JimGant

3 hours ago, FolkGuitar said:

And this criminal is destroying the America our forefathers died to create.

Yep, the guy's a madman. But he's fun to watch. A bull in a china shop, I love the crystal he's breaking: exporting illegal crap, allowed in by the Dems; having NATO countries finally pay what the US was subsidizing, at the expense of US needed projects; and, as a corollary, saying Europe's defense problems really need to be addressed by Europe -- a lesson WWI taught us, when 100,000 Americans died defending Europeans from Europeans (while Holland watched from the sidelines). Maybe the guy is really on to something.... (even tho' it actually is just common sense, and not from a strong read of history -- why didn't former politicians grasp this requirement for 'America first?')

Yeah, Federalizing the Nat'l Guard to deal with situations Democratic governors can't -- to further rid our streets of troublesome illegals -- just doesn't get my dander up. And, restricting entry into the US, from certain countries, whose citizens have no positive value to add to America -- sounds OK. Yeah, sad that the good folks, with brainpower to add to the US, are thrown out with the bath water. But, hey, overall, probably a good point from which to start cleansing our immigration system.

My stocks are back to where they were before Trump's recent election. Not that I'm happy that Trump flunked Econ 101, and tariffs aren't really positive. And that we had to suffer the tariff reaction on my stock prices. But, it seems, somehow the stock market has realized, with all the back and forth on tariffs, that the end result won't be a disaster. In fact, when tariffs are viewed as a sales tax, they may even help with the nat'l debt.

Saying that, I'm not even alarmed at Trump's budget bill. Yes, deficit can be bad (but usually not, when priming is needed). And a deficit added to nat'l debt seems to be really bad -- but only by emotion. Why? Nat'l debt as a numerator to GDP, actually has the US in fine shape, compared to, say, Japan and Singapore -- certainly fine countries to emulate. 

So, don't sell the house and move to Fiji. America will be just fine. It will be fun watching such an idiot like Trump keep pushing forth some needed changes, that only a bull in the china shop could do. End result: Maybe the US will end up staying out of all the world affairs, and using the trillions saved to reinvest in our problems at home. Let Europe pick up the slack, in defense -- and in feeding starving babies in Africa. 

Anyway, fun to watch from afar. The US will come out of this -- and probably stronger -- re itself and the world -- 'cause Trump's view of the world vs US -- actually had traction. 

2 hours ago, TheAppletons said:

The citizens of Los Angeles were protesting against Trump’s unlawful use of the federal agency ICE to deport their friends and neighbours.

What!?  Half their "friends and neighbours" are illegal aliens. No need to read further argument on this thread with that key fact being conveniently omitted in the OP. 

On 6/5/2025 at 5:46 PM, Dogmatix said:

It is very unclear but the announcements made so far could easily  be interpreted to mean that overseas income is taxable in Thailand, unless remitted to Thailand in the tax year it arose or the following year

I don't see anything in the new proposal that eliminates the remittance aspect of Thai taxation. Only that foreign assessable income in 2025 is not taxable if remitted to Thailand in 2025/2026. But, if remitted after that, it would be subject to tax.

Which is really screwy. Say my 2025 US income, assessable if remitted post 2026, is used in 2025 to buy a car and a stock. In 2030 I sell both, none with a capital gain. I then remit the proceeds to Thailand. Is this still income? Is money that begins life as income, always and forever still income? I don't think so. And there's no way Thai RD would ever know this remittance of sale proceeds was originally 2025 income -- unless under self assessment I say so. Which, I'm sure, I wouldn't do -- with my integrity intact. 

And furthermore, it's most likely this 2025 income got filtered through my checking or savings account. So, how much of that checking account used to buy the car and stock -- consisted of my 2025 income? With my large checking account, and using FIFO -- none would be 2025 income.

Are the Thais really so, "ready, fire, aim?" I guess maybe so...

Update. Renewal of five year license. Went about 1PM; adequate parking; took about 1.5 hrs. Documents required are as previously described in this thread. Remember, the Medical Certificate (yes, required for 5 yr renewal) and Certificate of Residence must be no older than 30 days. Copy of TM30 not required, as CofR covers this avenue. What's not mentioned previously in this thread is, if your expired license was obtained with a now expired passport -- you need a copy of the Immigration stamp transfer pages found in your new passport. I didn't know this, and had to queue up at the copy machine - which, in some circumstances, might be long.

There's no having to sit thru a driving movie at DMV. But, yes, watch the prescribed driving movie online (it's not too terrible -- Miss Lime is cute). And if on PC, take a screenshot of the QR code presented at its end. Print out and sign the bottom in blue ink, like all you other copies presented. 

The place was crowded, but seemed to move along efficiently. And, yes, as earlier mentioned in this thread -- go directly to counter 27 (second floor), the one exclusively for foreigners. They'll sort your paperwork; have you sit until name is called; then they'll give you a color blind test, plus all your paperwork, with a coversheet for your review and signature. And, your queue number, attached to the package -- then go sit in a super hard chair, until they call your number.

When called, you'll pay 505 baht for the five year renewal. Advisable to have the correct change -- took me awhile to find a 5 baht coin at my home, but I'm sure this was superior to having them make change.

Next, you'll queue up for your photo and license issue. Wear a collared shirt; otherwise, you'll have to put on one of their collared shirts hanging on the wall. They even made me button to the top the Polo shirt I was wearing. 

And, yeah, license is good for five years, from my birthday next year. 

1 hour ago, DrJack54 said:

Don't tell me, tell the OP who seemed to be asking for agent. 

 

The guy in this thread was very happy all be it 50k

Hey, what's another 50k to a wealthy pensioner.....?

16 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

The sad reality is that the USA has a dangerous amount of debt.

Define dangerous. We don't really know what that number is. But we do know that a better measure of a debt's problem is its ratio to GDP. For the US, the latest number is 122%. But Japan's number is 255%; and Singapore's, 168%. Does anyone really think these economic powerhouses are headed over the cliff? 

Anyway, we really don't know if a few extra Ford class aircraft carriers will be worth the extra debt. But the debt/gdp ratio will still be within what's been a manageable level for developed countries. 

16 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

We are watching the decline of the USA, and if there is not an immediate and significant shift in fiscal policy, the end of the USA as a leading world economic power.

Gloom, doom, and barf burgers. 

1 hour ago, gamb00ler said:

Since 2010, it has been running a cash-flow deficit.

That's the key to this whole argument. That the SS trust fund has been amassing Treasury IOU credits via interest IOUs -- is a nice accounting gesture -- making payouts between 2010 and 2021 seem like a non event, as the trust fund actually increased in value. Why? Well, SS had to make up for the cash deficit, ie, cash benefit payouts exceeding cash pay ins -- by finally cashing in those Treasury IOUs for real, touchy feely, payable to beneficiaties -- cash!  But incoming interest IOUs exceeded this amount -- until 2021.

And the result was -- that the Treasury had to raid the general tax fund, or sell more bonds to China for real cash, to obtain that cash to pay for those SS Trust fund cashed-in IOUs. And the result was an increase in the Federal deficit.

But, holy smoke -- that huge SS trust fund, even reduced by cashed in IOUs -- earned more interest IOUs than the IOUs necessarily cashed in. This between 2010 and 2021. So, it looked like the SS trust fund was solvent up until 2021. And this is what you mistakenly maintain. You've been hoodwinked by an accounting mechanism. Any MBA knows cash flow accounting, not financial accounting, is how you look at reality.

Anyway, way too much time wasted on this. A Google search of "ss cash deficit" will give better explanations than I can.

And, I alluded to your Canadian connection. Any meaningful comparisons of US SS with the Canadian equivalent? That might be enlightening.

Cheers.

9 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

For heaven's sake --- you want SS trust funds in cash???    that's the craziest notion ever from you

I think you've lost the gist of this discussion. Perhaps it's time to go back to Canada. 

4 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

The OASI trust fund peaked in 2021 at 2.71 trillion.

Only in IOUs -- not in cash.

On 5/29/2025 at 11:01 PM, TedG said:

Sorry dude.  I'm  right and you are 100% wrong. 

 

Yep.

On 5/31/2025 at 7:45 AM, gamb00ler said:

There is also no budgetary relationship between the Treasury and the SS funds.  The US federal budget does not include any income or expenditure related to the SS trust funds.

 

So your claim that the Federal government is borrowing from itself is obviously false except in your make believe world.

Actually, the US Federal budget has to pay back those IOUs held by the SS Trust Fund, which it's been doing since 2010, when the SS Trust Fund finally reached a negative cash flow situation. And prior to that, the Fed govt certainly was borrowing from itself, when it absorbed the excess cash collected by the SS Fund, and traded it for IOUs. 

On 5/30/2025 at 10:20 PM, gamb00ler said:

do you need help to spot the only difference between A and B?

 

Yeah, the Chinese get cash; the SS Trust Fund gets an IOU for the money now headed for the builder of the Ford class aircraft carrier -- plus another IOU for annual interest. Real money vs. an accounting gimmick. 

On 5/29/2025 at 11:00 PM, TedG said:

But that's no reason to ignore the serious fiscal issues with America's main retirement program. Since 2010, it has been running a cash-flow deficit—meaning that the Social Security payroll taxes the government collects aren't enough to cover the benefits it's obliged to pay out. That should have been a signal that the time had come to look at reform.

Indeed. The whole SS program is a cash flow entity -- pay-as-you-go with collected cash; any surplus cash is loaned to the Treasury to buy aircraft carriers, in exchange for an IOU; money from taxes collected on SS benefits paid also go to the Treasury, in exchange for an IOU. And interest on this whole conglomeration in the Trust fund is credited annually to the Trust fund -- solely as IOUs. 

This whole thing is an accounting entity. Thus, with IOUs from interest, the Trust fund has a positive balance that says the Fund was solvent until 2021. But it's IOUs -- NOT cash -- that allowed for this accounting picture. Thus, the Fund went broke in 2010, when cash out exceeded cash in. Simple. So, don't let the accounting slight-of-hand lead you astray: IOUs are not the same as cash. 

Actually, we could discard the whole Trust Fund concept -- again, it's only an accounting gimmick, so we can see the comparison of cash taxes collected against cash benefit payouts. Why not just have SS as a line item on the annual Congressional budget -- to be covered, like all the other line items, with general tax collections. Then, if there's an overrun in outlays -- like what usually happens with most line items in a Congressional budget -- eat the overrun, like you'd do with F-35s -- and then just add that to all the others, in the annual budget overrun figure (and kick the can down the road, like we always have -- why make SS any different from any other "must pay" govt programs....?)

On 5/29/2025 at 11:00 PM, TedG said:

But that's no reason to ignore the serious fiscal issues with America's main retirement program. Since 2010, it has been running a cash-flow deficit—meaning that the Social Security payroll taxes the government collects aren't enough to cover the benefits it's obliged to pay out. That should have been a signal that the time had come to look at reform.

Indeed. The whole SS program is a cash flow entity -- pay-as-you-go with collected cash; any surplus cash is loaned to the Treasury to buy aircraft carriers, in exchange for an IOU; money from taxes collected on SS benefits paid also go to the Treasury, in exchange for an IOU. And interest on this whole conglomeration in the Trust fund is credited annually to the Trust fund -- solely as IOUs. 

This whole thing is an accounting entity. Thus, with IOUs from interest, the Trust fund has a positive balance that says the Fund was solvent until 2021. But it's IOUs -- NOT cash -- that allowed for this accounting picture. Thus, the Fund went broke in 2010, when cash out exceeded cash in. Simple. So, don't let the accounting slight-of-hand lead you astray: IOUs are not the same as cash. 

Actually, we could discard the whole Trust Fund concept -- again, it's only an accounting gimmick, so we can see the comparison of cash taxes collected against cash benefit payouts. Why not just have SS as a line item on the annual Congressional budget -- to be covered, like all the other line items, with general tax collections. Then, if there's an overrun in outlays -- like what usually happens with most line items in a Congressional budget -- eat the overrun, like you'd do with F-35s -- and then just add that to all the others, in the annual budget overrun figure (and kick the can down the road, like we always have -- why make SS any different from any other "must pay" govt programs....?)

12 hours ago, oldcpu said:

If one can not afford health insurance, and/or wants to gamble on staying healthy and never wanting to spend a cent on health insurance, then the LTR visa is not the visa to choose and the Type-O makes more sense.

You don't need insurance for the LTR visa either. Just $100k in the bank, for at least 12 months prior to LTR application. 

https://aseannow.com/topic/1323316-ltr-health-insurance-self-insurance-with-us100000-bank-deposit/

19 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

the woman ordered food and drinks but could not pay

If she's a sex worker, easy to see why she has no income. And I guess that insisting a black person has to pay for their meal -- means Thailand hasn't signed up to the Black Lives Matter mantra. Sigh. 

8 hours ago, Jingthing said:

So the ultimate question is if applied consistently would Thai Revenue accept LAST IN, FIRST OUT as a legitimate accounting method in such cases? Or not?

According to an article in the Bangkok Post, yes. In your situation, a fungible pot of money equates to scriptless securities. Once you pick LIFO, you're supposed to consistently stick with that accounting method. Sounds like no problem in your situation, since FIFO wouldn't make any sense, since all the earlier money is SS, where timing makes no difference as to its taxability.

Quote

For scripless securities, the taxpayer is allowed to use any acceptable accounting method such as FIFO, LIFO or weighted average method in calculating cost of securities.

- Once any of the accounting methods is used for calculation of cost basis, such method has to be used consistently.

https://www.bangkokpost.com/business/general/299691/when-the-revenue-department-changes-its-mind-the-taxpayer-gets-the-headache

On 5/20/2025 at 3:09 PM, craig letvin said:

I'm considering getting my LTR VISA-  can anyone suggest a good place to go that will basically do everything for me?

 

What any agent can't do for you -- is take your passport to BoI in Bangkok to finalize matters, and to pay your 50k, and get you new visa stamp from the co-located Immigration. This must be done in person. So, if you live upcountry -- pack your bags. But an agent can do your annual residence report, without you having to go to Bangkok, or to your local Imm office.

5 minutes ago, oldcpu said:

In a remitted taxation system, the Revenue Department nominally only wants to know about foreign remitted income that it can tax. A global tax system wants to know about all of one's global income. 

Actually, if we go to a global tax system, Thailand still won't want to know about income it cannot tax -- like my US govt pension and Social Security. Those figures need not ever be introduced into a Thai tax return -- at least for now, where they're not interested in non assessable income.

9 minutes ago, oldcpu said:

I asked because I looked , and I spotted NO SUCH PLACE.

 

If there is such a place, it might be helpful to many on this forum.  And if there is no such place, then while you have good intentions, you are simply incorrect.

Incorrect -- and good intentions questionable.

6 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

The individual needs to self assess if he is above or below the filing thresholds

If he self-assesses that the remitted income is non assessable -- why in the world would he have to assess if he's above or below the filing thresholds? Get a grip, man.

5 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

That would be up to the Individual to supply the evidence of why they are claiming an exemption / tax credit / any other.

You mean up to the individual to self assess why he's omitting certain income from his tax return because he's determined that it is non assessable.

Hard to reconcile that with your:

Quote

Section 40:of the Revenue code dictates what is assessable income

I think you've lost the bubble. Maybe a good night's sleep might help.