Mike Lister

"if".....back onto my ignore list cyclist, save your energy, you're just far too argumentative on things that are not useful of constructive.

Ok look, some of you guys must be bored or lonely and I'm sorry for that but this exchange is going nowhere and serves zero useful purpose, now we've got poster's joining in just to attack when they don't even understand the basics of what's being discussed! So, have at it, but without me.

I've lived here for over 20 years, at one point I had over 15 mill on time deposits so yes, the tax refund was worth reclaiming. As I pointed out to cyclist, yes, I understand that very well, sadly, you appear not to.

Yes, well, when you complete just one part of the tax return to refund tax with held and then purposely mit to declare other income, that's tax evasion and also a fraudulent tax return.

I'm not going to debate this matter with you cyclist because you are plain and simple argumentative on almost every topic you engage in. Posting economic stats about percentage of tax payers in Thailand has zilch to to do with this discussion. Likewise, me filing a COMPLETE tax return because I had to under law, in order to obtain a refund of tax with held, was my decision that you have no place to question. And if you wish to blame the OECD and CRS for all of this, well, you did say to drop the blame game!

I was never tangled in any tax net. At the risk of appearing holier than thou by some, I reclaimed tax paid on savings interest and reclaimed it at the RD offices. Then, god forbid, I read the forms and asked questions, after which I looked on the web at sites such as the RD, Mazars and Sherings. At that point I better understood what the law said and I chose to abide by it, bad person that I am! Perhaps I did those things because I used to work for a Big 4 accountancy firm so I felt tax in my adopted country might be important!!!

There's always going to be somebody that can be blamed but in a country where English is not the first language and the native population is so reluctant to speak English to foreigners, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the education wasn't as forthcoming as some might have wished.

I simply don't feel inclined to join the herd that is complaining about all of this and and believing what nasty plotting/incompetent people the RD is for not having worked out all the details and told all foreigners by now. Only one small aspect of tax collection has changed, nothing more, income that is imported one year but earned in a prior year, is now taxable. It is not as if the RD has introduced a whole new series of rules and way of calculating all taxes et al that represent a major upheaval, they haven't. Some of you guys are annoyed at me because you haven't followed the rules and I did and now you're having to scramble. As far as you're concerned, that makes me an idiot for following the rules when I didn't have to, and you were the smart guys because you did the opposite. View it all as you will!

Yet, thousands of foreign expats and retirees have been happy to waltz down the RD every January to reclaim the money they felt they were owed in the form of tax that was with held. Did none of those people every read the tax form or understand tax? Did nobody ever ask them at the RD if they had other income? Doubtful I say, extremely doubtful.

I'm only feeding back to you some of your exact words to me! Plus, I could have picked any law to make the case, I just happened to pick drunk driving. I don't know if causing damage and destruction with a vehicle is on par with tax evasion but they don't seem too unreasonable to compare.

I can't think of any reason why Immigration would tell visa applicants, they probably didn't even know. Ditto I would guess, US consular officials. BUT, none of that changes the fact that there has always been a requirement, the fact that nobody mentioned it, doesn't make it go away. I'm very certain that most people who reclaimed the tax with held on bank interest, at least had an opportunity to consider the fact they were only filling out part of a tax return and ignoring the bulk of it. That was how I first was told that I needed to file a return and that was years ago, you can't tell me I am the only person in Thailand who was told.

Anyone with assessible income of 60k per year or more, is obliged to file a tax return. That's what the law says, that's what the law has always said, the fact that the RD may have turned a blind eye to it in some cases in the past, is not a reliable excuse for not filing. Quite why people thought they didn't need to file is anyone's guess! I suppose it's like drunk driving, the police don't seem to care so it must be OK to do it. And TBH, I don't know how anyone can tell whether the number of expats who filed in the past is tiny, nobody knows whether it's the silent majority who are not AN members or what.

So very very true. This will be a signal for them to move on to the, "Baht is manipulated by the elites so they can buy villa's in the south of France", storyline, an oldie but goodie that never fails to please.

Incorrect. Arrives have to land, pass through Immigration, not be transit passenger's to be counted. Exactly how Thailand would be able to count passengers by nationality in a plane from another country, flying at 35,000 feet overhead, boggles the mind!

You will always be taxed on any income that arises in the UK, for example, rental income, pension, state pension etc. You will also always be taxed on any income that arises in Thailand, bank interest, investment interest, rental income and others. In the case of the UK, tax residency rules are slightly more complex but generally speaking, you are tax resident there, if you remain for more than 183 days per tax year, in which case, you must file as tax resident. But if you remain in the UK for under 183 days per year, OR, the residency rules allow you, you can file as not UK tax resident which means you do not have to declare any income that does not arise in the UK. Moving on to the Thai tax side of things. If you remain in Thailand for under 180 days per year, you are not Thai tax resident and you do not need to file a Thai tax return. But if you remain here for more than 180 days, you must file a return and declare all assessable income that was imported and all income that arose here. As a general rule, it is not possible to be tax resident in the UK and Thailand, in the same tax year, 180 days plus 183 days is 363 days, but days are counted based on where you are at midnight and if you are on a plane, you are not counted on either side. Having said that, The UK rule regarding Ties to the UK, after the first year overseas are complex and I don't intend to go into them in any depth here, other than to say you need to look at them closely if you intend to split your year. Because I'm a Brit, I'll use myself as a real example, I live in Thailand year round so I am tax resident here and here alone. But I have rental property income, investment income and state pension income, all of which arise in the UK. That mean I must file a UK tax return to declare that income although because I am not UK tax resident, my income that arises elsewhere in the world, does not need to be reported on the UK return. The UK allows me 12,750 Pounds per year in a Personal Allowance so much of my UK sourced income falls within that allowance. I also have income that arises in the US which means I must file a US tax return but I do so as a non-resident which means all my other worldwide income is ignored. My income is also below the threshold for filing a return which I do in order to reclaim tax deducted at source only. My Thai tax return reports my US and UK pensions, both of which have been the subject of tax returns hence they are considered to have been taxed and are tax free. But just in case, Thailand allows me deductions and allowances of 500k baht per year that is effectively tax free. I hope those things help

Likelihood of pensions being taxed is extremely low for Americans because of their tax treaty but high if UK pensions. That said, UK pensioners over age 65 years of age will be allowed a minimum of 500k Baht in deductions and allowances meaning the first 500k baht per year is tax free, thereafter, the remainder will be taxed in bands, starting at 5%.

Except under Thai insurance company rules, premiums are not only adjusted according to the average of the group, they are adjusted based on the actions of the individual and whether or not they claim. So if you claim, you can see your premiums increase by 25% or you can see your policy cancelled as a result. It's a totally different set up here.

No, I'm Methodist

We're not talking about somebody aged 70, diving in and trying to get it for the first time. We're talking about if the person had been able to afford it for most of their life, those exclusions wouldn't be an issue because they would have developed whilst having coverage. But honestly, I think almost everyone would buy it, despite exclusions, if they could afford it. Why? Because it only makes sense to cover those parts that can be covered. The problem is that people like me and probably lots of others too, look after ourselves and if something is not right, we go and get it checked out. Doing that almost immediately excludes that body part from many policies, even though there was nothing really wrong. My policy covered bits that weren't broken or checked, which meant I had 32 million to spend on ingrown toenails, when they became a problem!

There isn't one AN member over 60 who wouldn't have that all singing all dancing health insurance policy, if they only had enough spare money....not one.

Insurance is how rich people stay rich. Who buys a car and doesn't insure it, who buys a house and doesn't insure it! We'd all buy 100% coverage, gold plated, global health insurance if we could afford it.

Dear god, please tell me you're winding up everyone and that you don't really believe that!

Both you guys might be dangerous if you learned to read properly! My comment was in favor of giving foreigners access to government health care, as was JoePai's

Increase the charge (it's the lowest in Asia) and increase the payout (it's already been promised).

Sorry, I rushed my earlier reply whilst waiting for lunch. I have both weight gain and weight loss combinations in my phone in advance of my meeting and I copied the wrong one in my reply, what you have written is of course correct. I will indeed mention this to the hormone specialist on Sunday and will report what was said, along with blood test results. Trivia: Breakfast today was six assorted fresh fruit segments. Lunch was a (small) grilled chicken breast, a tablespoon (literally) of mashed potato, five assorted piece of boiled vegetables and a small plain salad. Dinner will be a small mixed salad. I'm guessing that's around 250 cals + 500 cals + 250 cals, say 1,000 cals max. Big sigh!