rockingrobin

4 minutes ago, chemist said:

Yes, but what about if what I write in Thailand is legal here, but not in Sweden, could I be charged for something? Let's say I write "I hate Somalians" on Facebook. Can then any country where this sentence shows up (and it is illegal) charge me for "hate speech"? That would be ridiculous. 

 

If I write the above sentence here in Thailand, where it's probably perfectly legal, and a person in Mongolia (let's say it's illegal there) sees it and becomes offended it would be absurd if some court in Mongolia could charge me.

1

You are trying to argue that because you are not present at the scene of the crime then you cannot be guilty.

Consider a person who is not present at a murder but who gave the order to kill by telephone. They are as much guilty as the person committing the act.

On 1/15/2018 at 10:42 PM, chemist said:

The main question, though, is if I can be on trial in Sweden for stuff I write here. Does this vary between different Western countries? 

What you are enquiring about  enforceability

If a person views your post in Sweden they every right and expectation that the content would comply with Swedish law

As an example, a person viewing illegal acts on the internet  is still guilty regardless of where the content originated

2 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

Unlawful discrimination, which country's laws are you referring to, certainly not Thailands!

Apologies , I did not clarify the grounds for non discrimination come from the DTT non discrimination clause

In the case of  GB -Thailand can be found in article 24 , which basically states that a national  of a contracting state cannot be treated less favourably than a national of the other state ,where the circumstances are similar.

Thus if pension income is tax exempt for Thai nationals  then foreign pension income is also tax exempt 

I have not checked other DTT , but the non discrimination article is part of the OECD model for tax treaties 

1 hour ago, simoh1490 said:

The clause refers specifically to Thai mutual and ltf retirement funds, not overseas pensions.

If the exemption was not to apply to foreign pensions from similiar source, this would equate to unlawful discrimination , and become in effect an introduction of a new tax 

1 hour ago, LivinLOS said:

http://www.rd.go.th/publish/fileadmin/user_upload/kormor/eng/MR_126.pdf

 

Clause 2 The following incomes shall be prescribed as incomes under (17) of
Section 42 of the Revenue Code as amended by the Revenue Code Amendment Act (No.
10), B.E. 2496 : 

 

(56) Any money or benefit that the holders of investment units in a retirement mutual fund under the law governing securities and exchange received from such fund due to old age, infirmity, or death, subject to the rules, procedures and conditions prescribed by the Director-General of Revenue Department. (Amended by the Ministerial Regulation No. 228, (B.E. 2544) which has come into force as from 1 January B.E. 2544)

 

That would not seem to be saying that is an exemption ??? It reads to me like its clearly 'including' it as income, not excluding. 

Section 42 is defining incomes that are tax exempt

42 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:

Do you have any link or source of that information. 

 

The tax code does explicitly include pensions, not merely covering it in income but names it as a source that is taxable under the Thai tax code. 

 

I have yet to see any ministerial exemption, only a lack of enforcement. I always think this presents a additional risk to anyone using the monthly pension declaration system as they are effectively declaring they do not have savings and rely on drip feeding money in, in a way the tax code says is taxable. 

Thai revenue code chapter 3, section 42(17) , 

In the ministerial regulation 126 , the references to pensions are found within different clauses depending upon the specifics of the source of income.

e.g. clauses 56 for retirement mutual funds 

50 minutes ago, KiChakayan said:

Has anyone heard of a retiree paying income tax in Thailand?

Retirees do pay tax in Thailand, there is a higher allowance granted to persons of a certain age group. I think it is 190,000 baht.

Pension income is tax exempt , see ministerial regulation 126 on the Thai revenue website.

28 minutes ago, elviajero said:

It is highly unlikely that you would have a tax liability on pension income received from abroad. The cash in the bank would depend on it's origin.

 

The Thai Revenue Department certainly don't seem interested in pursuing foreign retirees for tax. It is effectively a self assessment system and you should declare any tax liability yourself. In order to know your tax liability you would probably need an accountant.

 

Personal Income Tax (PIT) is a direct tax levied on income of a person. A person means an individual, an ordinary partnership, a non-juristic body of person and an undivided estate. In general, a person liable to PIT has to compute his tax liability, file tax return and pay tax, if any, accordingly on a calendar year basis.

The Thai revenue code , section 42 (17) directs to ministerial regulation 126 for the purposes of income exempt of tax

2 hours ago, Harveyboy said:

does this mean i i move here permanently on a pension i would have to declare and pay tax also would this apply to any cash i may have in the bank

AFAIK , pension income is assessable , but tax exempt under a ministerial regulation

3 hours ago, tonray said:

Thailand also has agreements with many countries to prevent double taxation. For example as a US citizen I pay tax to the US therefore I am not required to pay tax on that same income here. You need to verify if your country has an agreement and whether you can choose where to pay your taxes and what conditions you might have to meet to switch to paying your taxes to Thailand rather than your home country.

The international treaties do not give individuals the right to choose where to pay taxes. What they do is state which  contracting party has the right to tax

1 hour ago, bobrussell said:

As I see it from reading the legislation below, a visitor does not have a freehold interest, does not have any form of lease agreement nor any security of tenure or contractual right to live there, written or not. Therefore they would appear to be exempt and my council was right to continue with a single person occupancy until she became settled in the UK. Still one for the council to agree to and there is still the possibility of taking the moral high ground and paying for the time the visiting partner is staying in the UK:

 

"(2)A person falls within this subsection in relation to any chargeable dwelling and any day if, on that day—

(a)he is a resident of the dwelling and has a freehold interest in the whole or any part of it;

(b)he is such a resident and has a leasehold interest in the whole or any part of the dwelling which is not inferior to another such interest held by another such resident;

(c)he is both such a resident and a statutory [F1, secure or introductory tenant]of the whole or any part of the dwelling;

(d)he is such a resident and has a contractual licence to occupy the whole or any part of the dwelling;

(e)he is such a resident; or

(f)he is the owner of the dwelling."

I think the section quoted needs to be read in conjunction with section 1

' (1)The person who is liable to pay council tax in respect of any chargeable dwelling and any day is the person who falls within the first paragraph of subsection (2) below to apply, taking paragraph (a) of that subsection first, paragraph (b) next, and so on '

Thus creating an heirarchy of the person whose responsibility is to make the payments.  

12 hours ago, CeeGee said:

Thank you for both your replies, may I ask, are your answers based on specific instances or your perception of how the rules should be interpreted?.I ask because if you look back at the answers given a few years ago there seems to be a wide range of answers from various sources.I know from dealing with my own council they will automatically say something should be paid and it is only when you show them the actual regulations that they back down.

It was suggested previously things like being on the electoral register etc would influence if council tax should be paid.

If the tax has to be paid, I have no problem with that but I am just trying to confirm the actual circumstances that it should be paid.(rather like dealing with the VATman who by default says you owe VAT if they say so until such time that you can prove you do not).Has anyone actually gone down this path with their council? "Some councils appear to disagree with this "

Again to both posters thank you for your replies.

The relevent legislation 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/14/section/6

It is left to the individual local authorities to intepret the rules , what is not commonly understood is the tax is not hypothecated and the authority can choose how to spend or not spend the revenue has it wishes.

1 hour ago, altcar bob said:

There are no penalties that can be ascribed to the recipient of the OAP.  The DWP have attempted in the past to address this issue, but unfortunately when put to the test in a county court some time ago,lost their case,fact is they never turned up,as near certainty they would have lost the case,opening the flood gates

The penalties ascribed can be found in

Social Security Adminstration Act 1992

Fraud  Act 2006 chapter 35

1 hour ago, altcar bob said:

This is excellent ,a really excellent and well thought provoking post,really Frank Bruno could not come up with better statement

   Any dumbo could quote a blanket statement,as you have,but it the specifics of the 'Social Security fraud act'. as you prescribe to,You see you have to open the the reverent 'law' in the publication and inward digest and understand the penalties,and any other awards that could potentially thwart any attempt towards criminality,which I am pretty well assured in my own mind you are well versed in (not)  lol

Section 16 of the act makes it an offence not to disclose.

The term non sanctionable does not alter this, but removess the ability to reduce or suspend the  benefit as one of the alternatives as a penalty. It leaves the other options available,  criminal prosecution, administrative penalty or caution and the use  of proceeds of crime act to seize saving and assets.

 The course of action will depend how the offence is viewed , fraud, mis representation or error

3 hours ago, altcar bob said:

..but it was you (post 3556) that quoted (law)  to quote that you must have knowledge of the appertaining (law)...better idea, as you pushed the boat out firstly why not YOU back up your assertions,its all there to be read

 

The law you are looking for

Social Security Fraud Act

42 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Good point, but politicians are v. aware of the 'grey' vote, and it would be suicidal to not make provision.

 

We all know that the various govts. made no attempt to put N.I. pension contributions into a separate 'pot' - so surely it would be more honest to just have one income tax rate that included the current, separate N.I. rate.

 

Understandably, the govt. have no interest in doing so as it would make the percentage of tax being claimed even more obvious to those who mistakenly believe their N.I. payments are separate to general taxation.

This would lead to groups of individuals being disadvantaged. At present pensions are exempt from NI payments, but are assesable as income for tax purposes. Therefore at present a person receiving a pension and still working does not pay NI on the pension payment received , however if NI was incorporated into the general taxation , then they would be become liable .

There would also be an issue of determining who would be eligible for the state pension. Would it be only people who have paid tax ?, 

10 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

Do you have any links for that?

 

Does it affect only the state pension?

 

How about Armed Forces pensions and private pensions?

Going somewhat off topic

https://www.lovemoney.com/news/66687/state-pension-means-tested-raise-age

3 hours ago, smedly said:

Brussels is pulling all the strings, Ireland has little say in the matter

 

The UK is leaving the EU - that is a fact, if there is no trade or customs deal then everyone loses, it is in the interests of all concerned to have an agreement on trade and customs, if the UK walks away from the talks there is nothing stopping a deal being made at some future date, it shouldn't be terribly difficult since the UK has been trading with the EU for decades

 

as for having no border controls, what exact benefit could someone gain by entering the UK illegally, as soon as they try to claim benefits - use medical facilities - work etc etc they will be caught out so it is a waste of time, plus if someone wanted to enter the UK illegally right now there are thousands of miles of coast line without checks so what is stopping them ?

 

It is shameful that Brussels has made the Irish border an issue, there is only one reason they are doing it - to stir shit up were it doesn't need to be.

No border controls would lead to a large amount of trade deflection.

Third countries would use the Irish Republic as a transit point to send goods into the UK without any compliance checks or tariffs. NI would be used in the same way for goods flowing into the EU

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

How would this be done?

I've seen proposals about extending the age for new pensioners vs. additional taxes; and reduction of benefits through a devaluing securities base (stock-based pension distribution) that would affect current and future pensions.

I have seen suggestions that the UK state pension should be means tested

24 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

The vote was to leave the EU. That was the question asked in the referendum. Remember? Not partially leave. Not pretend to leave. Just leave. And we voted to leave. Remember?

The vote was to leave , however it still remains that leaving the EU does not equate to leaving the SM , as explained in Oliver Norgrove's blog.

The vote leave campaign to maximise the vote share appealed to many different factions under the same umbrella. Some wanted SM , other Flexcit, and those who wanted what as now become known as hard Brexit.

The question therefore remains , who determined that leaving the SM was the referndum mandate, could it possibly have  been the disaster capitalists, Legatum Institute 

1 hour ago, vogie said:

Are you in favour of a coup, I notice you glossed over that? 

Has the coup not already occurred with the proposition the vote meant leaving the SM.

http://www.norgroveblog.co.uk/2017/08/there-is-no-real-mandate-to-leave.html

Looks like the Brexit strategy was decided by 2 people

https://behindthepaywallblog.wordpress.com/2017/11/23/brexit-strategy-was-decided-by-may-and-one-adviser/

15 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

"IT IS rare to find economists united, but on Brexit most are: leaving the European Union will reduce GDP, and quitting the single market and customs union (a hard Brexit) will make the loss bigger. Yet a group called Economists for Free Trade, led by Patrick Minford of Cardiff University, disagrees. Mr Minford forecasts that a hard Brexit followed by the unilateral abolition of all trade barriers and much EU regulation would boost Britain’s GDP by 6.8%, or £135bn ($175bn)".

 

"If Mr Minford’s economics are dubious, his political judgment is worse". 

 

Whose side are you arguing for Hans, have you switched sides and not told anyone?

He also gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in 2012, where he said that if we were to remove the protection given to the car industry, and others , they would have to be run down in a similar fashion to coal and steal

Minford has also stated that leaving the EU will eliminate the majority of UK manufacturing

3 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

If you enter on the standard visa exempt scheme the 30 days you get can be extended for 30 days one time. If you get the 30 days from bilateral agreement no extension is allowed.

There is no 30 day tourist visa. Tourist visas allow a 60 day entry that can be extended for 30 days for those from most countries.

Ubonjoe

I was under the impression that tourist visa for countries that fall into the visa exempt get 60 days , whilst non visa exempt only get 30 days

I am also aware that certain countries such as Sri Lanka are only entitled to an extension of 7 days