jayboy

15 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The appropriate reaction to the Hamas crimes should have been to go to the ICJ and ICC and to attempt to apprehend and prosecute as many as possible without any loss to c!vilian life.

Your proposed "solution" would not solve anything as well you know. It seems you are a pacifist, a perfectly honourable position but not mine.

22 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Not even a tip of the hat to the 20 odd thousand dead Palestinian civilians? While the terrorist massacre was indeed unspeakably horrific and should never be forgotten or forgiven, it is now a matter of history. What isn't history are the ongoing war crimes in gaza. Perhaps that's why one tends to focus more on current events?

This is like someone in 1945 saying saying the Pearl Harbour attack in 1941 was a very unfortunate event which cannot be excused - but that it is all in the past and we should concentrate on the sufferings of the Japanese population perpetrated by American genocidal maniacs.

This type of poster, not necessarily malevolent, curses the Israelis but never ever ventures to suggest what should have been the appropriate response to the Hamas crimes.

8 hours ago, pegman said:

Tough to have much sympathy for these pro genocide zionist students when compared with what is happening in Palestine.

Tough to have much sympathy with this peculiar combination of ignorance, stupidity, racism and muddled thinking.

On 2/29/2024 at 8:11 PM, Mike Lister said:

I haven't watched the video and don't intend to

What an odd comment.It only takes a few minutes and as far as I know it's the only briefing that has been given by a senior source in the Revenue Department.

13 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

I've no idea who the person in the video is

The video makes it very clear that the person is a senior legal expert from the Thai Revenue Department.

7 hours ago, Sydebolle said:

The ambassador's 15 minutes of fame; something to show back to his ministerial boss on how proactive and busy he is. 

What a pointless comment.In my opinion the ambassador did an excellent job.I

4 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

You do know that is the most rabidly right wing piece of crap on British TV right?

I'm not sure there is a "right wing" position on this issue.In fact many "right wingers" have argued that it is wrong to deny this woman her rights and privileges as a British citizen.It doesn't mean they have any sympathy for this woman but they dislike the concept of a powerful state which ignores ancient constitutional principles.Actually the proponents of a powerful interfering nanny state are usually to be found on the "left."

4 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

 

Nothing has replaced the British legal process, hence this case is still ongoing appeal after appeal at the expense of the British taxpayer,

You and many others on this forum have ignored the great point of principle at stake here.It is perfectly possible to hold this individual in contempt and yet insist she has a right to her nationality.Some will be surprised by the author of what follows.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/shamima-begum-shouldnt-have-lost-her-british-citizenship/

Jonathan Sumption, former Justice of the Supreme court and one of the smartest legal brains in the country, demolishes the argument that the UK can cast its obligations aside in this case.

" By statute, the home secretary cannot deprive a person of British citizenship if it would render them stateless. The person must have citizenship of at least one other country. When the decision was made, in 2019, Ms Begum was 19. She was a citizen of Bangladesh, but only in the most technical sense. She had provisional citizenship until she was 21, when it would lapse unless she took it up. This was because her parents were born there. But she has never been to Bangladesh. She has no links with the country. And Bangladesh has disowned her. Her Bangladeshi citizenship always was a legal fiction."

16 hours ago, proton said:

 

Campbell is a nurse not a medical Dr, his opinion is no better than anyone else's

Read his Wikipedia page.It's quite an eye opener.

1 hour ago, jacob29 said:

Someone with high income on the other hand. I believe they're the people who are primarily concerned. 

High income types (lets use the LTR definition of $ 80,000 per year though I think that's on the low side) are very few in the expatriate retired category.Those that are usually aren't residents for more than half the year and in any case are sophisticated people who have decent tax advice. I doubt whether they are particularly concerned because unlike typical pensioners, can easily structure their remittance from pre-2024 wealth and hence non-taxable.

1 hour ago, jacob29 said:

I expect a lot of people will rather take your comment to mean funding most to all your expenses with ATM withdrawals

Then they assume wrong.I was thinking primarily of the use of foreign credit cards for Thailand related goods and services - hotels, flights and the like.For the rather sad thought of some pensioners using ATMs to fund Thailand expenses, I doubt whether most of these will be filing tax returns at all.By definition they will be at the lower end of the income scale.It is anyway at this stage just nonsense to suggest using ATMs will carry any kind of risk.This is a tourist economy, remember?

2 minutes ago, MPoll said:

What else is there to say?

Congratulations on making an astute decision.

The LTR visa is looking like a smart decision by those who qualify - particularly from a tax perspective.

I would be interested to know how many people have been able to avail themselves (ie actually succeeded in obtaining) the "wealthy pensioner" category which requires assured income of at least US$ 80,000 p.a. From the BOI perspective all the other LTR categories make sound sense in terms of fulfilling the strategy of attracting expats who can add value.But the 'wealthy pensioner" category doesn't seem to me to make much sense or even belong in the programme at all given the comparatively low financial bar * to entry.I think those who have qualified in this category should congratulate themselves.My hunch is that prospective new entrants in the future might well find this route blocked.

* Please don't respond by claiming $ 80,000 is already a very high sum.It's not for a "wealthy pensioner" but debate on this subject - at least on this forum - is pointless.

6 hours ago, jacob29 said:

It depends on your risk tolerance. If you're hit with an audit, and you're asked how you fund your living expenses - that's when things may get awkward for people who officially have indicated 0 taxable income.

 

Once again common sense is needed.We are talking in the main about retired expatriates on average to low incomes.It is almost inconceivable that the Thai RD will be hitting this category with audits.So we start from that base.Even in the hypothetical case of an audit there would be no repercussions from the occasional use of a foreign credit card - not least because it would not necessarily show up in any audit trail.

If all resident retirees were compelled to submit income tax returns, the matter might be worth reviewing again - but even then the risk in my view is negligible.

On this forum there are a great many people who are understandably concerned.There's are a lot of information which should in most instances reassure them - and we will have to see how the next year pans out.

3 minutes ago, JoseThailand said:

When I hear the word "covid" I wanna puke. Enough is enough!

You may have finished with Covid.But has it finished with you?

3 hours ago, JimGant said:

If this cash flow came from pre 2024 savings, or from DTA exempted income, it's not assessable income. But nobody's going to parse this cash flow to determine what it is, or isn't. It will be you, the tax resident, to parse this cash flow.

 

I was wondering whether it will be necessary to isolate the interest earned on pre-2024 savings.Most people with cash holdings tend to roll up the interest and capital on maturity of the deposit's term.Under the new dispensation pre 2024 savings are not taxable and indeed apparently do not even have to be declared on a Thai tax return if remitted.But the interest component is surely taxable and would be difficult to disentangle.

On 1/27/2024 at 5:08 PM, Mike Lister said:

the media has been letting everyone know, in no uncertain terms, that they are now required to comply with the tax rules and that they will no longer be ignored

Not sure the media in Thailand has done a decent job in explaining the issues.In contrast the top Bangkok based firms have been helpful.For example

https://www.mazars.co.th/Home/Insights/Doing-Business-in-Thailand/Tax/Revenue-Department-s-guidance-on-foreign-income

Interesting to note the Mazars view based on RD announcements that income earned before 2024 does NOT have to be declared on tax return.Don't think this has been dealt with specifically on this forum.

I'm not sure how interest on cash deposits arranged before 2024 would be treated.I suppose it's just another reminder to ensure comprehensive records are kept in case RD has any questions.

Still not sure whether tax resident who funds entirely from non taxable pre-2024 sources needs to file a return at all.

On 2/2/2024 at 11:17 AM, bkk6060 said:

bad attitudes, fat, and weird hangups

To be frank this often applies to the sex tourists who visit Pattaya

16 minutes ago, impulse said:

Hard to tell what caliber they'll be without speaking to them... 

From their <deleted>ty corporate websites, one can hazard a guess

47 minutes ago, impulse said:

I'd take the drive from BKK to HH if I was in country that day...  Though I'm sure some BKK tax lawyers will do similar evenings.

Would you? I looked at the respective  corporatewebsites of the speakers at this event - deeply unimpressive and , though I could be wrong, likely to be the usual bottom feeders on bewildered foreigners.

I would suggest rely on the tried and tested Bangkok firms - Mazars, Price Waterhouse etc