Dogmatix

 Here is part of the public consultation meeting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ZRR6GY1Nc. It was rather poorly attended by people in the weed business.  Small business people asking questions, but unfortunately no legal hotshots challenging the draft.  Most of them seemed like very ordinary guys trying to make a living but not very knowledgeable about legal matters. So can be easily ridden roughshod over.  I thought they had better legal muscle from articles I had read.  The biggest complaints were about Section 25, the prohibition on recreational use, and a ridiculous, broad definition of recreational in the law.  There are penalties for recreational use of a fine of I think 60lk and or 1 year in jail but also penalties for the seller. They asked how can they know, if they sell for medicinal use and someone uses it for fun. The definition of recreational can overlap with medical, they pointed out, e.g, .if you take it for Parkinsons and that allows you to relax and enjoy yourself, then, it appears that you have crossed the line to recreational use. They said police would be incentivized to go into someone backyard to arrest him for smoking a joint, if the cop make an instant judgement that he was enjoying himself smoking it, even though it was for medicinal purposes.

Recent reports on the draft kept saying that the shops would no longer be allowed to sell dried buds but I didn't see or hear anything about that and the questions seemed to suggest they would still be able to sell buds for medicinal purposes.  Also there was no discussion of doctor prescriptions. Perhaps that is all to follow in ministerial regulations that don't need to go through parliament. The whole thing seems all very surreal, especially against a backdrop where they are planning to partially decriminalize amphetamines by not prosecuting possession of up to 5 pills. A year in prison for smoking a join for fun instead of for medicinal purposes but no prosecution for speed pills, no matter whether they were for recreational purposes or not.

After the complaints that Cholnan had reneged on his promise for public consultation on the Cannabis Bill, they did in fact hold one yesterday after making the draft available somewhere, or maybe on request, as I can't find it.  Here is at least part of the public consultation meeting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ZRR6GY1Nc. It was rather poorly attended by people in the weed business.  Small business people asking questions, but unfortunately no legal hotshots challenging the draft.  Most of them seemed like very ordinary guys trying to make a living but not very knowledgeable about legal matters. So can be easily ridden roughshod over.  I thought they had better legal muscle from articles I had read.  The biggest complaints were about Section 25, the prohibition on recreational use, and a ridiculous, broad definition of recreational in the law.  There are penalties for recreational use of a fine of I think 60lk and or 1 year in jail but also penalties for the seller. They asked how can they know, if they sell for medicinal use and someone uses it for fun. The definition of recreational can overlap with medical, they pointed out, e.g, .if you take it for Parkinsons and that allows you to relax and enjoy yourself, then, it appears that you have crossed the line to recreational use. They said police would be incentivized to go into someone backyard to arrest him for smoking a joint, if the cop make an instant judgement that he was enjoying himself smoking it, even though it was for medicinal purposes.

Recent reports on the draft kept saying that the shops would no longer be allowed to sell dried buds but I didn't see or hear anything about that and the questions seemed to suggest they would still be able to sell buds for medicinal purposes.  Also there was no discussion of doctor prescriptions. Perhaps that is all to follow in ministerial regulations that don't need to go through parliament. The whole thing seems all very surreal, especially against a backdrop where they are planning to partially decriminalize amphetamines by not prosecuting possession of up to 5 pills. A year in prison for smoking a join for fun instead of for medicinal purposes but no prosecution for speed pills, no matter whether they were for recreational purposes or not.

This typical Thaksinesque authoritarianism from a Thaksin acolyte. The 2017 constitution required prior public consultation, taking into account views from affected parties, on legislation. That was axed from later military constitutions but the junta government opted to allow public consultation anyway.  Now Thaksin is back behind the driving wheel, his minister promises public consultation but reneges on his promise.  In fact the bill we are discussing is still kept secret. So we are discussing it second hand.

It seems that PT is worried about shops suing the government for damages.  So the solution is to not completely recriminalise or revoke the shops' licences but to make it impossible for them to do business by only allowing them to sell cannabis with less than 0.2% THC.  It sounds like medical THC will be the same as it is now - restricted to oil over 0.2% but not much higher than that with a nasty substance added to prevent drinking the whole bottle to try to get a buzz.  I was prescribed two bottles of this stuff which had a notice in red on the bottle warning that is became an illegal narcotic 30 days after the prescription date.  It was a dark green colour, rather than the normal colorless, tasted revolting and did nothing.  So I threw both bottles in the trash after 30 days, rather than keep an illegal but ineffective substance in the house. Cost me 600 per bottle and and another 800 for a prescription and consultation with an idiotic traditional medicine "doctor".

The shops will be left to go bust as they will only be able to sell thinks like CBD tea and cannabis hand lotion.

28 minutes ago, bamnutsak said:

 

Meh.

 

A health certificate is very much different than a prescription for a controlled substance.

 

 

I don't think foreigners would be allowed access to medical cannabis, as it will be controlled by DTAM/MoPH.

 

Currently, there are very few diagnoses for which Cannabis (oil, and not bong hits) can be prescribed, just four.

 

To expand that program, the MoPH will have to approve, certify, and test Cannabis. And train hundreds of doctors.

 

Finally, I just can't see Doctors being comfortable prescribing a medicine that has to be smoked. So any prescriptions would be for Cannabis oil taken orally.

I think almost certain that foreign tourists will be denied access to whatever gets defined as medical cannabis and quite likely foreigners on longer term visas including permanent residents too.

22 hours ago, Tropicalevo said:

 

 

There is no betrayal.

It was decriminalised (not legalised) for medicinal purposes only

Not true. What Anutin did was to issue a ministerial regulation amending the appendix to the Narcotics Act that lists illegal drugs. Cannabis was simply omitted from the new list with the exception of extracts containing more than 0.2% THC.  No mention of why this was being done or how the decriminalised drug should be used. Go read the Royal Gazette announcement for yourself. Anutin claimed verbally it was being done for medical use but he is a politician. What he did and what he said were two different things.

15 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

If there would be any courageous journalists in Thailand, then they could report about many other sick prisoners.

How many seriously ill prisoners are there in Thailand? Under which conditions do they live? Do they get proper treatment?

And then compare the hundreds or thousands of seriously ill prisoners with the VIP prisoner.

 

And maybe even compare medial treatment of normal Thais, who are not in prison, to the VIP guy. How many seriously sick people are transported per helicopter to a specialist in the middle of the night? 

Most are subject to abuse and left to die in the overcrowded cells.

24 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

A number of posters from overseas who have filed Thai tax returns have claimed the 50% of pension income, max of 100k. It was the subject of much debate in the long thread and despite a series of challenges by me, I was presented with enough  evidence and weight of opinion from different people to be convinced it does apply.

 

Regarding bank interest etc. There are two tax filing forms, PND 90 and PND 91. PND 90 if for people with bank interest only but in excess of 60k, PND 91 if those with bank interest and other income, AS THE LINK STATES.

Interesting, if they have given the 50% allowance up to max 100,000 to foreign pension. Indeed this should be the case according to the letter of the RC but I assumed they might discriminate against foreign pensions. Technically it should only apply employment pensions but perhaps they will be generous enough to extend it to state pensions.  However, for most foreigners tax credits should be claimable for pension income and US social security is protected anyway.

Here's what the RD says about declaring Thai interest income and dividend income. 

 "Interest

The following forms of interest income may, at the taxpayer’s selection, be excluded from the computation of PIT provided that a tax of 15 per cent is withheld at source:

1. interest on bonds or debentures issued by a government organization;
2. interest on saving deposits in commercial banks if the aggregate amount of interest received is not more than 20,000 baht during a taxable year;
3. interest on loans paid by a finance company;
4. interest received from any financial institution organized by a specific law of Thailand for the purpose of lending money to promote agriculture, commerce or industry.

Dividends

Taxpayer who resides in Thailand and receives dividends or shares of profits from a registered company or a mutual fund which tax has been withheld at source at the rate of 10 per cent, may opt to exclude such dividend from the assessable income when calculating PIT. However, in doing so, taxpayer will be unable to claim any refund or credit as mentioned in 2.4."

So Thai bank interest is taxable if over 20,000, even if 15% tax already withheld but, if non-employment income is the only assessable income you have, I guess, no need to declare it, unless total non-employment income is over 120,000.  If your interest income is over 20,000, it seems you can avoid declaring it, if you keep your money in a finance company or in government bonds.  Potentially you could pay more than the 15% withholding tax, if you were in a higher tax bracket.  Even with such low interest rates in Thailand, it is not difficult to get more than 20,000 in bank interest.

But what I said about Thai dividends stands.  No limit to how much you can receive without declaring, if you are happy with the 10% withholding tax.  There is a sweet spot for filing tax credits on Thai dividends which is around 2-4 million dividend income a year. As long as you don't have any other income, you can get a tax rebate of over 4000,000 on dividend income of 3 million, if you do RMF and have other deductions too.  That means that you actually get more tax back than was deducted.  I guess these dividend tax credits will be abolished sooner or later though.  

4 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Presumably Andy could have refused to attend or be extradited.

He has committed no crimes in the UK.

I think so.  He couldn't be extradited for the civil case brought by Roberts but, if he committed perjury under oath, albeit in a zoom call, he could have been extradited.  He refused to testify to the FBI by zoom in the Epstein case, while Epstein was still alive and before Roberts brought her case.

The awful Cressida Dick of the Met protected Andy from criminal charges in the UK. Even though Roberts was over the UK age of consent (and was clearly a hardened hooker by then) she was 17 and criminal charges can be filed against those complicit in sex trafficking of minors under the age of 18 under English law.  If he were not a royal, things might have gone differently in the UK.

They didn't change the tax status of all foreign residents.  They changed the tax status of all Thai and foreign tax residence who remit foreign source income. Foreigners who don't remit any foreign source income have no change in tax status.

Prawit was not happy about the deal that Thaksin did with Prayut to form the coalition. Thaksin cunningly played them off against each other and Prawit didn't get the ministries he expected and his senators didn't vote for Srettha.  Maybe time for some pay back.

In your section 8 I don't believe there is any requirement to file a tax return if you have Thai bank interest in excess of 60,000.  PWC says this:

" in the case of having income from other sources (with or without employment income) of THB 60,000 or less (for single persons) or THB 120,000 or less (for married persons)."

I believe it refers to income from non-employment sources, e.g. rental income. Banks deduct 15% withholding tax on interest and it is an option to declare this income, if you believe you would pay less than 15% and get a refund. Otherwise you can just accept the 15% deduction and not declare it. Same applies to Thai dividends from which 10% withholding tax is deducted at source. You can have as much Thai dividend income as you want and it will not push up your tax rate. If you opt to declare Thai dividends, you can claim tax credits for the corporate income tax paid by the companies to avoid double taxation. This can be all calculated automatically for you by the RD's website, if you file online in Thai.  Otherwise it would be very laborious and would take many hours of work (don't ask me how I know this).  To qualify for the tax credit on dividends, you must own foreign registered shares as a foreigner, not NVDRs. 

Now for the bad news.  This 60,000 threshold for declaring non-employment income probably applies to foreign pensions.

Regarding the tax allowance of 100,000 cited for pensions, this seems misleading.  The 100,000 tax allowance is for Section 40.1 income from employment which includes pensions but only pensions derived from employment.  So state pensions are out but Thailand doesn't have any. So no need for them to mention this in the RC.  I suspect company occupational pensions from overseas are also excluded, even though they appear to qualify on the face of it.  That is because I suspect that to qualify the corporate pension has to be notified by a Thai employer, e.g. Thai Civil Service.  Most Western government employment pensions will be protected from Thai taxation by DTAs, but not so state pensions (except US Social Security) and company pensions.

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Are the concessions only available to married couples? What happens with single foreigners supporting a GF? What forms of marriage are recognized by the Thai authorities?

 

The way I read it, if one is married, over 65. with a pension income of 600,000 baht, they get exemptions of 560,000 baht. Guys in defacto relationships get nothing.

To get the spouse allowance you have to do a joint tax filing and the first time you claim you will be asked to submit a marriage certificate. So no. Common law marriages are not recognized for this purpose.  

No sure how you get to allowances and deductions over the following without having deductions for things like investment in RMF/SSF or insurance and stuff.

Basic allowance  60,000

Senior allowance 190.000

Totals                   270,000.

Adding the tax free threshold of 150,000, tax would start 420,000.

Not only is Sirilapas smart and caring but he is also brave.  She took Chalerm's son in their family stronghold and won.  She has also been sentenced to prison for LM.  Last but not least, she is also not bad looking.

On 1/5/2024 at 5:19 PM, retarius said:

A stupid idea. lots of spending on infrastructure means lots of money from corruption going to people with the power to influence who gets what contracts. 

know the project is not viable - they went through the motions in the first Thaksin govt - but it gives Srettha something to do which can't possibly be successful, so he won't upstage Ung Ing with her soft power.  Also it provides fat consulting fees for PT cronies. 

I have a two year old and fortunately I don't have to send him to a Thai state school.  But I am pretty sure that, if he was beaten or abused by a teacher I would have difficulty in restraining myself from performing an eye for an eye retribution.  Certainly I would pursue the matter legally rigorously.

On 1/6/2024 at 9:03 AM, retarius said:

I have no dog in this fight. I went to school at a time when there was legal battery of children, with strap or cane usually.  I once watched open mouthed a 7 or 8 year  child being beaten by a teacher with fists on his back; and I also watched a 14 year old struck across the face with a metre ruler which broke and gashed a Y-shaped wound across the kid's face (all Catholic schools).  It sounds bad now in our snowflake age, but a) it was not as bad as the treatment earlier generations endured and b) there was no pointed complaining to your parents at home, because you would receive another beating. 

 

I tend to look at the desirability of any given behaviour at the outcomes. It is pretty clear to me, but likely won't be to any snowflakes who buy into wokeness and other modern idiocies. But despite kids being beaten severely throughout history, there is no evidence of any harm being done to the kids, and kids who were beaten at school often support the practice. Britain's brightest and best who built the Empire, brought the world the industrial revolution and so forth, were all sadistically beaten at British public schools (ie private boarding schools like Eton and Harrow) and it was considered that the practice was virtuous and made men of them. It was common when I was a teenager to get a bit of a thumping from police if caught doing something 'dodgy', even for doing nothing, just to keep you in line, and I had a couple of experiences myself....it was called having received a 'clip around the ear'

 

I tend to think that children are pretty robust and can handle a bit of violence from adults, be they parents, police or teachers without having any life long harm done to them.

 

One has to see the results of the beating to determine whether this bump on the forehead has destroyed the kid's brain or is a simply bump that will go down in a couple of days. So perhaps it is best not to judge the teacher at this stage. I don't know whether there are any laws against hitting children in Thailand, I know you cannot smack children in the US or UK and they usually enforce their laws on the rest of the world, but I cannot recall ever having seen a child hit here by parents in the 15 years I have been here; but my wife has tales of being regularly hit with a stick on her legs as a child. 

Please note that I am not espousing the return to daily Victorian canings for kids. But. equally I don't see that the prohibition on beating kids has achieved much when I see the violence in today's society, and I'm not appalled by this incident or supportive of lynching the teacher for a loss of patience, as I imagine he was concerned about damage to the computers in the computer room where the kid was practising his Takraw. 

I went to prep school and public school in the UK at at time when floggings were legally and liberally administered.  The worst violence in my experience was meted out to 7-13 year old prep school boys.  Our head master was clearly a sadist and got sexual pleasure from viciously caning 7 year olds in their thin cotton pyjamas over the laundry baskets, so their blood curdling screams could be heard throughout the dormitories - this for the heinous crime of talking after lights out which for them was 7.00 pm when it was still light in summer and early autumn.  He also loved pulling boys shorts and underpants down and caning their bare bottoms till the blood was flowing freely down their legs. Boys were caned, not only for behavioral issues but for academic offenses like getting poor marks in French vocab rote learning tests. At my public school prefects were allowed to cane boys for offenses such as not calling them sir and there were house beatings where each of up to 15 house prefects took a stroke with a run up at a victim.  We had a famous headmaster who was sacked from Eton, where he was nicknamed The Beater, and carried on his child abuse at my school.  He loved the 13 year old first years and would give them a choice of a serious 6 up caning (with trousers up) in his study or a much milder trousers and underpants down beating with his belt which involved fondling of their private parts.  Another teacher beat up 9 and 10 year olds in the junior school bashing them about the head with the aluminium studs of rugby boots.  I would defy you to say that these corporal punishments did no lasting harm to the boys.  There was also copious homosexual harassment and rapes too.  The sense of impunity regarding corporal punishment extended to homosexual harassment. The school, Fettes in Edinburgh, got a poor write up in the Scottish parliamentary enquiry on past child abuse in boarding schools, resulting in 1.2 million pounds in out of court settlements paid out so far and there are still cases pending against it.  

I was also regularly beaten at home.  My father had the same attitude as you.  He said he was beaten often at home and at school and it never did him any harm.  But my experience was different.  I had no respect for the teacher who obviously flogged for sexual pleasure, as might be expected.  But being beaten by father instilled in me a deep disrespect for a man who beat his own children, viciously on occasion. The parental beatings made me feel quite certain I was right and they were wrong because they debased themselves by using violence against their own children.  

I say NO to corporal punishment of children under any circumstances.  Teachers cannot be trusted with this sort of punishment.

2 hours ago, Guderian said:

Congratulations, 200 pages!

Has anyone actually visited their local tax office and asked a tax inspector, or someone in a senior position, for clarification?

Well.  As Mike Lister correctly, says they wouldn't know and don't want to lose face.  Remember the fanfare announcement of the Phuket sandbox for returnees to Thailand during COVID. Thai embassies and consulates around the world were still saying they hadn't received information on how to process applications a week or two after the government announced the start date for applications.

I knew a guy who took tours to West Africa and other places a couple of decades ago. In the Gambia he warned the tourists no to go outside the guarded beach resort on their own. There were always several single middle aged European ladies in the tours to Gambia.  One of them, a Swiss lady, ignored the warning and wandered out to explore the world outside the resort.  She didn't get more than 500 metres before a guy popped up and raped her by the side of the road. She came back bleeding with ripped clothing. My friend took her to the local police station which refused to accept the complaint, arguing that she must have been looking for bumsters and got want she wanted.  The victim was quite tough and recovered her composure enough to join in with the rest of the group on meals and tours after two days in her room. Not sure, if she was really interested in bumsters or just going for a stroll but she showed no interest in Gambian men after that.

Apart from the rape to be fair the bumster scene seems no different from the bar girl and bar boy scene in Pattaya, except it is limited to young local men and middle aged farang women.  Pattaya is more diversified and caters to every taste.

4 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

Go back and read it again, slowly, I'm loosing the will to live with you on this.

 

No wait, I tell you what, I'm wrong, just like I was wrong for filing a tax return in years gone by. So, matter now closed.

 

If anyone else has anything they would like me to admit being wrong about, I admit all instances, I was very wrong and you were right. That feels so much better.

 

Now, I'm off for any appointment so don't bother baiting. Bye.

If you didn't make misleading assertions about Thai tax revenue breakdowns that are so far from what the actual data shows, I wouldn't point out your errors. 

On 1/3/2024 at 5:28 AM, Mike Lister said:

Ah, I see the problem I started the ball rolling in my initial post by saying "Direct Taxes" when I intended to say, "PIT" (that has been falling and is 2%. My error in terminology.

No, you are still wrong even in your revised statement on both counts.  PIT rose every year from 2001 to 2019 except 2009 (caused by the subprime global recession) and was 9% of total tax revenue in 2021, not 2%.  

Look again. PIT is 4th line down item "1100 of individuals". https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=REVTHA