Mike Lister

So where will you spend the majority of the year?

Sorry Berkshire, I didn't mean to sound like I was arguing with you, it's just that your position wasn't entirely clear when I first read the post, far too quickly...I was in the physio office, waiting for my appointment and was trying to reply too quickly). Now I've re read it more leisurely I see we do agree, sorry again.

Nobody suggested that things would not or could not ever change, but if they do, the terms under which I came here in the first place will also change hence the deal between us, mo matter how informal, is off. Are you getting it yet!

I lived and worked on the US for 15 years, why is that relevant. Most of not all employers of any size, here or on the US, deduct taxes from salaries, in the UK it's the PAYE system. What does that have to do with Thai banks deducting income tax from overseas bank transfers, that's not even remotely the same thing.

Go read the link to ubonjoe comments on this subject, posted by a previous poster. Ubonjoe was an expert, he was married to an immigration officer. Read those things, satisfy yourself my advice was was correct.

Not incorrect, that money still has to be declared on the tax return, even though it may or may not be taxed, based on the filers assessable income level. I receive pensions from two countries, one is exempt by treaty, the other is taxable, if my assessable income exceeds the amount of deductions and allowances. Historically it has not although sometimes I have paid small amounts of tax, the point is, that money has to be shown on the tax return, otherwise the return is incomplete and potentially fraudulent. I show the treaty exempt income as disregarded income but I do declare it. The fact that practise has been not to tax transfers, is a different issue from te tax declaration.

Idiots, the place is full of sad and confused emoji jerks who have yet to mature.

Typically there's a timeframe involved, in the case of IHT the giver must survive the gift by seven years, or similar.

An interesting link that supports your version of events rather than stat's: https://www.oecd.org/tax/exchange-of-tax-information/CRS-related-FAQs.pdf

I understand, it's just that I think that something as important and serious as medical treatment and issues should only use first hand information and data from acknowledged and highly regarded sources. Personally, if I want information on anything medical I go to the Mayo or Cleveland Clinic as a starting point, that leaves me feeling like I've got an accurate answer without me having to try and interpret messages that I'm not equipped to do.

FWIW I think, from experience, is that a FBS is unreliable, simply because it is a single snap shot in time. Blood sugar levels rise and fall constantly throughout the day, even a FBS first thing in the morning on an empty stomach is unreliable because of various syndromes and false readings such as dawn phenomena. It's not a big deal but if you want a reliable blood sugar test, get an HbA1C because it measures glycated red blood cells that have a life of around 90 days hence the reading is a much more accurate measurement of you blood sugar levels over three months, rather than one day. The cost of an A1C is very low.

Ah well, if Youtube says it does, it must be so!

Poster stat may have a different view on this subject, I don't have a horse in this race, I'll leave it for you guys to debate/discuss/fight or whatever. What I will say however is that I have over 50 years IT experience but I don't think that alone is sufficient to conclude on this issue. I'm OUT!

Yes, sadly so, some months ago.

Banks in wealthy countries, ones where the GDP per capita is high, allow consumers to borrow more because there is a higher likelihood the debt will be repaid. Consumers in those countries have higher incomes and are more likely to service their debt than consumers in poorer economies whee incomes are much lower.

I see that poster @stat has not responded. For poster @Ben Zioner benefit: poster stat convinced us in the early days of these discussions on taxation that he was a CRS expert and knew chapter and verse, that is how we became convinced that CRS data was aggregated, If he ever does return, perhaps you can have the debate with him/her/it.

There is already a way to nab foreign ownership via companies, through the Land Office and they do actively investigate such arrangements. .I have two farang friends in CM who have run afoul of this in the last decade when the LO came knocking and asked for details of their company ownership. Both were given six months to rearrange their affairs. But as far as general property ownership by foreigners is concerned, any taxation changes will not alter things. The property market is too reliant on foreigners for that to happen.

Yes I know, we had the same problem when this started. As I recall, it was a RD document that made it clear, surprisingly! I'll look back in the first thread and see if I can easily spot it.

No, the 150k is not replaced by the 190k, it is in addition to and as already said, one is a tax table amount, the other is an exemption/deduction/allowance. There was some discussion about this topic when the first tax thread began, a number of people including myself were unsure because of the wording. Eventually, a form of words from the RD was produced which made it clear that the 190k is in addition to. I should know this because I file a return every year but I couldn't recall how it was input into the system. What I do know is that had it been a replacement and not an addition, I would have paid tax whereas as I did not.

That is incorrect. The 150,000 refers to the first tax band which is zero rated, it is not a deduction nor an allowance, it is a tax table band. The 190,000 on the other hand is an allowance, reserved for over aged 65 tear olds.

For ease and speed of explanation to Blackcab, I simply added together the 60,000 Personal Allowance, 190,000 over age 65 allowance and also the 150,000 zero rated tax band, even though the latter is not actually an allowance or a deduction.

Oh please, spare me! I never suggested I had a say in Thai affairs, nor that I even wanted one. I simply pointed out that as they move the goal posts, I change my approach, it's quite simple really. As for the 10 year visa: at age 74 years that would not make sense to me, nor would I see it as a sensible use of my assets.

And I reserve the right to react accordingly and change my living arrangements to suit, which will cost them the tax I would have paid here and also the daily living and travel expenditure I would have spent. This will not be a negative from my perspective.

The poster is receiving a pension, that means he's over 65 years of age and is eligible to receive the over age 65 allowance of 190,000. 190,000 + 60,000 +150,000 = 400,000 whilst income is only 360,000, ergo, no tax is due.

I came to Thailand to live over 20 years ago on the understanding my world wide earnings were not taxable here, I did my research beforehand, it's not as if I didn't and simply didn't know. If the rules of the game now change and Thailand decides my worldwide earnings are theirs to tax, that breaks the deal we made and I shall make different arrangements. For much of the 1990's I was not tax resident anywhere, I lived in three different places and on planes, I can easily revert to living in two places each year for 180 days each and a two week holiday in a third country somewhere else, those homes are already there, all I need to do is go live in them.