mtraveler

Thank you so much, and thank you for the amount of work you've put into making this document. Wow, I was really misinformed. Just to make sure I understand this: Any money that is brought into Thailand during 2024 that was earned before January 1, 2024, will be "managed by the previous interpretation of the rules", which means that it will not be taxed, since it was earned in a different year. Only income earned beginning January 1, 2024, can possibly be considered assessable income for money brought into Thailand from January 1 forward. So, if I bring money into Thailand in 2024, I must determine whether any part of it is assessable income or not. In the case of money that is part principal and part gains or interest, only the portion of the money that is INCOME (either capital gains or interest) would be assessable, not the principal. And so, in net effect, any money that I had on January 1, 2024, if brought it into Thailand, would not be assessable income. Of course, if I earned any interest or capital gains on that money during 2024, and it was part of the money brought in, that portion of the money brought in would be assessable. Did I get that correct?

The current law states that if money is brought in, it will be taxes as income. And the amount of tax due will be based on the Thai tax chart (0-150,000 Baht @ 0%, 150,000-300,000 Baht @ 5%, etc....). The law also says that if there's a tax treaty with another country, the amount already paid can be deducted from the amount of tax due. I assume that means that if the tax due is 50,000 Baht, and you've already paid 30,000 Baht in taxes in the other country (e.g., USA), then the amount due when the money is brought in is 50,000 - 30,000 = 20,000 Baht. Now for my question: how is the tax ALREADY PAID calculated on that money brought in? Is is based on the last tax return? Is it based on the average percent tax paid for all income earned during that year? What if the money was earned in a different year, and the percent tax was higher? It seems very unclear and arbitrary. I've already asked an accountant, and have not received an answer. Maybe someone here can shed some light.

1- I think that it's a good solution to let offending countries know that Thailand will ban imports. Will those countries find other outlets for their products? Who knows. But at least you're doing the right thing. 2- To the person who looked at the map, and said that even if there were no fires in Thailand, there would still be a problem... a- Local smoke still affects people locally. Even if there were none coming over the border, if you're living next to an offender, you're breathing bad air. b- When I look at the map, fires in Thailand look pretty awful. Maybe not as concentrated as Northern Burma or Cambodia, but there's a lot of fires. c- You make the assumption that all the smoke from those fires are blowing into Thailand all the time. Which I doubt.

Please take a look at this wind map. You might have to move the position and zoom in to see Thailand, Myanmar and Laos. I looked at it today at 3:45AM. I'm sorry I didn't realize to google this earlier to see wind direction. But from what I see at 3:45 AM, all the wind is moving from west to east. Absolutely no wind from the north (northern Myanmar) and nothing from the east (Laos). Again, I'm not looking to pick a fight or win, what I'm looking for is the truth. Yes, there is a lot of burning in the region of Myanmar west of Thailand. Is that where the smoke is coming from? Let's assume that's the source. So, if I count all the fires in the wind path from Myanmar to Chiang Mai, and compare the number of red dots (fires) in Myanmar to the number of red dots in Thailand, it seems to be about the same amount. What am I getting wrong here? Isn't half our smoke home-made? My biggest peeve about all of this is calling this a "transboundary haze" crisis. That's an easy way to point the finger at someone else, while there are more than enough red dots on this side of the boundary. Even if 50% of the smoke is coming from over the border, if we had none here, the PM 2.5 would be half or less, right? https://windy.app/forecast2/spot/203236/Asia

Sorry if it sounded like an attack on you. It wasn't my intention. I've just heard so many people point the finger at our neighboring countries, blaming them for our pollution problem, and I'm sensitive to that. So again sorry. But that said, would it be really that bad if Thailand didn't burn? What data do we have about that? Here's a chart of hotspots in Southeast Asia from January thru April (not sure what year it was). When I look at the number of hotspots in Thailand per month, I think it tracks pretty closely with the PM2.5 levels that are seen in each of those months relative to the other months. More fires, higher PM2.5. So, again, I wonder what percent of our PM2.5 is a gift from other countries. Any data you can share with me to prove how much smoke is actually coming from other countries would be much appreciated. I'm happy to change my beliefs if there's some data to back it up. For now, the data tells me: more fires in Thailand, more PM2.5. (And again, this is not an attack; it's an attempt to seek out the truth.)

I assume that by posting this you are making the argument that the pollution Northern Thailand is experiencing is coming from Northern Laos and Northern Myanmar. Yes, there is higher concentration in Laos and Myanmar. But is there data showing that all that bad air is coming to Thailand? What percentage actually gets to Chiang Mai? And, doesn't pointing the finger at our neighbors try to make the Thai people/government innocent, when you can clearly see on the map that there's more than enough red within our borders? How about we clean up our house first, and then we can put pressure on our neighbors to do the same? This is my 5th smoke season here, and by far the worst. And I promise, for the health of my lungs and my body, my last. This is awful, depressing, and scary.