaries that is taxable in their country of domicile, while dividends remitted to the Thai parent are taxable in Thailand but subject to DTAs as they usually taxed in the country of origin. There are other cases like Thai companies earning capital gains from investments in businesses overseas that they sell for a profit.  This has always been taxable. Also where tax companies own property overseas.

Offer visa free travel more small countries like Kazakhistan, Nauru and Micronesia and the problem will be solved forever with no need to improve the air quality.

Got stung by a jelly fish in Hua Hin.  I didn't see it, so have no idea what type it was but it also felt like an electric shock and I collapsed in the sea, as I was waist high. It hurt like hell for 24 hours and was then septic oozing pus for 3 months, eventually leaving a scar behind. I don't know if it was a box jelly or not but it might have been, even though I didn't pass out or feel it was life threatening.

Previous jelly fish stings just felt like an irritation in the sea that got worse over a few hours but very low intensity compared to the one in Hua Hin.  After the sting a lot of people told me about others who had been stung badly in Hua Hin. One guy's little girl got such a bad scar on her stomach she wouldn't wear a bikini when she grew up.  Another girl ended up with a scar on her face.

Anyway Thai waters are infested with various species of jelly fish, as well as sea lice, some of which are extremely dangerous. Better to use the swimming pool.

29 minutes ago, Pouatchee said:

 

anutin has insiste from the beginning that the thc content should not be over 0.2% and that it should not be used for recreational purposes. i am very pro weed, but the thai gvt isnt known for its finesse in implementing laws, nor are the pigs gonna back down from enforcing their future retirement plans. dont get your hopes up

This was a smoke screen from Anutin. He kept insisting that over 0.2% would still be illegal without saying that only referred to extracts.  The majority of Thais understood that referred to everything and buds would be illegal which thinking how it would be possible for there to be any business for shops and growers like that. Newin's daughter already had a huge plantation and was talking openly about selling for recreational use.  Daddy, Anutin's boss, would not have been happy, if she wasn't able to sell all the bud she had prepared for market.

It is not very clear how this is supposed to work.  I couldn't find the clause in the draft that says you need a medical prescription but it is clear enough there will be a fine up to 60K for recreational use and up to a year in jail and/or a 20k fine for DUI of cannabis - limit and testing procedure unspecified. However possession of any part of the plant except extracts over 0.2% THC remains legal but you are not allow to use it, unless you have evidence of medical use. So the cops will have to catch people actually consuming the cannabis recreationally, possession not being criminal. You say you just like the smell and you keep weed in the house like pot pourri you remember from your great aunt's musty old house.

Smoking anything in public so as to cause a nuisance to other people is illegal under the Public Health Act but there needs to be a  complaint and I think the fine is only 10k.  There is nothing on this in the Cannabis Bill. 

It seems like they have to catch people in the act of smoking and fine them for doing it recreationally. But as he says, this would be mainly an opportunity to shake down backpackers.  Most Thai stoners will not have much money to pay the cops and the fine for a first offence is not likely to be more than 10k.  I don't think they can detain offenders for an offence that is not even imprisonable.  Very hard to catch people who ingest it. Extracts over 0.2% may be illegal but if people avoid extracts and only ingest decarbed weed, pretty difficult to catch them. 

5 hours ago, proton said:

How long if she had been a Cambodian cleaner? or Thai noodle seller?

There is some data on this. A rich guy's son did a hit and run on a female Cambodian migrant worker in his sports car. The woman was decapitated by the impact and her torso went through the windscreen and ended up in the passenger seat.  Still the rich kid didn't stop and drove off with a shattered windscreen and the headless corpse of the woman for company in his passenger seat.  I am pretty sure he got a light sentence.   

 "It is a decision about the kind of democracy Thailand aspires to be—one where the rule of law prevails over political maneuvering. For the sake of our nation’s democratic integrity and commitment to justice, Thaksin should be released."

What an astonishing statement but unsurprising due the political orientation of Thai Enquirer's ownership.  Quite the opposite is true. Thaksin a common criminal convicted of corruption who deserves to serve his full sentence. His treatment since returning home and stealing of the election by his party represents a supreme triumph of political maneuvering over democratic integrity and justice. 

5 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

If the first thing that you did when opening this thread was to look at their breasts in the photo , then you are a degenerate 

I too am a degenerate. These two Polish lassies are welcome to come and sunbathe by my pool, as far as I am concerned, but Mrs Dog may have some cultural objections.

The Israeli ambassador's ads on tuk tuks campaign should have a decisive effect.  Hamas high heid yuns on gentlemen's trip to Bangkok will immediately relent and send the hostages back demanding nothing inexchange, not even a day of cease fire.

On 1/16/2024 at 1:33 PM, Hunz Kittisak said:

Aren’t the hostages captured by Hamas? Aka the Palestinian government? 

The Palestine govt that has embassies is the PA, or Fatah which is nominally in charge of the West Bank.  Fatah was given control of Gaza b Israel when it withdrew in 2005 but there were elections which were won by Hamas.  Fatah refused to cede power and a bitter civil war ensued in Gaza.  Hamas won and has been charge of Gaza since them- Fatah was driven out to the West Bank.  There have been no further elections.  

Looking only at penalties in the draft bill for users, not growers and vendors, it looks like this.

Consuming cannabis for recreational use - fine up to 60,000.

Driving under the influence of cannabis - up to 1 year in jail and/or fine up to 20,000. 

Recreation is defined as using for entertainment or enjoyment whether alone or with other people. Refusing a test, assumed stoned.  No definition of stoned or how testing will be carried and this overlaps the existing law on driving under the influence of alcohol or substances where the penalties are higher. 

A big catch for the shop owners is up to one year in jail and/or 100,000 for selling to be used for recreation. They asked how they can prevent customers who buy for medical purposes using it for recreation.  No meaningful reply from the ministry muppets.

3 hours ago, TravelerEastWest said:

I agree with you 100%.

 

Speaking softly, politely, and gently I think a Tax Guide thread could perhaps give people a false sense of security in following its words - as it seems to be written by nontax professionals who are not native speakers of Thai (or near-native speakers). It also could open the forum up to legal issues if someone follows it and has problems...

 

Then again many people may prefer a tax guide thread as it is... and I am all for freedom of speech.

 

I love the Voltaire quote:

 

"I may detest what you have to say but I will die for your right to say it..."

 

I think there is room for both types of thread.  This issue is going to evolve over the next couple of years and it will be good to maintain a "go to" thread to check in with every now and again to see, if anything new has happened. You can just go back a few pages to see, if guys are discussing anything new.  Of course, these these lengthy threads contain a lot of information but not indexed or easily retrievable. So a tax guide thread is useful as a sort of summary too.  Legal liability?  A disclaimer helps, although there are many legal cases, where disclaimers and even signed waivers of rights are deemed unenforceable by courts. However, I expect the risk is minimal in this case. 

The OP is about the draft bill which is just been released.  Why not stick to discussion of that, rather than discussing pros and cons for cannabis which can be done on countless other threads and fora?