James105

Are they paying the same for the slot with half the audience as they would have had to before? I think not. This is an example of an advertiser taking advantage of the extra free advertising from making a press announcement following Tuckers firing that for minimal investment (as the adverts will be cheaper now) they can get some free news coverage. No doubt they will also advertise on Tuckers twitter channel if the audience statistics tell them that their customers or target market are watching that show.

Here is an example of a video on Twitter getting fact checked by community notes so that statement appears to be unfounded.

Let me repeat what I posted above: "In 2022, according to Vivvix, a tracker of ad spending, advertisers spent around $77.5 million on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” compared with $67.6 million in 2021, representing a jump of approximately 14.7%." A 14.7% increase year on year is typically considered a "good thing". I know it is sad when the facts do not support the narrative you want to believe in, but it is what it is.

I've bolded the words "some" and "may" as they are doing some heavy lifting there. The new audience in that time slot is half of what it was with Carlson. Do woke advertisers pay the same for an audience that is 50% of the size? I don't think so. https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/tucker-carlson-fox-news-advertisers-return-1235606123/ "Nonetheless, Carlson’s ratings — he delivered more than 3.05 million viewers on average in April before his program was cancelled — have helped buoy the economics of his program. In 2022, according to Vivvix, a tracker of ad spending, advertisers spent around $77.5 million on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” compared with $67.6 million in 2021, representing a jump of approximately 14.7%. In contrast, “Hannity” at 9 p.m. captured nearly $50.4 million in 2022, while “The Ingraham Angle” at 10 p.m. lured about $53.7 million. Viewership of the hour has slumped since Carlson’s departure. Thursday’s broadcast of “Fox News Tonight,” for example, drew an average of 1.55 million, according to data from Nielsen. The audience for the show was still greater than that for MSNBC, which captured more than 1.44 million, or CNN, which lured an average of 571,000." So in your expert opinion, who was making more advertising revenue in that time slot? 1. Carlson, with 3m viewers 2. MSNBC with 1.44m 3. CNN with 0.57m

Advertisers love advertising to big audiences, of which I am sure he will have. Not sure why the anti-free speech brigade find this this concept so difficult to comprehend. There is a great big non-woke audience out there and Bud light have recently discovered this the hard way at significant cost to their business.

It's weird how this keeps happening in a country that allows anyone and everyone to buy guns and not to the same extent in other countries that do not allow anyone and everyone to buy guns. I can't quite put my finger on why this would be.

That is good to know, thank you. In that case my head will remain below the parapet over here!

Thanks, the only thing I am concerned about with this approach is that should I return to the UK one day and HMRC asks me where I have been paying personal tax I would then have to own up to the fact I have not been and not sure if this is a good idea. This 'income from previous calendar years that is subject to zero tax' does seem ideal, but I am wondering if I should have a tax ID and an accountant here to make it official so I have some paperwork to show HMRC should it be required in the future.

The income I take from the company is the typical mixture of salary/dividends that is standard practice. I am merely guilty of not paying a penny more tax than I have to, which is a perfectly normal and legal thing to do.

Yes, I have paid UK corporation tax (19%) on all profits and will continue to do so whilst the company receives profits as that is still resident in the UK. It's just the personal tax that I am referring to. So when I say liquidate the profits, this is after corporation tax has already been paid on it. I appreciate it might sound a bit dodgy, but everything I have read and been told sounds legit. If I am not a UK tax resident (and remain non UK tax resident for 5 years), there is no UK tax liability on any future dividends I take from the company even if I liquidate everything from it. It's really from the Thailand side of things that I am unsure about what to do as not paying tax anywhere does sound a bit dodgy and would like to be able to prove that I have been a good little citizen when I was away should I return to the UK some day.

I have a UK Ltd but the income is not sourced in the UK, it comes from the USA. The UK Ltd I have just been using for convenience as I already had it when I started publishing my work (from my freelancing days) so there is no reason I can think of for this income to need to continue to to go into it. Perhaps I should have been clearer in that I am considering forming a new company in another part of the world where this income can go into and will (separately) liquidate the existing UK company income into my own personal accounts when I am 100% certain I will not be subject to UK tax on this.

Thanks for your reply but according to this dividends are not taxable from a UK Ltd company paid to non-UK tax residents: https://forbesdawson.co.uk/articles/2022/05/06/are-my-dividends-tax-free-now-that-i-am-non-uk-resident/#:~:text=Non-UK resident individuals can,free from UK income tax. I'm actually expecting a rebate for any dividend tax paid since April 2020.

Not quite sure where to put this question, but here feels like a good as place as any as it is related to Thailand. My UK Accountant (who is a bit of an idiot), took it upon himself to force the issue of my tax residency and is insisting that I am no longer a UK tax resident. To be fair he has a point as I haven't set foot in the UK for over 3 years mainly due to covid and then finding myself too comfortable in Thailand to make the effort to return. So for the past 3 years I have been paying taxes as though I am a UK tax resident. The accountant has completed and is about to file self assessments backdated to April 2020 declaring that I am no longer UK tax resident since that date and is just awaiting my approval. This leaves me with a bit of a pickle as I am not on a visa that allows me to work in Thailand (Elite visa), I have a UK Ltd company that I receive royalties into from published work, which I then take salary and dividends from, some of which I send to my Thai bank account for living expenses. Most of my income remains in UK bank accounts/investments. I have never registered for a tax ID in Thailand and the last time I spoke to a tax lawyer (several of them) over here they huffed and puffed stating how complicated my situation is and said I was better off staying as a UK tax resident... so I did. So I appear to be in the tax residency wilderness. If anyone can help with the following questions it would be very much appreciated: 1. Do I need register for and pay taxes in Thailand dating back to April 2020? 2. If so, then technically all the income I have brought into Thailand is all income earned abroad (and can be easily proven so) in prior years so do I get a free pass based on not bringing money into Thailand in the same year it was earned? 3. Is it even advisable to raise my head above the parapet even though I am pretty sure that I am not breaking any rules related to my income and what I do for work. 4. Would I get in trouble for not registering for tax after 180 days here? 5. On the basis that I should probably pay tax somewhere is it possible to voluntarily be a UK tax resident even if I do not live there? Everything was working just fine until my accountants intervention. 6. Bonus question! Any suggestions of where to base my Uk Ltd company? If tax residency in the UK is not an option I'm not sure keeping my company resident there with up to 25% corporation tax now is the most tax efficient place to do so. I've (briefly) looked at Estonia which seems easy enough to set up from abroad with e-residency but with 20% corporation tax it doesn't exactly feel like a bargain, but more research is needed.

Swap fortune teller with <insert one of the 1000s of invented gods here> and you might well be onto something.

Not sure if it's feasible in your case but my UK accountancy firm let me use their company address as my (UK) company address as a service that is included with the monthly accountancy fees and it is quite common for accountancy firms to offer this. That way they deal with all the stuff from HMRC/Companies house etc as well, as well as me not needing to change business addresses anytime I have moved. Maybe accountants here offer something similar.

What about new words like "internet" that the Italians didn't bother creating their own version of so just use the English one?

I agree that Moscow should not be allowed to host the Olympics during this time which would be the direct comparison to the point you are making, but that has nothing to do with this topic though does it?

Who cares? Russian news is propaganda and is not much different to the news in the west which just carries different propaganda. Athletes train their whole lives to be able to compete in these competitions, do not have any influence over what their politicians do or do not do and a birthplace lottery should not be a deciding factor in whether they can compete against other athletes who happened to be born in more "acceptable" countries. Politics should have no place in sports.

If you had actually been to Amsterdam you would be well aware that there are public urinals on the streets which avoids this particular issue. Maybe you should try and visit a place before offering your expert opinion on it.

America, after Sandy Hook, decided collectively that a child's right to life is less important than an American's right to purchase and own semi-automatic rifles with as little fuss as possible. Every democratic vote taken since then has reaffirmed this. If American's wanted a different approach that didn't involve their kids getting gunned down at school they would have voted for it by now. School shootings are here to stay.

So apparently the shooter was being treated for an "emotional disorder" and was still allowed to purchase 7 guns from 5 different stores. I am not sure this is quite what the founding fathers had in mind when drafting the second amendment. Perhaps it needs an update, something like an "amendment" perhaps?

I doubt it is a personal choice for anyone in Thailand who works in 7/11 etc. I haven't seen the face of the person working in any shops here for the best part of 3 years. I feel quite sorry for these people who have to keep their masks on for 10+ hours a day.

Indeed...

Yet you brought up independence in literally the first line of your post....

Independence? This guy has failed at everything he has touched. The union has not looked more secure since the act of union in 1707.