Dogmatix

There has not been exactly fulsome condemnation of Israel's atrocities by Western governments either (even though there has been by the populations they claim to represent). So let's just call that evens.

Also never forget that the state of Israel was created by Jewish terrorists like Menachim Begin and his Stern Gang who indiscriminately murdered British soldiers and blew up the King David Hotel with hundreds of Jewish folk in it as collateral damage.

Most have already condemned the atrocities and war crimes committed by Hamas but now they have been eclipsed by the far more numerous atrocities and war crimes committed by Israel.

I'm not sure what would be the point of a locked thread. No one would able to point out anything that is misleading or incorrect. Anyway isn't the purpose of a forum like ASEAN NOW to encourage members to comment and debate topics? There are other places on the Internet where static Thai tax guides produced by professional tax advisors can be found. Describing other forum members as "irritations" and hindrances to developing a thread doesn't seem to be in the spirit of an open forum community.

Funding a hand out equivalent to 3% of GDP is just a mere detail.

It seemed to me that what they were trying to do was give some limited tax concessions to Thai companies issuing tokens as an alternative to issuing shares. In addition to VAT exemption they offered a flat rate of 15% on distributions made to token holders which would be like dividends which are taxed at a 10% flat rate. Interest is also subjected to a withholding tax of 15% but it is not a flat rate tax in as much as you have to declare interest earned over 20k and it will taxed at your top marginal tax rate, if this is more than 15% with the withholding tax used as a tax credit. There is a different treatment for dividends in respect of which you can choose to accept the 10% withholding tax and leave it at that without having to pay any more than that but you may claim tax back on the basis of getting a tax credit for the withholding tax and the corporate income tax paid by the company using a slightly complicated formula. The idea for distributions of income to holders of company tokens seems to be that they can accept the 15% withholding tax and don’t have declare it and pay more, if their top tax rate is over 15% but can’t claim a credit for tax paid by the company issuer of the token. in the case of onshore crypto traded there is withholding tax of 15% on gains from a 2016 Royal Decree that has never been implemented because the coup government issued the decree without thinking how this law could be implemented. But anyway the idea was that you had to pay more tax, if your top tax rate was over 15%. That means that you have to declare your gains on a PND 91 tax returns and pay tax on them. If it is a gain on crypto overseas, you pay tax on the gain earned after 1 Jan 2024, if you remit it to Thailand but not otherwise. Thailand has no specific capital gains tax. So you have to lump it in with your income and pay tax at up to 35%.

I was looking the Thai tax treatment of cryptos and there is a 2018 Royal Decree introducing a 1% withholding tax on gains from crypto. Looking into the website of Bitkub, the largest Thai crypto exchange I note that they say that 6 years down the track the 15% withholding tax has yet to be implemented and that the RD has so far not required Thai crypto exchanges to report any information to them about client accounts and trading. So declaring profits on onshore exchanges for PIT remains an honours system for the time being. The 15% withholding tax on crypto gains looks another tax innovation that wasn't thought through before it was enacted. Since crypto traders can transfer their coins to their own hard wallets and buy on one exchange and sell on another, it would need some sort of surveillance system to track the purchases and prices and figure out a FIFO or LIFO accounting system to establish the precise gains to apply the 15% tax to. My sense is that implementing a withholding tax on onshore crypto gains via a bona fide Royal Decree where they have total control over the exchanges should have been child's play compared to implementing the sea change in taxation of foreign source income introduced by an arguably unlawful reinterpretation by a bureaucrat, rather than by act of parliament or Royal Decree, with no supporting regulations or guidelines (how can you issue regulations pursuant to a non-law?) involving complex DTAs and massive differences in foreign tax regimes and tax years. The similar non-domicile tax on remittances from overseas in the UK is supported by proper statutory law and pages and pages of supporting regulations covering every imaginable scenario. Another interesting aspect in comparison is that Thai crypto traders must be overwhelmingly in Bangkok and major cities and most are probably relatively well versed in finance and Thai taxation matters. In contrast the new remittance tax will bring foreigners living up and down the country into the tax net for the first time, including many living in rural districts. Most of them have little or no clue about Thai tax and the RD officers in many districts also have no clue about foreign taxation or DTAs.

I just noticed that the director-general of the RD only joined the RD in October just after the previous D-G lumbered us with P. 161/2566 as his swan song and possibly the last order he signed. The new D-G, who was completely new to the RD, signed P. 162/2566 as damage limitation soon after her arrival on 20 November. That may not make any difference to us but, at least, it provides her with a let out to blame her predecessor for not thinking it through, if she decides to amend it or scrap it in the event that it proves unworkable or faces legal challenges. There is something else of interest about the new D-G here. https://www.thaipbsworld.com/two-senior-finance-ministry-officials-under-suspicion-for-insider-trading/ . Of course this tiny soupçon of impropriety is not considered an obstacle to promotion to head up one of the most important and most lucrative departments in the Finance Ministry. In fact, it may be considered a positive qualification by her direct boss, who is, of course, Khun Srettha. https://www.rd.go.th/english/34772.ht

I also get calls from a well spoken Thai woman in English saying she is with Amex and wants to sell me personal accident insurance. Very annoying if Amex has sold my personal data which I believe is the case as they more or less admitted that it once when I called to complain. The calls stopped for a bit but started again and always the same woman. I am polite with her as she is polite. Just tell her I am not interested.

I get calls from a Thai call centre gang who pretend to be cops. They have my full name and address and ID card number as well as phone number. They pretend to be cops and have background noise designed to sound like a police station. I listened to a lot of the spiel the first time. They said I had done an online bank transfer to a certain Thai name on a certain date and they were investigating that person for money laundering and drug dealing. Asked several times, if I knew him and had transferred money to him. I got suspicious and asked him for the “cop’s” name and rank and the name and address of the police station or office he was calling from, so I could look up the fixed line number and call him bank. He started talking in a very threatening way then, so I hung up realizing it must be a scam. Another one called from a different number a bit later but I hung up after hearing him start his spiel. Then I got about 30 more calls from unknown numbers in quick succession which I blocked without answering. The funny thing is that they always use 06 mobile numbers which I block but they come back with more 06 numbers. 5 months later they still call from time to time. The missus picked up an 06 number on my phone a couple of weeks ago and it was the same sort of voice trying to pronounce my full name. So I told her to hang up. Then another 06 number followed as usual. Apparently the scam is to scare people into handing over a bank statement to prove they didn’t transfer money to Somchai on that date. Then there will be a loud slurping noise as they suck all the money out of the account. i found out that Thai cops never call people like that as part of an investigation. They either send a witness summons notice by mail or show up at your house, if they have good evidence. I guess they must have bought a job lot of 06 numbers. I think it is TRUE. Perhaps I miss some genuine calls by not answering them but that’s too bad. They can send a message. The call centre is probably just over the border in Cambodia or Burma within reach of Thai mobile signals. They are quite scary and obviously bought a large batch of personal data from a corrupt official at a bank or government office. I can understand why Thais fall for it and they are very persistent. It is probably a lucrative business with protection from genuine Thai cops.

The gun was in his hand because his brother had just disarmed the cop and handed to him. He promptly removed the magazine and unloaded the gun holding it in a way that it clearly couldn't be fired, even if still loaded. Not clear if the gun was fired by the cop trying to hit one of the Kiwis or whether one of them reacted to the cop pulling a gun on him and, thinking he was about to get shot, grabbed at the gun and it went off. Most likely the latter I would guess. Why didn't they beat him up once they got him on the grounds. Because they just waned to neutralise the threat he had presented to them after he pulled his gun on them. Just my take. Doesn't exonerate them but I think they stupidly got themselves into a bad situation and then panicked when the cop got scared of two big blokes and pulled his gun on them.

Gains from onshore crypto trading in Thailand are taxable for Thai tax residents (those who spend more than 180 days a calendar year in the LOS) unless your total onshore income is under the threshold which is 150k plus basis allowance of 60k and any other allowances you may have for kids, aged parents, life insurance, being over 65 (190k). Any income earned offshore after 1 Jan 2024 from any source and remitted to Thailand is also taxable.

No explanation of why Torsak was also transferred. There are no charges or allegations against him. Sounds like something cooked up with Thaksin. Big Joke was up in Chiang Mai supposedly providing security for Thaksin, Srettha and some cabinet ministers and no doubt a deal was done. Torsak is pursuing money laundering charges against Big Joke but Torsak has only 6 months to go before retirement. So two months sitting on the bench will derail the charges against Big Joke who will remain eligible for police chief in October and is young enough to hold the job for 6 years. A percentage of all he makes over 6 years would be a tidy some not to be sneezed at by Thaksin who needs money to rebuild his political brand and hates spending his own money.

Sounds similar to something that happened to me in a bar in Pattaya that employed Russian go-go dancers. One of the Russians hassled me for a drink and I had zero interest in her. So she kicked me in the groin.

No reason to suppose a judge would refuse a request from the police chief to issue an warrant for refusing to comply with a police summons. Big Joke was obviously busy brown nosing Thaksin and cabinet ministers in Chiang Mai over the weekend. If he can clear this, he is still in the running for police chief in September and is young enough to stay in the job for 6 years. Lucrative deals could be made out of that with Thaksin and others.

Probably coming soon anyway. The last time cash in account/ monthly income for retirement visas was increased was about 20 years ago, if I recall correctly, and the lump sums were increase by several times. The fee for PR was increased from 50k to c180k at the same time. But the old timers who had been on retirement or marriage visas continuously for a few years before it went up were grandfathered in and still only have to make the old rates, if they are still alive.

Weed didn't cause these epidemics but a small minority do progress from cannabis to harder drugs. From my recollections of decades ago, quite a few went on to try LSD in the 70s which was considered on a par with cannabis but most only tried that a handful of times and gave it up. Those with money went on to try cocaine and some may have continued with that for a few years just in the student days no one I knew could afford cocaine. I knew a couple of people who went on to try heroin but they only snorted it and didn't dare shoot it up. It was just a novelty, dare thing for them and they didn't do it for long. But the vast majority of people I knew who used cannabis in my young days never went on to other drugs and most didn't continue much past university, as it was only a social drug amongst students. Nearly all of them became drinkers as they got older instead which led to alcohol problems in some cases but that probably would have happened without cannabis. I would say that the data about cannabis as a gateway drug is largely inapplicable to places where it is legal. The main reason that young cannabis users get into drugs like cocaine and heroin is because cannabis is illegal and they have to buy from dealers who introduce them to harder drugs. People are not going to be turned on to other drugs by legal weed dispensaries. Without the illegal dealers the gateway doctrine cited by Cholnan is nonsense because there is no gateway. that is not say that no one moves on to harder drugs but there is no overlap of distribution and people are just as likely to go on to harder drugs from speed or alcohol as from weed.

I agree the smoking at that concert should not have happened but the move to ban recreational use was planned long before that. It was just used as a justification. Without that they would have found something else.

The government never managed to stop people selling it completely when it was completely illegal. So after more than 2 years of legalization with widespread investment in growing and distribution. ...

Hard to say without video of the start of the incident and the firing of the shot. The cop said he pulled his phone on them and started filming which peed them off and they grabbed his phone. Who knows if he pulled his gun on them immediately or they assaulted him first. If they were angry and abusive, he may have pulled his gun, feeling threatened by two big farang blokes he knew could overpower him quite easily, as they did. I couldn't make out what type of gun it was but it looks like a hammer fired pistol, not a striker fired pistol like a Glock which doesn't have a safety. A hammer fired pistol has a safety but a cop would definitely keep a round in chamber. Most likely it was something like a Sig Sauer or similar double action/single action model. You would carry this on half cock with a round in the chamber and safety on. It requires a long pull on the first shot to make it a bit safer but the subsequent shots go off with a shot pull. If he had a safety, the cop may have flicked it off as he drew it. It may also have been a striker fired Sig Sauer like the huge order the police bought a few years ago which has no safety but requires a long trigger pull on each shot. Anyway it is quite easy to see how a shot was fired given that cops carry a round in the chamber, as they do in the US and most other countries. The only country I know of where you are not allowed to carry a pistol with a round in the chamber is Israel. Even their sky marshalls have to rack the slide before opening fire with their .22 pistols (to reduce risk of damage to the plane).

Unlikely for first offences. 5 years a piece more likely plus fines.

Big Joke threatened to blacklist them. LOL. Getting out of the LOS is more of an issued than coming back at the moment. Surprising no firearms offences so far but that might come later. There are charged with theft, presumably the gun. Would think they could be charged with illegal possession of a firearm in a public place and discharging a firearm in a public place. They might also be charged with threatening a cop with a firearm, although it looks as if they took his gun to avoid being shot, not to shot him. It goes to show the benefit of a back up gun in an ankle holster like many American cops carry, also he wouldn't have been able to get to one while in a head lock. Hard to say what motivated them. The cop said they offered a bribe. Was it the opposite that he demanded bribe? Anyway they were charged with driving without licences and therefore were a menace to others on the roads, particularly if speeding. Why not just pay a fine or a bribe and enjoy the rest of their holiday? They will probably have a few years in a nasty Thai prison to contemplate that.

I always got the impression that the low priced bottles were massively under declared too. Some low priced bottled must have been declared for a dollar or two each, given that the import duties, excise tax, municipal tax and VAT have to be applied to the landed cost and VAT is applied to the landed cost plus all the other taxes. I remember looking at an Australian wine import business someone put up for sale. Part and parcel of the deal was an Australia wine export company which was essential for buying wines in Australia and exporting them somehow at a massive loss in order to keep Thai taxes down. The wine producers are not willing to do this. So importers have to have their own price fixing operations in the exporting countries. This looks like a huge opportunity for the Customs and Excise Departments to call in millions in bribes as the importers will have to double up on the bribes they have already paid registering all their labels. Since the =FDA is involved in the registrations, they will also clean up.

The tax residency rules are pretty black and white in Thailand 180 days out in a tax year and you're out of the net whether Thai or not. I recall Thaksin's daughter, who is now in line to be PM, when she was studying in the UK was used as a vehicle to remit a huge family profit on something but it was challenged purely on the grounds that they had slipped up and she was out of the country a couple of days less than 180.

He would have been arrested for smuggling out out of Thailand but in Singapore he would have been hanged.