monkeycountry

Yes, you have to deduct withholding tax, usually 3%, but the percentage varies depending on what you are buying.

Contracting someone to build you a house or furniture would be 3%. If you buy advertising it is 2%, transport of items is 1% and so on.

If you buy something, it depends on what is written on the bill. If the bill says 1 piece of furniture and nothing else, then you do not have to deduct anything as you are buying an item, not paying for contracted work. If the bill is split into labour and materials, then you deduct 3% for the labour part, but not for the material part.

Example of invoice:

Labour 5000 baht

Materials 5000 baht

VAT 700 baht

Total 10700 baht

Of this bill you have to deduct 3% for the labour part, so 150 baht and pay a total of 10,700 - 150 = 10,550 baht.

When deducting, you need to provide the contractor with a thai "receipt" for the deducted amount, so you probably need an accountant to handle it.

If the amount is less than I believe 1,000 baht, then you do not have to deduct anything.

You have to ad together and pay all the deducted amounts from any given month to the revenue department before or on the 7th of the following month.

As I said, much of the required paperwork is in Thai, so you should have an accountant do this for you.

Remark: please keep in mind that most small time contractors do not pay any taxes at all and have no clue how the tax system works, so you might want to discuss this matter with them prior to buying anything.

Why Thailand doesnt organize a plane to bring all those people back home ...... ? that would be the best way .... its also possible for the ministry of foreign affairs in Bangkok to fill up a complain with the Finish embassy .

Yes, I wonder just how much the embassy will laugh when they see the loss "calculations" in the complaint :-)

Anyway, in Finland the embassy or foreign ministry, which the embasy is under, has absolutely no power or control over the actions of private companies, so they will likely not accept the complaint, but simply tell the plaintiff to file their complaint with the Finnish courts, where it belongs.

Having been flooded in 2011, i can tell you that if you see dams that keep the water at your side to protect others after a while you really want those dams torn down. I did not like the flooding one bit but the duration of it was what got to me. It was almost 2 months. Had they let the water through then it would have certainly be gone a lot faster. Just flooding someplace and use it as water catchment area to spare others is cruel especially if its a residential area (crops and such too bad but residential area's is an other problem)

Thing is sometimes there is no logic to who they let flood and who not its all about face and money. Water should flow and it should not be blocked and allowed to accumulate even higher in a residential area to spare others. 10-20 cm for a short period is ok, but for weeks / months its not. Better to share the pain then and be done with it quickly. Though those who are spared would of course not think like that and those who are flooded do think like that. I know I talked with my neighbors during the flooding they hated the dams that kept us flooded longer.

But in 2011, if the dams torn down, the inner city of Bangkok where all the politicians have properties would have seen 10-20 cm water.

That is complete unacceptable and you can't expect that these important people sacrifice so much, just because you don't want to stay 2 month under 1.5 meter water.

And lets recall the private buildings that state workers protected with sandbags meant for Bangkok.....That alone should show where the priorities are.

I do not know if your 10-20 cm is just grabbed out of thin air or an actual estimate by some professionals (not the government)?

10-20 cm might not be a disaster, however, flooding central Bangkok to an extend where power and thereby internet would have to be cut for an extended period of time would be a major problem for everyone in Thailand.

Central bank servers would no longer work, which means no more money from banks or ATM's including those in the provinces as they all connect to the central servers. The stock exchange (SET) would also shut down, which would do serious damage to the whole economy.

Many major countrywide companies would have difficulty operating, as all their logistics, not just transport, but also communication, salaries, banking etc. is run from their head office in Bangkok, and would therefore affect the provinces as well, both for their staff and for their customers. And even if their headoffice is not in central Bangkok they still cannot pay bills and salaries as the bank servers are down.

Phone companies, internet service providers, tv and radio stations might also have to at least partially shut down, if their head offices and servers are under water and/or without power, which again would affect everyone in Thailand, not just Bangkok.

Then you have the millions of people in high rises who cannot live there as they will neither have power nor water (most highrises depend on electric pumps for water). You can evacuate a few thousand people in a village, but not a few million in central bangkok.

Then you have all the hospitals who not only take care of the sick from Bangkok, but also the many sick from the provinces who are so sick the facilities in the provinces are not adequate. Again, you can evacuate a hospital in a province, but not 100 hospitals in Bangkok.

Sewage would also quickly spread diseases in a crowded city of Bangkok's size. A problem that becomes much worse if the hospitals are not functioning.

Transport would also stop, which means noone can get to work, so even if the power was still on, everything would still come to a standstill.

The list goes on, but I assume you get my point. In short, most of Thailand would come to a standstill if central Bangkok was flooded to an extend where power would have to be cut for an extended period of time- and alot of people would die. Therefore it is in everyones interest not to let that happen - at all costs.

Partially it makes sense wont deny it but 20 cm does not mean the power is cut. Here at 70-80 cm still power was not cut. So loads of things would go on but other stuff would not. 20 cm would not be a total disaster but sure damage would be done. But there are some good points. But really power wont be shut of at 20 cm and so high rise would go on ect. 20 cm would still allow for traffic and such. Its not major.

As I said in the beginning of my post, I did not know where the other poster had the 10-20 cm from, and I also said 10-20 cm might not cause a big problem, but once it reaches a level where power has to be cut and/or where most traffic/transport has to stop (whatever level that is), it will be a major disaster - for all of Thailand

A fine example of the villagers being made the sacrifice so as to protect the industrial estate which no doubt is either owned or controlled by a person or persons of influence.

Surely with a little forward planing both areas could have been protected from possible flooding.

Ooop's, forgot, this is Thailand thus proactive actions are indeed unheard of as are the rights of the ordinary Thai person even by this government that we hear forever espousing their idea of equality for all.

A calculated risk that if those people houses on the state were to flood they might and I emphasis the word ''might'' be inline for a 5,000 baht compensation payment no doubt the house flooding scenario would indeed be a cheaper option than the flooding of the industrial estate with also a possible ''commission'' payable to those handling the compensation monies out too.

Seems though that even now '' some are more equal than others.''

Who do you think works at the industrial estate? Personally I would rather have my house flooded than lose my salary for say 3-6 months (or perhaps permanently) because my workplace was flooded and all the machinery had to be replaced.

Thats probably because your house never been flooded .

See post #9

Having been flooded in 2011, i can tell you that if you see dams that keep the water at your side to protect others after a while you really want those dams torn down. I did not like the flooding one bit but the duration of it was what got to me. It was almost 2 months. Had they let the water through then it would have certainly be gone a lot faster. Just flooding someplace and use it as water catchment area to spare others is cruel especially if its a residential area (crops and such too bad but residential area's is an other problem)

Thing is sometimes there is no logic to who they let flood and who not its all about face and money. Water should flow and it should not be blocked and allowed to accumulate even higher in a residential area to spare others. 10-20 cm for a short period is ok, but for weeks / months its not. Better to share the pain then and be done with it quickly. Though those who are spared would of course not think like that and those who are flooded do think like that. I know I talked with my neighbors during the flooding they hated the dams that kept us flooded longer.

But in 2011, if the dams torn down, the inner city of Bangkok where all the politicians have properties would have seen 10-20 cm water.

That is complete unacceptable and you can't expect that these important people sacrifice so much, just because you don't want to stay 2 month under 1.5 meter water.

And lets recall the private buildings that state workers protected with sandbags meant for Bangkok.....That alone should show where the priorities are.

I do not know if your 10-20 cm is just grabbed out of thin air or an actual estimate by some professionals (not the government)?

10-20 cm might not be a disaster, however, flooding central Bangkok to an extend where power and thereby internet would have to be cut for an extended period of time would be a major problem for everyone in Thailand.

Central bank servers would no longer work, which means no more money from banks or ATM's including those in the provinces as they all connect to the central servers. The stock exchange (SET) would also shut down, which would do serious damage to the whole economy.

Many major countrywide companies would have difficulty operating, as all their logistics, not just transport, but also communication, salaries, banking etc. is run from their head office in Bangkok, and would therefore affect the provinces as well, both for their staff and for their customers. And even if their headoffice is not in central Bangkok they still cannot pay bills and salaries as the bank servers are down.

Phone companies, internet service providers, tv and radio stations might also have to at least partially shut down, if their head offices and servers are under water and/or without power, which again would affect everyone in Thailand, not just Bangkok.

Then you have the millions of people in high rises who cannot live there as they will neither have power nor water (most highrises depend on electric pumps for water). You can evacuate a few thousand people in a village, but not a few million in central bangkok.

Then you have all the hospitals who not only take care of the sick from Bangkok, but also the many sick from the provinces who are so sick the facilities in the provinces are not adequate. Again, you can evacuate a hospital in a province, but not 100 hospitals in Bangkok.

Sewage would also quickly spread diseases in a crowded city of Bangkok's size. A problem that becomes much worse if the hospitals are not functioning.

Transport would also stop, which means noone can get to work, so even if the power was still on, everything would still come to a standstill.

The list goes on, but I assume you get my point. In short, most of Thailand would come to a standstill if central Bangkok was flooded to an extend where power would have to be cut for an extended period of time- and alot of people would die. Therefore it is in everyones interest not to let that happen - at all costs.

Having been flooded in 2011, i can tell you that if you see dams that keep the water at your side to protect others after a while you really want those dams torn down. I did not like the flooding one bit but the duration of it was what got to me. It was almost 2 months. Had they let the water through then it would have certainly be gone a lot faster. Just flooding someplace and use it as water catchment area to spare others is cruel especially if its a residential area (crops and such too bad but residential area's is an other problem)

Thing is sometimes there is no logic to who they let flood and who not its all about face and money. Water should flow and it should not be blocked and allowed to accumulate even higher in a residential area to spare others. 10-20 cm for a short period is ok, but for weeks / months its not. Better to share the pain then and be done with it quickly. Though those who are spared would of course not think like that and those who are flooded do think like that. I know I talked with my neighbors during the flooding they hated the dams that kept us flooded longer.

I both agree and understand you - especially the 2 months part, but if things were done right (which I know they are not), and not just based on who has the right money/connections, it does make sense financially to let some less valuable places be flooded in order to protect more valuable ones, rather than just flood and ruin everything in the name of fairness. Of course this is only reasonable if the ones saved at the expense of others pay their share of the damages.

In short, if you have 2 houses, one worth 20 baht and the other 10 baht. You can flood them both equally and lose 20 baht and 10 baht respectively, a total of 30 baht, or you can flood just the cheaper one, and each pay 5 baht for repairs, totalling 10 baht - the latter would obviously be the best option for both parties.

A fair reply, however you have to admit that the financial and I presume the labour sources you have at hand indeed far surpass the average Thai and no doubt many foreigners too. those Thais do have the luxury of the sources you can command in your hours of need, nor often the time either..

However I see your point and it is indeed a devil of a dilemma.

I assume that was a reply to my post, and I agree. However, poorer people usually have fewer and cheaper assets than wealthier people, hence fewer and cheaper assets to protect from floods.

Time is a problem, as you cannot work and secure your house at the same time, but some employers (hopefully most) will give their staff some time off in order for them to go home and secure their assets, if their house is about to flood.

A fine example of the villagers being made the sacrifice so as to protect the industrial estate which no doubt is either owned or controlled by a person or persons of influence.

Surely with a little forward planing both areas could have been protected from possible flooding.

Ooop's, forgot, this is Thailand thus proactive actions are indeed unheard of as are the rights of the ordinary Thai person even by this government that we hear forever espousing their idea of equality for all.

A calculated risk that if those people houses on the state were to flood they might and I emphasis the word ''might'' be inline for a 5,000 baht compensation payment no doubt the house flooding scenario would indeed be a cheaper option than the flooding of the industrial estate with also a possible ''commission'' payable to those handling the compensation monies out too.

Seems though that even now '' some are more equal than others.''

Who do you think works at the industrial estate? Personally I would rather have my house flooded than lose my salary for say 3-6 months (or perhaps permanently) because my workplace was flooded and all the machinery had to be replaced.

Would you flood your home for your neighbours job??

No of course not. I simply assumed, probably wrongly, that a very large housing estate right next to an industrial estate meant that many people in the housing estate worked at the industrial estate, which would make sense. Of course it sucks for those who do not work there. However, if I did work there, and I liked my job, then yes, I would prefer my house to flood instead of my workplace.

Who do you think works at the industrial estate? Personally I would rather have my house flooded than lose my salary for say 3-6 months (or perhaps permanently) because my workplace was flooded and all the machinery had to be replaced.

Have you ever experienced your house being flooded and the subsequent loss of irreplaceable items family memories etc, the filth left behind and the appalling stench and of course the expense of replacing those lost items if they can be replaced?

If the answer is no, you should try flooding your house to experience what fun it is.

I have had several houses flooded yes, but usually managed to move stuff out of the way first. Also have had several cars and bikes flooded. If the house is made from concrete, and there is no wooden floor or similar, then it is not a problem. A good cleaning and all is fine. Wooden doors etc. that cannot be moved (many can) may need to be replaced as they may no longer fit the frame. Power lines etc will dry out, and sockets etc. can be cleaned too.

Cars and bikes can be taken apart (seats and everything out) and cleaned properly. I guess some cars may not survive though. In any case, if you are a bit smarter than me, you simply move your cars and bikes out of harms way prior to the flood.

I am not saying floods are fun, I am just saying that I would worry much more about my workplace, job and income than about my house - assuming of course the flood will not destroy the house itself, which may be the case for wooden houses.

A fine example of the villagers being made the sacrifice so as to protect the industrial estate which no doubt is either owned or controlled by a person or persons of influence.

Surely with a little forward planing both areas could have been protected from possible flooding.

Ooop's, forgot, this is Thailand thus proactive actions are indeed unheard of as are the rights of the ordinary Thai person even by this government that we hear forever espousing their idea of equality for all.

A calculated risk that if those people houses on the state were to flood they might and I emphasis the word ''might'' be inline for a 5,000 baht compensation payment no doubt the house flooding scenario would indeed be a cheaper option than the flooding of the industrial estate with also a possible ''commission'' payable to those handling the compensation monies out too.

Seems though that even now '' some are more equal than others.''

Who do you think works at the industrial estate? Personally I would rather have my house flooded than lose my salary for say 3-6 months (or perhaps permanently) because my workplace was flooded and all the machinery had to be replaced.

Hahaha, I think I know what those retired guys who claim to be busy all day long are actually doing. They are thinking up more and more strange stuff to discuss on TV.

Who cares what the neighbours think of you? Most people I know do not care back home, why should they suddenly care here. As long as you do not disturb your neighbours with excessive noise, smell, garbage etc., I see no reason to worry what they may or may not be thinking about anything.

It reminds me of all those people who write on TV worrying what friends, family, neighbours and even random people on the street think about their relationship with a young Thai girlfriend

Just out of curiosity. Why is it so important to get rid of people under 50 who just want to stay here, and can afford to do nothing?

It is not like you are a burden on the system as you get no benefits from Thailand. I can understand they want to make sure people can afford to stay here, but that is easy and can be done the same way as with retirees. A simple proof of funds in a bank or similar.

Thailand seems to love tourists spending their money on a 2 week holiday, so why try to get rid of "tourists" who are so wealthy they can afford a permanent holiday?

You can just get a non immigrant B visa and stay 15 months in the country. You just need to report every 3 months. No need to lie and get a student visa if your not going to study. Siam Legal offers this visa. Its quite cheap too. 20000 baht from memory

I believe that is a business visa right? To get that I think you need a socalled WP3 first, which is confirmation from an employer that you have a job waiting, and you are supposed to get a WP once you get the visa. If that is correct, then Siam Legal probably just make a WP3 claiming the applicant is going to work for them, a little white lie which explains the 20k?

Anyway, if it is a business visa, then you are still lying/cheating in order to stay here, and may have trouble getting the visa renewed after 15 months if you do not have a job and WP by then?

So the question still stands, why not let relatively wealthy people stay as long as they want, without them having to invest, work, study etc?

Better rich and healthy than sick and poor!

Just out of curiosity. Why is it so important to get rid of people under 50 who just want to stay here, and can afford to do nothing?

It is not like you are a burden on the system as you get no benefits from Thailand. I can understand they want to make sure people can afford to stay here, but that is easy and can be done the same way as with retirees. A simple proof of funds in a bank or similar.

Thailand seems to love tourists spending their money on a 2 week holiday, so why try to get rid of "tourists" who are so wealthy they can afford a permanent holiday?

Naam jai important in thailand as poster indicated. The way to gain respect. In our countries we are already respected.

Sure it's important for the Thai, especially when they are receiving money from a Farang, even if they, the Thai are in the wrong. I must admit I have heard of many farangs contributing to this Naam jai in such circumstances, yet I have never heard of a Thai showing his Naam jai, financially to a Farang when they,the Thai are obviously in the wrong.

Couldn't agree more. By the way, if anyone on TV wants respect and wais from Thais, I know a whole bunch of Thais who will be happy to give it to you for say 5,000 baht each? I am sure I can convince them to throw in a big smile too

To the OP

Assuming you were not high, drunk, speeding or similar, no crime has been committed, hence it is a civil case regarding financial compensation. There will be no jail, deportation etc. for anyone.

Completely forget the police, the case has nothing to do with them and they have no authority here. Their only job is to make a report regarding what happened for potential use in court later on. You should not sign this report as it is in Thai, and as there is no benefit to you in signing, only potential trouble. Further do not give them your passport at any time, not even to make a copy. Insist on making the copy yourself.

Unless you want to sue the lady on the bike, the case is between her and your insurance company, and has nothing further to do with you. Your insurance company knows exactly how to handle this, and they will be the ones paying in case she takes the matter to court - which is unlikely if she is poor. Odds are the insurance company will settle a small amount with her, and you will not even be notified of this as it does not concern you.

The only thing you have to worry about is the repair to your car, which you will have to clear with your insurance. While it may take a while, the rules are simple. If she is deemed at fault, your insurance company will have to pay for your car repair, and sue her for compensation if they want to. In case you are deemed at fault, they will have to pay for both her and your repair. So in either case your insurance company will eventually be paying for your car repair.

Oh, and in case the repair turns out to be expensive for the insurance company, your premium may increase significantly next year. If that is the case, then simply change to another company.

Ohoh, and all this crap about knowing this and that police officer, forget it. This only works when matters are settled at the local police station. Once insurance companies and courts are involved, nobody cares about the police anymore - and the police know it and will back out automatically.

I am looking forward to the day the red shirts go and buy their first high speed train ticket, and realise they cannot afford it. I can already picture the confused look in their faces, and hope someone will take a few pictures and publish them for my amusement

Thailand appears safe and for the most part it is, confrontational crime against foreigners is relatively low, I think thats one of the reasons many people like it here. However, scratch the surface and there is an undercurrent of opportunism, cheating and crime... the Thai's all know this, its part of society, however, we as Foreigners are not so privy to the darker sides of Thai culture.

I agree as I think we get lulled into a false sense of security which could turn round and bite you on the arse if you get too complacent. My wife, not a person given to flights of fancy, always admonishes me when I get a bit hot hearted while driving as she says you never know who's got weapon. I recall this story from last year.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Man-behind-shooting-of-MPs-son-surrenders-30189559.html

Interesting story, but could not find any follow up - surprise.

Would be interesting to know if the bullets in the construction guys car matched those in the MP son's car. Ie. the same gun shot both cars?

So Thailand has the world record in nepotism. I knew it was bad, but I was unaware it was a world record

I think people are being too negative. Corruption is rife yes, and has been for as long as I can remember, but corruption also ensures that Thailand continues to be a third world country which has a lot of benefits such as no law enforcement, relatively cheap labour and a steady supply of bargirls :-)