CallumWK

Did you forget that DOGE found a "waste" of funding of 8 million over several years? Sure that is less than 2 billion a year, and your claims are flawed, since the majority of subsidies were given over the last decade.

I didn't store it at Hua Seng Hen, although I'm sure it would be safe, as they have a excellent reputation for 70 years already. Also I was mistaken by the volume by weight gold has, and found that 75 baht of gold in 5 baht bars, fits in the front pocket of your jeans, so easy to store anywhere

Individual offices have nothing to do with the rules on online reporting. It has been officially announced on the immigration website that you now can make an online report until the last day.

Are you serious? Maybe you should learn to read, and not MISQUOTE me to increase your likes? That was something Trump claimed, not me.

No need for more detailed break down, as you can't make the blind see. First of all you missed including THREE of his companies in the summary. Secondly, how much is "billions more"?

Rather strange that DOGE hasn't mentioned anything about that waste of funds

I thought that was corrected, and now you can use the online application until 1 day before due date. Well I'm sure you can now apply till the last day, as evidenced per my own thread.

Nothing says low IQ like earning a billion $ by scamming and failing to pay people.

Korbel and Cook's are both well-known brands of sparkling wine, often referred to as "California champagne" due to their production in California, not the actual Champagne region of France https://www.tastingtable.com/1683845/worst-budget-champagne-to-drink/ While Cook's Brut California Champagne might have "champagne" on the label, we have to reiterate the facts. The term — "California champagne" — is a clever marketing trick, and California produces some pretty incredible wines. But this isn't actual champagne; it's a sparkling wine. Additionally, Cook's Brut California Champagne has another glaring issue on its label: the flavor doesn't match the description. "Brut" falls among the driest categories for a champagne or sparkling wine. In other words, it's not meant to impart a sweet flavor. In fact, official wine regulations recognize brut as containing 12 grams of sugar maximum — meaning it's even drier than an extra-dry wine. Cook's Brut, however, doesn't fit the bill. The wine is notably sweet. And maybe that's your thing. But when it comes to decoding a wine label, we prefer designations that are accurate, allowing us to plan for a wine that pairs well with our meal, occasion, and personal preference. Mimosas, anyone? Read More: https://www.tastingtable.com/1683845/worst-budget-champagne-to-drink/

Champagne selling businesses you mean, which will run dry soon, because the Champagne region in France is the only place in the world that produces champagne. You want to discuss IQ's?

Because you can't afford wine in your third world location, doesn't mean Trump's billionaire buddies don't like champagne, and they surely know the difference with sparkling wine.

Sure, that will guarantee that there will be no champagne available for his buddies, because imports will come to a halt. What they gonna drink, sparkling apple cider? Only someone with the mindset of a 10 year old would post a picture to make his point.

President Trump threatened the EU with a 200% tariff on imported wines, champagnes, and other alcoholic products if the bloc did not remove a duty on whiskey. He posted on his Truth Social platform: The European Union, one of the most hostile and abusive taxing and tariffing authorities in the World, which was formed for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the United States, has just put a nasty 50% Tariff on Whisky. If this Tariff is not removed immediately, the U.S. will shortly place a 200% Tariff on all WINES, CHAMPAGNES, & ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS COMING OUT OF FRANCE AND OTHER E.U. REPRESENTED COUNTRIES. This will be great for the Wine and Champagne businesses in the U.S. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/live/trump-tariffs-live-updates-trump-threatens-200-tariff-on-european-wine-champagne-191201568.html Psst, Trump, the US doesn't have a champagne business, since champagne is produced in France only. At best the US has some mediocre sparkling wine.

He wasn't. He was promoting EV technology, not plugging the particular brand from his bar steward, and certainly not making claims that it was not allowed to boycott Tesla

https://shopee.co.th/ฝ้าทีบาร์-เปเปอร์ทัชไอออน-ลาย-หยาดเพชร-“สีขาวล้วน”-ขนาด60x60x0.8cm.-แบ่งขาย-1-แผ่น--i.3431976.25901712980?

You seem to have a faulty memory, if you can't even remember my post from 15 minutes ago. Democrats have been held hostage by the republicans many times, as shown in my screenshot

A 9mm size 120x240 cost 120 baht. Too much of an expense for you?

\ I don't think so..

I seem to recall that under the previous democrat governments, a few government shut-downs were only averted at the very last minute, some even resulted in an effective shutdown, because of opposition by the republicans. What changed?

I think you are arguing with the next reincarnation of Harrisfan aka big nok aka sparktrader akd Susan aka .............

Many claim the requirement for that document? I've seen only 1 scaremonger who has made that unfounded claim maybe 200 times

And another cave in from agent orange. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-doubling-tariffs-canadian-142100812.html President Donald Trump dialed back his latest trade-war threat against Canada hours after making it, while downplaying the risk of a tariff-led recession that’s sent US markets into a nosedive. Trump’s roller-coaster day saw him threaten to double duties on Canadian steel and aluminum to 50% after Ontario announced plans to place a surcharge on electricity sent to the US, only to retreat back to plans for his previously announced 25% rate after the provincial government backed down.

Not sure what you try to say. I'm not a native English speaker, but from what is written I can clearly understand that prior to 2024 income was only taxable if it was remitted in the same year. Starting from1/1/2024 income earned after that date is taxable regardless of what year in the future you're gonna remit it.

Clearly explained here Residents who derive assessable income derived from outside Thailand would only be subject to tax if such income is earned in any tax year starting from 1 January 2024 onwards and is remitted to Thailand, wholly or partially, in the same or a later tax year. As for the rest of your remarks, yes indeed the website is not 300 pages long, so will have some details missing.

Just stumbled on this website, and found it to explain things pretty good in a simple way. https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/thailand/individual/taxes-on-personal-income