oldcpu

I have often puzzled over this explanation. I am not saying it wrong - I simply puzzle a bit about it. While I know of (and have on rare occasion encountered myself) case where (when at the airport on my way to Thailand, with me planning on visa exempt) I have been asked for an onward bound ticket (and I had such a ticket) .. I struggle a bit to see how producing an onward bound ticket protects the airline. I guess its a 'policy' protection for the airline , but not an actual protection (as the onward ticket , even if a real ticket, may not be usable in practice)? For example, Thai airways in Frankfurt, on occasion (not always) for Frankfurt to Phuket (or Frankfurt to Bangkok) flights are known to have asked for onward tickets out of Thailand. Typically if one has such a ticket (ie a REAL ticket) it is for a flight a few weeks or so after one's planned arrival in Thailand it may or may not be usable if there is a problem at Thai immigration. I don't recall Thai immigration ever ask me for an onward bound ticket, ... but If Thai immigration were to deny me entry (say hypothetical because I had entered Thailand too many times in the past in a recent time frame when trying visa exempt), how is a real ticket in 3 weeks time going to help the airline? At most it 'might' help me get through immigration to enter Thailand (hypothetically). Hypothetical , if entry is denied now by immigration - then a ticket 3 weeks later won't help one leave Thailand now. The flight departure date must be changed. And often many of us book cheap tickets where a change to the ticket's flight date can not be changed. I assume being required to get an onward bound ticket, is to just give the airline confidence that one has a better chance of entering Thailand (if one has done so multiple times in the past). I can't see it getting the airline off the hook for having to fly one out of Thailand (other than a possibly get out of a fine to the airline by immigration). I suspect also, anyone in that situation (denied entry) even if the Airline is on the hook, one will have the Airline chase after them for the unplanned ASAP exit flight costs for flying out of the country. I sometimes think this is just one of those "This is Thailand" sort of things. i.e. something one should know about and be prepared for, but the logic behind such does leave some unanswered questions - where indeed there may be answers - but just not obvious to all of us. .

Not yet as far as I can tell. https://www.rd.go.th/english/65308.html Year 2023 appears to be the latest at present time.

Influenced. That was not called for. I won't be dragged into the insult vs insult route. A route that you have now indicated that you want to go. That's a sign of weak view point when one needs to resort to such. You might be surprised as to what I know - where I've lived - where I have travelled - but I think you have insults in your mind to cast about - so I will leave this aspect of this thread now.

Thailand being Thailand - has 'work arounds' that I am confident you know about. I for one, would not go that 'workaround' route, but many do. I purchased a Foreign Freehold condo. Not every expat on a visa in Thailand has to report every 90-days. My last 90-day report was over a year ago - and I am legal and I have mostly stayed in Thailand (exceeding 90-days a few times with 90-day report legally not required for myself). Some of us have different Visas here in Thailand. So that generalization I quoted is inaccurate. i disagree. Try to open a bank account (and not use / not pay an agent) when on on a 30-day visa exemption stamp. Go visit a dozen different banks. Let me know how that works out for you. Try to stay in Thailand on back to back 30-day or 60-day visa exemption stamps for 20 years... let me know how that works out for you when you try to go-in-out of the country more than a few times. No rights? That is a massive and wrong exaggeration. Do Thai citizens have more rights than foreign citizens in Thailand? Of course! Thailand looks after Thai citizen first. I would expect nothing less. I've lived for years in Canada, USA, and Germany. They also treat their own citizens first.

IMHO thats good advice all the time - regardless as to timing. Typically, the vast majority of people spend a substantial amount of money on a home, so clearly a long and hard think is appropriate. But the question I see ... is doing such a hard and long think today (when such is a good idea) different from doing such a long and hard think 10 years ago? ... and if it is different today, ... then why is it different today?

Why ? Because ONLY of concerns over future taxation implementations? Or because of other factors (such as market value, interest rates .. etc) ?

I think the point here (to which you diverge) is many disagree with your assertion that Thailand has been 'colonized', where you used such as a support to an assessment on taxation approaches. In regards to the point, I believe you will find MANY Thai are proud that their country was never 'colonized' by the Europeans.

As noted in my post, revealing one's knowledge of the demographics of the people working the Thailand, Holland, and Germany sex trade is not a topic I would nominally touch on a forum such as this, unless I could plausibly point to some study. In general news sources tend to be unreliable/axe-grinding editorials ... so one either needs 1st hand experience or can point to a proper peer reviewed study. This is a moderately free forum here for putting out one's opinion. BUT on this topic, I am not going to get into debating nor discussing this with you, and I already (by inference) provided my reasons. (Edit : and to clarify : a very specific few words phrase in William Shakespeare's Henry IV, Act V, Scene 4 refers). You are welcome to provide from where comes your knowledge, and I cast no judgement there - but given the open nature of this, its not a topic I will touch on either side of the moral equation.

Lol ! Revealing one's knowledge of the demographics of the people working the Thailand, Holland, and Germany sex trade is not a topic I would nominally touch on a forum such as this, unless I could plausibly point to some study. In general news sources tend to be unreliable/axe-grinding editorials ... so one either needs 1st hand experience or can point to a proper peer reviewed study. I'll let others display their knowledge of the demographics (so one can infer from where comes their knowledge). 😄

My take on those questions , noting I am NOT a tax expert, nor do I know the UK-Thai Double Tax Agreement (DTA). Hopefully some who are familiar with that DTA will chime in. And hopefully those and others will correct my assessment if I am wrong. My opinion correspond to your questions . 1. If you are a non-resident to Thailand, you can transfer the money from the sale of your house to your Thailand bank tax free in Thailand in the year in which you are a non-resident to Thailand (I know nothing about UK tax on such a sale). However (ignoring the Thai-UK DTA) if you bring the money into Thailand in a year in which you are a resident of Thailand, then profit on the sale of that house may be taxable in Thailand. IMHO you need to consult the UK-Thai DTA to assess this. 2. To be on the safe side, spend less than 180 days in Thailand in the year in which you bring the money from the (profit of ? the ) sale of your house, into Thailand. 3. Yes, you can also keep the money (in particular, I believe keep the profit) from the sale of your house in a UK bank, so to receive a higher interest. I do NOT recommend keeping large amounts of money in Wise as I believe funds there are not-insured. However once you bring this money (from a UK bank) into Thailand, then it could be considered assessable and taxable and the paper trail on this (to prove money comes from before 1-Jan-2024) could be complex. Its possible you could keep a record of proof of the ORIGINAL purchase price ... and maybe bring that amount in tax free into Thailand when a resident of Thailand. BUT I do not know if that opinion is accurate 4. You could keep the money in the UK, but there are ways to bring the money into Thailand if you do so when not a resident of Thailand.

This sort of naming tends to be up to the flavour of the axe grinder ... I have also read of many claim such about Germany. ... It often depends on which axe and where the individual is grinding.

with respect to Cambodia, what is their residency definition for filing taxes? Greater 182 days per calendar/taxation year in Cambodia? or do they have additional requirements to include as residency? No worries if not known - I am just curious. I confess I have the same curiousity with respect to Vietnam - and do they tax ww income?

I wasn't intending to suggest that. I don't know 1st hand Phuket immigration's current policy here in regards to providing (or not providing) a "grandfather" clause for those with a Type-OA issued prior to the implementation of the Thailand wide Type-OA health insurance requirement. (A mute point, but i had thought the Phuket 'grandfather' implementation for not requiring Health Insurance under a Type-OA was for Visa 'valid-until' dates before Oct-2019 (ie for those already on extensions as before ~Oct-2020) - as my Type-OA was 28-March-2019 issue (with a 27-March-2020 valid until), and I was required to show Health Insurance from the Thai branch of a health insurance company for my 1st retirement extension in Feb-2021. ie I was not grand fathered. I did read a recent post on Asean now where someone claimed Phuket immigration was no longer implementing a grandfather clause for those whose 'valid-until' dates were before Oct-2020 - but they provided no details in regards to their visa issue date nor valid-until-date so its difficult to be certain if what they reported is indeed the case.

Its (IMHO) a good video - although I believe the absolute main take away from it needs to be one should check the DTA of their income source country, with Thailand. In the video he states, one's country of residence typically has the 1st taxing right - which he also notes countrys typically tax global income. Most of his video is associated with this generalization. It is important to note thou, at present, Thailand does not tax global income if money left outside of Thailand. Yes that could change , but that is important at present. That does not mean to say the video is not good, but its important not to get carried away when watching the video. Why? Currently, to the best of my knowledge, Thailand (given paw.161) will only tax income and savings brought into Thailand if that income was earned AFTER 31-Dec-2023, ... and in the case of savings only tax that savings (when brought into Thailand) if the savings was saved AFTER 31-Dec-2023. But the savings/income MUST be brought into Thailand to be assessable for Thai tax (at present time). if the foreign income is not brought into Thailand, then there is no Thai tax on such. Further, if one can show that the income/savings was earned (or saved) BEFORE 1-Jan-2024, then when that (old) income/savings is brought into Thailand, it is not taxable by Thailand. It may not even be assessable (but i don't know re:assessable - where assessable vs exempt tax may be important if it comes to filing a Thai tax return). Also - I want to go back and point out what I noted that one should check the DTA (with Thailand) of the country where their foreign income is sourced. Because despite what he generalized, it is possible that one of the countries has exclusive taxation rights for certain income, or its possible one of the countries has given up its taxation rights for certain income. Those details are important, generalizations here are VERY BAD, and one should, ... I repeat should ... check the relevant DTA with Thailand. So in summary - yes that video is interesting - but the BIG take away is to check one's DTA, because the possibilities that he noted in that video may indeed NOT be the case, dependent on one's income type/source, and one's source income country DTA with Thailand. Also - I am NO tax expert - so any reading this - you are likely better served to research this yourselves, as this is my opinion based on what I have read - and I could be wrong.

The video link did not work for me. <<< EDIT - the link works now!! I do agree - a DTA should likely be checked by each expat in Thailand who brings current year income into Thailand, to see if the DTA between Thailand and the source country of their income, says anything about where one is liable for tax. Such a DTA may be helpful - or may not be helpful - dependent on the country and type of income.

Thanks ! Am I correct in assuming this is from a Thai branch of Pacific Cross? .

With regard to the Type-OA visa ... I was curious, so I checked the "Phuket Immigration Volunteers" web site, where it notes: - - - - - - So I went to the noted link https://longstay.tgia.org/ and it still lists the acceptable Thai branch of Health Insurance companies for type-OA visa. Of course (like me) that web site too could be out of date. I am curious to learn from current type-OA visa holders on annual retirement extensions. Did you have to prove health insurance for your last extension?

Possibly I am out of date here. I recall there was a blank (to be filled in) Thai form for one to certify their foreign health insurance, but it was only for the initial application of one's Type-OA visa. That form (that I recall) was not acceptable for the 1 year extensions (of the Type-OA) for reason of retirement (or at least it was not accepted in Phuket immigration). I actually tried to get European Cigna to fill in the 'Thai form' (which requests the signature of a director of the health insurance company certify they meet the Thai requirements per a Thai document) and European Cigna flatly refused - claiming they did not know and hence would not certify to Thai requirements. I even attempted to provide them the Thai requirements, but they still refused. ... That of course is a mute point - as Phuket immigration still would not have accepted such. I then asked a Thai Cigna branch if they would certify my European Cigna health insurance (for a small nominal fee) for my annual extension (on the type-OA) and Thai Cigna refused. Thai branch of Cigna insisted I go for 100% insurance from their branch before they would certify Thai Health Insurance requirements met. Foreign Health Insurance requirements for the LTR visa are more easy to prove as acceptable (to BoI), but that is off topic with regards to this thread. AND as noted - I am possibly out of date ... I think that was 4 years ago when I went through this.

Interesting. Are you certain you are not thinking of COVID health insurance no longer required? I believe health insurance from the Thai branch of a Health Insurance company (for annual extensions for reason of retirement) for type-OA visa is still required - and that Health insurance must equal or exceed a certain immigration specified coverage.

I believe there IS an advantage to Type-O if your health insurance is NOT from the Thai branch of a health insurance company. One issue with the type-OA health insurance requirement that I encountered (some years back), was for a one-year extension (for reason of retirement), immigration required that the Health Insurance had to come from the Thai branch of a health insurance company. I had (and still have) subsidized Health Insurance from Europe that exceeds the Thai requirements, but it was unacceptable for Phuket immigration (as it was not on their list of acceptable Thai branches of insurance company ). So for one year 1 actually purchased DOUBLE health insurance (ie kept my far superior European health insurance AND I purchased less capable Thai health insurance). The next year when I went for an extension (on the type-OA) I went for reason of marriage (and hence I did not need to purchase DOUBLE health insurance via the Thai branch of a health insurance company). The year after that, I exited Thailand without a re-entry permit, to invalidate my Type-OA and re-entered visa exempt, and applied for and obtained a Type-O visa (which has no requirements for Health Insurance), per the very salient (in my view) observation of DrJack54. ( I did keep my European Health insurance - but that European Health Insurance is irrelevant from a Thai immigration perspective). It is not relevant to me anymore (my being on an LTR visa now) but I concede I do read these threads with interest. I wonder 'HAS ANYONE' on a Type-OA visa, when applying for a 1-year extension for reason of retirement, been successful in getting their local Thai immigration office to accept Health Insurance from a NON-THAI branch of a Health Insurance company? .

Perhaps now is a good time to visit Australia.

Indeed. It does not mean funds are tax exempt. This is where paw.161 (for income prior to 1-Jan-2024) comes in handy, and where currently the LTR visa comes in handy for myself (as I reside in Thailand >180 days/calendar(tax) year). .

It can often be difficult to predict the future. I recall when I purchased a condo in 2016 in Phuket (with intent to move to Phuket from Europe in 2017, upon a planned retirement), and advise was given to me to NOT buy: 1. Some stated never buy in Thailand for first year or so after a move to Thailand - - ALWAYS rent first. Nominally - I think ok advice, although in my case I had lived previous in Thailand from 1997 to 1999, and at the time (in 2016) I had been married to my Thai wife for 15 years, and every year we visited Thailand for a few weeks. So I think that 'specific don't buy' advise was not really applicable to myself, and 2. another friend (who claimed to know ins-outs of Thailand, pushed the view the Thai economy and real estate market would 'tank' and 'collapse' when the previous King passed away (where the King was very ill then). I couldn't see the same royal connection on the economy that they insisted was correct. Well we have a new Thai King, and the Thai economy doesn't appear to be significantly worse as a result. It did not hurt the real-estate market. So I saw then (and see now) that as a mistaken view. Now I view the possibility of taxation more serious wrt a risk of an impact - but I am not (yet) a believer we will see a big impact on most expatriates. I do thou note I don't have a good sense on the financial situation of most expatriates, which makes the future difficult to predict. Also, often when laws are applied, there is a grandfather clause, and I speculate (where 'speculate is the operative word' ) that any who bring in pre-1-Jan-2024 (savings/income) money into Thailand now to purchase a condo, are not likely to have a tax issue with the money they brought in. Further, I note paw-161 as I speculate on this. Having typed that, I agree that as years go by, paw-161 likely will be less relevant in regards taxation on income/savings. Further, having lived in Thailand, I note many times changes are talked about but do not come to pass. I suspect most expatiates note that - which does leave uncertainty. Still, given paw-161 ( 'exempting' one's pre-1-Jan-2024 foreign savings from Thai tax), and given many times talk about tax changes doesn't come to pass - I believe it premature to caution future condo buyers to pause. of course this is based on my speculation. One needs to make their own judgement call. I could be wrong. Further I am not tracking the real estate market - and maybe its over priced ... I do recall how it was here in Thailand in the second half of 1997. I also note, that if I had MISTAKENLY waited until today, to purchase the condo that I purchased in 2016, it would have cost me 30% to 35% more today - so I am glad I did not listen to the 'nay sayers' who stated to me then not to buy - but they advised me to wait. Since 2016 I have obtained decent use of my condo. Buying then was a smart move the way things turned out. Its really difficult to predict the future. I also tend to agree the 800k / 400k / 65k could increase in the future. Possibly sooner than many would like. My hope is such does not happen - and again , my agreement could be wrong. For those expatriates who don't have business nor family ties with Thailand, and whose health is not an issue, then spending only 49% of the year in Thailand, and 51% in 2 or more countries, could be an interesting life choice. There is a LOT to different countries in this world, there is a LOT to experience, and if one has the financial resources without the family ties, then seeing the world is a dream of many of us. With regard to Thailand attempting to attract those with money, sometimes I speculate that perhaps there are different business and social forces pulling within Thailand, and while some in the Thai government wish to attract foreigners with their money, ... others might only want to attract the foreign money without the foreigners. But that is pure speculation by me. Interesting times, and I hope that when the dust settles considering these potential changes, that the impact will be minimal. But that is only a hope. I for one, can't see the future. I can only speculate.

51 billion ÷ 4.6 million = 11,087 units bought by foreigners. I was surprised to read of so many condos being purchased by foreigners. I would have speculated 1/3 that number.

I tend to agree that 90% may be an exaggeration. My experience in 2016 when condo hunting ( researching many dozens of places) was that 1 out of 3 places were not on the market ( and were inappropriately listed) and 2 out of 3 were validly listed on the market. But that was 2016. This is almost 2025. Have things changed that much since 2016? I don't know. I tend to speculate little has changed.