.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Fat is a type of crazy
-
Posts
2,780 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by Fat is a type of crazy
-
-
3 minutes ago, JimTripper said:
I'm going to try Hua Hin for a month. Rates on airbnb are much less for a month, usually similar to a couple weeks so no rush. Not into arriving without a place and searching for housing.
Never been there but it seems to get mixed reviews. Ideally it is the best of both worlds - enough shops and fun but still not too chaotic or polluted. The beach gets mixed reviews but seems more swimmable that Pattaya area. Maybe further south is better still but could be too quiet without full time partner.
-
2 minutes ago, susanlea said:
Jomtien could be mixed with Koh Samet. I would add on Hua Hin and Kanchanaburi and would not commit a month to one location. One week is enough to see if you like it. I wonder if they will build an airport in Kanchanaburi in future as that would make it boom.
Thinking about Hua Hin now. If I'm serious about potentially retiring in Thailand I need to give each place a month I think at least to get a better feel for daily life.
-
1 minute ago, scubascuba3 said:
3 weeks in koh chang is 2+ weeks too long, in Pattaya you have lot's of choice what to do, not so in koh Chang
Not for me. After 9 months of hard work away from my girlfriend. Like happy time at beach and in nature. I'll look to live a normal life in Jomtiem with some fun added hopefully. Not expecting it to be super amazing.
-
1 minute ago, scubascuba3 said:
Why have you got a woman's name as a profile name?
We should support her decision to now be a lady.
-
1
-
-
Will see for myself. After 3 weeks in Koh Chang have one month in Jomtiem. Bit with girlfriend bit without. Hope it's fun. If like it I may come back for longer.
-
At Koh Chang now. Khlong Proa and White Sand Beach have long nice mainly clean beaches.
-
1
-
-
I like fun Bob. Not have a whinge Bob. In Thailand and everyone seems happy and see few masks. Maybe it is a regional thing.
-
1 minute ago, georgegeorgia said:
Susan ,you would have to be mad not to make use of the cheap dentist on your vacation.
But...as you only joined this forum last week.... supposedly anyway...you wouldn't know.
I bet anything that you are another forum member on here using the name SUSAN .... probably you Liverpool Lou ....is this your feminine side coming out using a woman's name when your a bloke?
Fair dinkum you using another name joining last week and picking a woman's name , some screwed up people on here !
It's Sparky
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Freddy42OZ said:
I recently ceased being friends with someone I've known for around 25-30 years.
Late 50's, similar upper middle class upbringing to me, public school education, very intelligent... now retired in Sri Lanka having married a French woman in HK, had two kids, moved to France, bought and renovated a few properties in a French Ski village. Got divorced, kids seems to hate him. Physically he's never been a very good looking bloke, always overweight, way too much dark body hair etc so I doubt he's had many sexual partners in his life. His wife was fugly to put it politely. He's not poor, and is building two villas on some beachfront land he bought in Sri Lanka....
Was an atheist, but a few years ago he started reading the bible and has now decided it's all true.
Now claims that the moon is just a projection or a hologram, thinks the Earth is flat with a dome over it, thinks the sun and stars are just light bulbs in the dome. Doesn't believe humans built the Pyramids. Claims there was a huge mud flood which is why there are buildings with windows seemingly below street level. And of course uses the term "they" all the time to imply there is a secret Govt cabal that is constantly planning ways to make life hard for normal people.
He believes so much utter nonsense that I told him we can no longer be friends and I've blocked him so he can't contact me.
Have a friend at work whose girlfriend got caught up in the covid conspiracies then she went from one topic to the next until now when he gets home she wants to talk about her explanation about every major story in the news - weather, accidents, whatever she has a theory for it. I think for a certain sort of person covid set them off on a bad path.
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:
Her treatment of the women that came forward about affairs with Bill, and her abandonment of the men in Algeria. The Algerian fiasco says it all about her lack of commitment to the men that serve the US overseas.
Between her and Trump, Trump. Between Bernie and Trump, Bernie. I'm of no fixed party or political wing. I'll vote for the best of 2 options or if no best to talk of, the least worst.
What happened in Algeria? You mean Fox News's go to story for aeons, when they had nothing to go against Hillary for, with Benghazi in Libya. Bad thing but hard to dismiss or hate her for a one off issue like that in my opinion. Defending her husband - a deal breaker for you. Funny.
-
1
-
-
If you start your conversations with Thai's as you did this one with the 'a little bit about me ' spiel - look at me I'm wealthy and have a lady in every port - I can see why they may find that you don't represent the best in westerners. Are you shooting <deleted> in this post or do you legit care about this. If you care I wonder why that is.
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:
IMO she wasn't elected because she was a horrible person, nothing to do with being imperfect. Loads of women have been PMs and presidents in various countries and none of them have been "perfect".
What is it about her that makes her horrible. Look at her actual policies and Trumps actual policies rather than rhetoric and ask yourself which would have been better for you if you were American rather then Kiwi.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, tandor said:
Mike (or others)..do you know if the Australian Aged Pension (Services Australia or Social Security Dept) is Tax exempt here. It seems to me reading that an Australian Superannuation Pension (where one was a State Government employee) is Tax exempt), yet no real clarification from anyone..thanks in advance.
This post from Dinga is helpful - a bit less than half down the page. Link doesn't work but put in browser it will .
https://aseannow.com/topic/1306896-thai-government-to-tax-remitted.-income-from-abroad-for-tax-residents-starting-2024/page/282/
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
8 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:Well, geez, such a hard question to to answer, but I will make it simple for you. Yet again, outside Australia 183 days, non resident for tax purposes. Immigration records will prove this.
Maybe you can explain what your argument to the ATO will be when you have been outside Australia for 183 days, but want to tell them you are still a resident for taxation purposes.
Have you not seen the proposed changes that have been posted many times before?
The "long holiday" loophole will end.
Really?
So the residents can say they are non residents, and the non residents can say they are residents. Good Luck with that with the ATO. That one is up there with the famous "Paul Hogan" post.
The current laws are 90 years old. The Australian government is modernizing them from a "domicile" based model to a physical presence and time based model. It really is that simple.
The proposed laws in the Consultation Paper note this:
It should be harder to cease being a tax resident than it is to become a tax resident. Once an individual has spent sufficient time in Australia and made enough connections to become a tax resident, it is appropriate for the individual to remain a tax resident until those connections are scaled back to such an extent that they no longer benefit from their connection to Australia enough to justify being taxed as a resident. Adhesive residency is a feature of the existing rules (e.g. the domicile test) and is consistent with international practice.
They note this:
The Ceasing Long-Term Residency Rule 51. Under the Board’s proposed model, a long-term resident would cease to be a tax resident if they spent less than 45 days in Australia in the current income year, and less than 45 days in Australia in each of the two preceding income years. 52. The rationale behind this test is that, consistent with the existing rules (in particular the resides and domicile tests), residency should be harder to lose for long-term residents than for short-term residents, given their stronger connection with Australia. However, the proposed rules will be much easier to apply than either the resides test or the domicile test, which require a holistic assessment of all relevant facts and circumstances, including the individual’s intention and their connections to both Australia and overseas jurisdictions. Instead, this test relies simply on day counts over three income years.
As such my 185 day holiday would not make me a non resident. Therefore the rules that say that being in Australia for 183 days makes you a resident does not apply in the opposite.
Of course this assumes these rules become law which you have no new information on either.
-
3
-
7 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:
Moved from the Thai Tax thread.
The 90 year old tax residency laws are modernizing from "domiciled" based law to a physical presence and time based model. If you are outside of Australia for 183 days, you will be automatically deemed to be a non resident for tax purposes. It will not matter if you did 1 month in Fiji, 2 months in France etc etc. All that will matter is you have been outside of Australia for 183 days and will then be a non resident for tax purposes. No reviews. No appeals. The days are proven through immigration records.
The first tax bracket in non resident tax is $0 to $120,000 at 32.5%. No tax free threshold, for any, and all of your income.
Thailand, and many other countries, have moved to a physical presence and time based tax residency model, and in my opinion, Australia also will in the near future.
If you plan on doing the 6 months in Australia and just short of the 6 months in Thailand in order to minimize your taxes, just remember Australia uses the financial year and Thailand uses the calendar year.
Immigration records take away the current loopholes and can not be disputed.
I agree with you the new laws are designed to deem people as residents, rather than non residents, but it's a double edged sword. Inside Australia 183 days, resident. Outside Australia for 183 day, non resident. It's as simple as that.
The loopholes that many expat Australians have been using, including myself, will close in the near future.
None of us want to do 6 months back in Australia, but if one was to stay 183 days in Australia, and less then 180 days in Thailand, they will go a long way to minimizing their tax in both countries.
I don't think your theory makes sense. Why should someone going away for 6 months and 4 days to 10 countries and returns home to normal life be told you are a non resident no ifs or buts. Can you show me someone warning about possible implications of a one off longish holiday. It doesn't follow that because there are theoretical proposed tough rules for those saying they are non-residents who may be deemed residents that the opposite is to be enforced in the same way. Statements like 'loopholes WILL close in your future' are incorrect as you don't know that.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, KhunHeineken said:
The discussion on the proposed changes to tax residency laws in Australia is best left to the other thread, in the other forum.
We will have to agree to disagree. For me, it's not if, just when, those new laws will pass. Until then, I will continue to enjoy the loopholes, as you do, but I would hardly call that planning for the future.
As I said, at some future point, and in regards to the rental income, more than 183 days inside Australia for tax residency and the tax free threshold, and less than 180 days inside Thailand to be a non resident for tax purposes and to pay no tax on remitted funds.
I know what you want to do. You want to live in Thailand, don't move the rental income to Thailand, and appear to the Australian government you are still a resident of Australia for tax purposes. The very reason the Australian government are changing their tax residency laws is to stop people circumventing them with the many loopholes in the current 90 year old laws.
But what you leave out is that residency is not as simple as 180 days in many cases. I may go to Thailand and other places for 250 days but then return to my home in Australia. I don't think the rules are going to be as you say and I think the new rules if they do happen at some point in the future are more concerned with making sure individuals cannot say they are non resident when they residents. Things change stuff happens it is one small factor and if I did become a non resident it is not the end of the world or mean less options as such.
But back to Thai tax it feels better to know that there is no tax even if that tax would not be substantial.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, KhunHeineken said:
Once you pay 32.5% non resident tax in Australia on that rental income in Australia, you will get tax credits for the DTA with Thailand and that rental income will not be taxed twice.
What, exactly, are you trying to achieve?
You are living in Thailand, therefore a non resident for tax purposes in Australia and up for 32.5% tax on that rental income, as it's from $0. Moving it to Thailand after it is taxed in Australia is protected from double taxation under the DTA.
The point of this post is thai tax. I was happy not to be paying thai tax and to keep life a bit simple even though I may have to lodge some sort of nil return.
As I said in previous posts my plan is to spend time in both countries and sometimes that may mean more than 180 days in Thailand. As you know and as I have said in these posts the rules in Australia are not simply that being over 183 days in a different country makes you a non-resident of Australia. With an ongoing home in Australia and other links I could spend more than half of the time in Thailand and still be an Australian resident. The rules you state are inevitable have not happened. So I will not pay tax on the first dollar and taxes on superannuation pensions for public servants have a special tax offset. If I one day decide to live in Thailand full time which I do not foresee it would be a different situation.
-
24 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:
I was referring to the rental income that you mentioned in your previous post. How do you propose your rental income be tax free either in Australia, or in Thailand?
Your total income in Australia, if over the tax free threshold, attracts tax. Move any of that rental income to Thailand, and it's remitted funds attracting tax.
By not bringing those funds. Tax free in Thailand as not brought to Thailand. Simple. As I said this post is about Thai tax not Australian tax. Rent will be taxable in Australia. For people staying 12 months a year in Thailand that may cause problems but that is not likely to be my situation so simply be careful what funds are kept in each country.
-
1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:
The Thai law seems pretty clear. Spend more than 180 days inside Thailand in a calendar year and you are deemed to be a resident of Thailand for taxation purposes and will have to pay tax.
It appears to me your best solution is to spend more than 183 days inside Australia in an Australian financial year to remain an Australian resident for taxation purposes and get the benefit of the tax free threshold in Australia for your income, and spend less than 180 days in Thailand in a calendar year so you are deemed a non resident of Thailand for taxation purposes, so no tax to pay in Thailand.
Note: as discussed in the thread in the Home Country Forum the 183 days legislation is yet to be passed, but in my opinion, soon will be. Currently, the laws revolve around where one is "domiciled."
Thanks. But I won't have to pay tax in Thailand if I follow my original post and remit the work pension and saved funds only. The issue of Australian tax and residency is open to debate at this stage as discussed elsewhere depending on how long you spend in the country. The rules as they stand are not simply 183 days as discussed.
-
1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:
As a non resident of Australia for tax purposes, the rental income will be taxed at 32.5% from $0. Thailand will give you a tax credit on the 32.5% tax that you paid in Australia if you remit that money to Thailand.
In this post I was looking at Thai tax. I think for the time being I will be able to remain an Australian resident even if I spend a bit more than 180 days in Thailand based on other factors e.g. maintaining a base in Australia. If I go to Thailand full time over a longer period which is not likely at this point in time you are correct.
-
Good thing on this page posted by Dinga looking at many aspects of tax in Thailand for Australians.
-
Based on the Australian webinar from Dinga's post it seems:
- sending my superannuation pension paid as a former public servant to Thailand is not taxable as it is specifically excluded from the Double Tax Agreement;
- if I keep an account separate in Australia that has savings from before I am a resident and send the funds to Thailand either before or when I am a resident that too is not taxable;
- income such as rental income or superannuation paid from a normal non government employer related superannuation fund is not taxable as long as I don't transfer those funds to Thailand
Thanks Dinga for the helpful post. Writing it down in case someone thinks otherwise. I think I recall a retired public servant on this site saying their Government superannuation pension was taxed in Thailand but this suggests it is definitely not the case.
-
Covermore have a good inbound policy that I used in the past.
-
1
-
-
On 4/29/2024 at 10:23 PM, cdemundo said:
I think it is exactly the point, so many feel as follows:
"My convenience is so much more important than the inconvenience I cause others."
The airline I am flying has options for 7kg or 14 kg on the plane so it’s not done to inconvenience but to get somewhere as the airline recommends is appropriate. If there’s no room the airline would no doubt have to update their policy.
-
1
-
Trump found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records
in World News
Posted
An alpha male has respect of his peers. He has respect only amongst those who don't seem to understand politics and economics and rely on his bluster to feel good about their place in the world.
The two things Trump has as a weapon is inflation and the border.
He caused a significant part of inflation, as did most politicians around the world, through profligate spending during covid. Biden has had a tricky but successful path to have a booming economy with a reduction in inflation - though the everyday person still sees prices go up and feel others benefit from the good economy even though jobs are plentiful.
The border is a problem though Biden finally woke up and offered to implement Republican policy but Trump scarpered that. Most of his followers probably don't know or will accept Trumps word that the policy was no good even though backed by his own party.
If Biden can effectively communicate on these two topics it will help but his communication isn't the best.