andux

6 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Been like that in Japan and Philippines for many years.

 

And Singapore. 

And Taiwan.

2 hours ago, lvr181 said:

Democracy is not perfect. Democracy (warts and all) is still better than whatever alternative is running second.

 

People vote, what the majority wants is what the country gets. Like it or not. Popularly stated as "of the people, by the people, for the people".

Do you really believe people have any power in "democratic" countries?

People only vote on useless stuff, such as the clown to "represent" you or whether abortion or gay marriage should be legal. All useless in the grand scheme of things. The real power is still in the government's hands.

If you don't have the power to tell them all to leave, you have no power at all. "Voting" just keeps people under the illusion they have power, so they are very unlikely to try to overthrow the dictatorship in place.

Thailand will do the same thing: they will allow elections but they will keep the power. It's the smart thing to do. It's what every other dictatorship is doing.

15 hours ago, twig said:

It's true: democracy doesn't exist anywhere currently. Most government gangs - including US and Land of Something - operate under some variety of fascism by its economic definition.

 

The US and most other territories just continue with the dog-and-pony show to brainwash the herd that there is "representative democracy". :D

 

Direct democracy hasn't existed at national scale since ancient Greece? ...and for good reasons: democracy would be worse than fascism, and no better than it was when it killed Socrates for speaking out.

 

Seems that these young rappers instinctively understand all that better than most. Their only misunderstanding seems the most common one - that there can be a "good government" based on the coercion and robbery of a "democratic" armed gang.

Well you took the red pill. Most people will rather take the blue one and keep living in their little bubble.

50 minutes ago, lvr181 said:

Yep, the people of the "Middle East" have shown that they are quite capable themselves of doing this.

Are you sure? 

Isn't your nice, democratic government brainwashing you, because there happens to be something in the Middle East, something known as black gold... Oh no it can't be it, it has to be that all people from the Middle East are murderers.

The methods used were probably not the best, but I can imagine the situation. A group of entitled girls broke something and didn't want to pay for it. 

Maybe they'll learn the lesson. If you break something, you pay for it. Simple.

9 hours ago, wgdanson said:

Which a) they cannot own and b) must have a 51% Thai partner. If you had USD 100M, why would the distance between other destinations to 'live the high life' matter. You would probably have your own jet, and also live in one of the high life places.

A foreigner can own condos, and also 100% of branches of foreign companies. 

By the way, a jet capable of traveling long distances can cost up to 60M USD, and this doesn't  include maintenance costs, pilots, etc., so no, you probably wouldn't have your own jet if you had 100M USD, unless you were trying to make the 100M USD disappear as fast as possible.

That's another one of the reasons why I said that rich people are usually rich because they worked for that money. Lottery winners usually blow the money, just like you are suggesting.

In any case, assuming infinite money, it's still a matter of choice. A rich person in Canada may also be asked "why are you still here in Vancouver with us, and not living the high life in Bangkok or Kuala Lumpur?".

5 hours ago, KittenKong said:

One possible reason could be Thailand's generous treatment of income arising overseas.

 

That's certainly a primary reason why I'm here (even if I'm a bit shy of USD100M).

 

Of course, being retired here would not stop anyone from doing a lot of travelling outside of Thailand, so maybe there are more people with USD100M technically living here than one might expect.

Excellent response. Some here may be surprised at the amount of really wealthy people living in Thailand. I don't see how the Caribbean beats Thailand, but maybe someone can enlighten me.

For starters, Thailand is way safer than any island of the Caribbean. And then Thailand has some other perks: better weather, food, excellent beaches as well, better-looking girls (at least for my taste), and it's close to other great destinations to live the high life (Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, China, Malaysia, etc).

And last, most rich people are not rich because they won the lottery... They understand the value of the money they worked to obtain, and while they might not be trying to save by eating noodle soup, they may still be investing in properties or other businesses, which in Thailand are great value.

9 minutes ago, dotpoom said:

What has attractiveness got to do with anything...I see you mentioned it two times?

Attractiveness is an asset that allows a person to find sexual mates. The more good-looking a person is, the more options the person will have. 

When there's a disparity in attractiveness between two people that are in a relationship, it has to be compensated with something else, usually money. That's why usually the ugly girls (with few available options) pay their way, and the pretty ones (with options all around) can afford to sit around doing nothing.

This is just a general rule, there are exceptions. I've always dated pretty girls and never paid a penny to keep them around (I mean, in the sense of financial support, I don't go to the movies/dinner and make a scene when the bill comes), but this is my first Thai girlfriend, and also the first time I talk about marriage/kids with someone. That's why the situation, and her recent attempts to convert me into a financial provider, got me a bit confused, and came here for some advice from more experienced people.

4 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Why not stay with her as a girlfriend, and you both keep your own condos?

No need to actually say that to her (and rock the boat), just prevaricate. 

 

It's the norm all over the world, they're just not quite so obvious in the western world, and wait until after marriage to find an excuse not to work any more. Once they've moved into your condo the sex usually gets less frequent as well.

Yeah, we don't live together at the moment, but we've discussed it in the past, and that's why I suggested that, especially now that we are both doing well financially.

I agree with western women doing the same but in a less obvious way. Have been thinking about that recently, and how most women in the west, no matter how feminist and equalitarian they are, end up retiring early, being maintained by their husbands/ex-husbands ????

By the way, are you married?

Quote

What are your future plans?

Are you planning to have kids? And if you have kids will she stay at home and take care of them and you continue to work and make money?

 

Personally I find it sad that in many modern families both work and nobody has much time for the kids anymore. And personally I think it's a lot better that the mother is at home and can give the kids her full attention all day long.

Maybe this is what she wants and then she obviously has to make sure that you are willing to pay for this situation. I think that's only fair.

 

Just talk with her about it...

The plan is to have kids, but not yet. Maybe in 5-6 years from now.

I see where you are coming from with your idea of modern families not having time for the kids, but in our case we are both business owners with plenty of flexibility.

I own a location-independent business and can stay at home with the kids as long as necessary, although I need to travel, for business, for 1-2 weeks, 3-4 times a year. Shouldn't be a big problem I believe. She owns a store and has a handful of employees working for her, so she only needs to be there 3-4 days a week, and only around 5 hours each day. She also has plenty of flexibility, the ability to take days off when necessary, switching shifts with her employees, etc.

So, in other words, there would be no problems dedicating time to the kids, as long as the current situation doesn't change. 

I get the feeling that somehow she has the idea that men should provide, ingrained in her head. There really is no logical explanation for it. Her only argument is that I'm the man, she is the woman, and no matter how much she earns I still have to provide for her. She is strongly convinced that she won't spend a penny on housing costs, cars, or children's education. 

Is it maybe because of the concept of "milking the foreigner", like someone else said? Would love to know of Thai women who help with housing costs/cars/education. Unfortunately all of my girlfriend's friends have married foreigners and are being provided for, so it's hard to get some perspective here.

18 hours ago, SCOTT FITZGERSLD said:

the tax residency law says that anyone who resides in thailand for more than 183 days a year, is

considered resident of thailand (for tax purpose) and has to pay taxes on ALL HIS INCOME WORLDWIDE.

Which means must also declare all his income and assets to the thai tax authorities.

 

in other words, thailand does not really wants you here, it wants your money. and

rightly so. there are too many people in thailand, but too little money. so

make your calculations and see what you really wants from thailand. if

you don't have a wife or a business here, than there should'nt be a reason to

come so often to a country that does not really wellcome you, or at least

tells you clearly what are it's immigration requirements.

 

Thailand doesn't tax foreign income, unless remitted into Thailand the year it is earned. For this very reason, foreign income and assets don't have to be declared to the Thai tax authorities.

I'm guessing you are from a European nation; yeah the taxation there is pretty brutal, all countries tax on worldwide income, have abusive CFC rules, etc. But it's not the case of Thailand (yet).

3 hours ago, genericptr said:

Immigration in Mae Sai told me once it was since first entry into Thailand from your home country. He's wrong of course but I probably would have lost the argument.

No way you can lose that argument.

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

"Beating what system" -- In the past people staying long term using Tourist Visas would re-enter via land borders. As part of the crackdown people were 'occasionally' denied entry or given a hard time. So, based on the advice from forums like this, many switched to using airports where historically IO's were not giving people a hard time. 

 

They clearly do care otherwise people wouldn't be denied entry or given a hard time at the border. If you had followed everything immigration have done since 2006 to reduce long term tourism you would be aware that they are not looking to completely stop this practice, but to make it harder for the 'problem' group/s.

 

Explained above, but to add;

• they don't need to, and; 
• because they do not have the capability on their systems to easily count the time spent in the country as a tourist, and;
• embassy/consulates do not have a central database to see someones visa history, and; 
• there is a disconnect between the embassies/consulates that want to issue as many visas as possible to make money and immigration who's job it is to ensure someone is entering for the reason they're being given permission to enter, and;
• It's not a good look for a country to issue visas and then turn people away (en masse).

It's not just about what is happening at the border, you have to look at the bigger picture. Everything they have done since 2006 has been to make it harder to stay long term as a tourist. Since 2006 they have stopped people doing visa runs, pushed those people to using Tourist Visa and then made TR's less available, they did away with the DETV and replaced it with the METV that cannot be obtained in the region for most visa runners. Everything they have done has been to make long term tourism difficult. I think that proves the 'authorities' do care!

Thanks for sharing some really good points.

Are you sure that the system doesn't track the dates of entries and exits of each person, and therefore is able to easily calculate the time spent in the country for each tourist? I seriously doubt this. Makes me wonder why they even computers at all at immigration checkpoints, take pictures of everyone, etc?

4 hours ago, elviajero said:

Where is the published rule that says someone can stay months/years as a tourist?

 

It would be ridiculous to expect IO's to scrutinise documents proving someones financial status at the border. It just becomes another subjective decision. As I have tried to convey several times, the problem at the point of "interrogation" is not so much about having the funds to stay, but that they have stayed to long as a tourist and haven't provided immigration/consular staff evidence of how they make a living in the way someone wanting to stay long term has to do. You seem to want them to take each entry in isolation; whereas immigration are, reasonably, looking at the cumulative stay.

 

Different rules have legitimately been enforced at different border points forever, it's nothing new. In most cases they are reacting to the local issues. Airports are now a target partly because of the increased use by long term tourists thinking they can beat the system by flying in. Ironically they are now being advised to go back to using land borders -- guess what happens next.

Beating what system? I think that you are overthinking this way too much. If they actually cared, there would just be a law stating that tourists cannot stay longer than 6 months per year, like other countries do. Problem solved.

Would you mind explaining me why that law doesn't exist? Some officer now and then giving trouble to random tourists doesn't really count as the country as a whole actually caring about this.

On 9/19/2018 at 10:45 AM, impulse said:

 

I didn't claim that either one was right.  Because of that chaos.  But I have a lot more sympathy for one than for the other.

 

And to answer rkidlad, I worked for 7 years in BKK and never touched a Thai lady, because I was in it for the paycheck.  But that puts me in the tiny minority. 

 

I would contend that Thailand wouldn't have even 1/10 the problem with illegal falang workers if sex were off the table...

Maybe you are overthinking the Thai girls thing...

Feel free to touch the Thai ladies, no one will think you earn less or that you are in Thailand illegally for doing so. Furthermore, if the girl is hot enough and has white skin, people will know for sure you are earning good money.

Most of the illegal falang workers are in Thailand because it's easy to get a job, especially in a school, and because the quality of life is still more than decent with a low wage --at least when compared to the West.

According to KPMG, the Thai Cabinet issued an amendment to the current broad definition of work, so that it reads as following:

An engagement of any occupation, with or without employer, but excluding business operation of a licensee under the foreign business law

Here's the source: https://home.kpmg.com/th/en/home/insights/2018/09/thailand-tax-updates-13september2018.html

If the change legally goes through, operating a foreign business from Thailand would be officially legal, and not considered work. This would finally put an end to this subject, guilty of heated debate for many years.

Any thoughts? 

FarangFB and decca60:

One piece of information that might be helpful: you only need to show the yellow fever certificate if you've been to Brazil/Argentina during the two weeks before entering Thailand. From the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Thailand's website:

As for those nationals of the countries listed below but who have not travelled from/through those countries, such a certificate is not required. 

Source: http://www.mfa.go.th/main/en/services/4908/15384-List-of-countries-which-require-International-Heal.html
 

In other words, when you go to health control and they ask you for your yellow fever certificate, just say that you haven't been to Brazil or Argentina recently. The health control form actually allows you to state the countries you've been to in the last two weeks. So, you write down the countries you've been to, and if you haven't been to any of the "infected" countries (full list here: http://www.mfa.go.th/main/en/services/4908/15384-List-of-countries-which-require-International-Heal.html) you are good to go.

1 hour ago, BritTim said:

A representative office, if you can get permission for one, is an excellent solution. The trouble is that they are very difficult to get. I know of two international companies using top legal firms that failed in their attempt to get permission for representative offices. You must be able to show clear economic benefits for Thailand from the existence of your representative office within the kingdom.

Do you know why they failed to get permission?

19 minutes ago, jackdd said:

According to the source that you posted

So if these are all activities which you are allowed to do, how are you planning to make money from them if you are running the company alone?

Usually people who work online do things like designer, software developer, affiliate marketing or blogger, but all these things are not allowed to do when you run a representative office.

It seems that those would fall under the category of "Sourcing goods and services in Thailand". Services are sourced in Thailand, but for the head office, which is the one earning the income.

It is my understanding that one could also hire Thai people or companies to help with those services for the head office, but this is not necessary.

I'm opening this thread because there is very little information about this around, and I'd like to have a discussion about what seems to be a valid way (at least on paper) for a foreigner who works remotely to stay long-term in Thailand, for the following reasons:

- Representative offices can be 100% foreign owned

- The representative office can hire a foreigner right away, which eliminates the need to hire 4 Thai employees

- Representative offices are tax-exempt, because they do not produce any income themselves

In other words, suppose that you have a company in your home country, or in a tax-free territory. You open a representative office in Thailand, appoint yourself as the responsible person of it, and you can stay in Thailand legally.

The representative office cannot produce income, but can assist the head office. This means that, in theory, the foreigner can legally work online assisting the head office, which, in other words, means that the foreigner can keep doing his/her remote work legally, because he/she is working for the customers of the head office.

Because representative offices do not produce income themselves, they are exempt from tax. The foreigner in Thailand representing the office needs a taxable salary, but that would be pretty much the only taxes affecting this structure.

There is a requirement of remitting 3M baht for the representative office, but only during the first 5 years. Also, that money can be used to pay the aforementioned foreigner salary in Thailand, so that money is not wasted.

I've seen in this forum that many people went with the company and the 4 Thais structure. Seems like more expensive in the long-term, at least when the 4 Thais are doing nothing productive (I agree that it's a completely different case when those 4 Thais are actually doing work for the company).

Any thoughts? Why is this option never recommended? Am I missing something in my analysis? Is there anyone here who owns a representative office in Thailand? 

You can read more about representative offices here: https://www.siam-legal.com/thailand-law/guide-to-the-representative-office-in-thailand/ or here: https://pugnatorius.com/repoffice/

5 hours ago, Rally123 said:

At the beginning of this year I kept getting requests from my UK bank regarding my paying of tax in Thailand. My wife is named in my joint account also received these notifications. They also wanted something called a 'TIN'. I haven't a clue as to what they were on about as I don't, or my wife, pay tax in Thailand.

Anyway after about 4 requests for this info we received no more. Can someone please explain in simple terms why they need to know how much I pay tax here?

This seems related to the new Automatic Exchange of Information (http://www.oecd.org/tax/transparency/automaticexchangeofinformation.htm). The basic idea is that banks exchange non-resident financial account information with the tax authorities in the account holders’ country of residence.

In your case, you are not a resident of the UK, and so your bank doesn't know what country to share information with. Thailand will start exchanging information in 2020-2021, so in theory you could get a Thai TIN number and give that to your UK bank. They will then start sharing information with Thailand in a couple of years.

As usual in these types of situations, proceed with caution.

7 hours ago, Peterw42 said:

That would mean that all the spending money in tourists pockets is subject to Thai tax, if they earned it this year.

That law only applies to tax residents (i.e., those staying in Thailand for more than 6 months in a calendar year). Most tourists don't stick around that long.

7 hours ago, Peterw42 said:

How can the Thai gov determine which dollar I transfer, the one I earned last week or the one I earned last year, they can only ever look at the source of the money, ie: if it says "monthly salary Mr smith" or transfer from savings account.

I'm guessing that there are specific cases that are easy to prove. For example, an actor who lives in Thailand, goes to Los Angeles to film a movie, earns millions of dollars, and then brings part of that to Thailand in that same year for whatever reason they may have for not waiting longer. That person is in the public spotlight, so he probably won't try anything funny.

For the average person bringing a few hundred thousand baht from unknown sources, the government won't even bother. Furthermore, the tax on 300,000 baht, for example, is like 4,000 baht after allowances. Getting court orders and launching international investigations just for the tiny possibility of collecting 4,000 baht from someone doesn't make much sense.