jayboy

OK but this wasn't clear from your post.So you are just talking about retired expats earning $ 500,000 minimum current income.People at this wealth level are likely to have cash/stock/shares amounting to several times current income all incurred before the key date of 31.12.2023.Thus on the remittance system they wont have much to worry about. If, looking beyond 2024, tax on worldwide income becomes a reality in Thailand the situation changes and it could of course likely involve income tax being paid in Thailand for this wealthy group.Whether the net amount will be greater than that tax paid in the home country is not certain: it might even be less if a DTA works in their favour.I don't see the advantage of an off shore company. Nobody with an ounce of business experience believes that.Tax planning involves considering all factors and implementing ways of minimizing tax paid within the law.We are not dealing with shady people here ie Pattaya mobsters and the like (at least I'm not). Anyway these people won't be taking advice from the likes of you and me, or from the dodgy chancers presenting "seminars" on the subject in the less salubrious expat ghettos.

They are precisely the ones that will not leave. If you are referring to those that are employed here they will almost certainly already be paying Thai income tax.In the higher earning categories many employers pay tax on their employees behalf as part of the remuneration package. If you are referring to wealthy expatriates with overseas income these are exactly the people who already will have professional support (accountants. lawyers) to minimize tax payable whether in Thailand or overseas as part of their overall tax planning.The latest wrinkle will be easily absorbed. The wealthy expatriates will not leave Thailand if this is where they have decided to stay.

Not in my case.UK Police confirmation was enough.

I see I need to spell it out for you. You were referring with approval to the fact the vast majority of MPs are state educated because this reflects the experience of most Brits. My position is not to disagree but to emphasize the greater importance of attracting high quality people.If they come from independent schools - rated internationally as excellent - it matters not a jot.It's not a party political issue since there are mediocre state educated products on all sides.

Silly comment.Tell it to Attlee and Churchill, not to mention Tony Benn.

If they are the most talented and effective, I have no problem with that at all.But I don't think diversity in itself is as important as many claim. We don't rate diversity as top priority when we consider an airline pilot or a surgeon.Why should it be different with politicians? If you can't grasp the point, I don't think I can help you with that.

I don't understand why Parliament should reflect the populace at large? Should it include the national percentage of stupid or fat people? Shouldn't it reflect the very best - the brightest and talented.Why should there be in particular a bias against the independently educated? I don't get it.

There are loads of Brits in Pattaya - some decent, some intelligent, some scummy, some entertaining and some dangerous to know.But there is a common factor which unites them all - not one speaks English with received pronunciation or is in the upper/upper middle class demographic. On reflection I suppose there may be a few such types tucked away but they are a tiny minority.As far as Pattaya is concerned the Brit population is overwhelmingly plebeian.

Point taken.That wasn't the focus of his question. In my hypothetical example I did not envisage any breach of assessable income level since there was no assessable income remitted.

If I understood the post correctly, his hypothetical case involved non assessable income, and the likely consequences of not filing a return in respect of it.As you suggest, there are quite a few reasons why the RD would not bother following up.What I would want to know is more detail on the penalties in the event of RD focusing on the case and determining a return should have been filed.If those penalties are minimal (and of course based on the assumption no tax was due), then in my opinion the risk - always tiny - was worth taking.I also would hazard a guess that most reputable tax advisers would share my opinion, particularly since there is no suggestion of tax evasion or even tax avoidance.

You raise an interesting point and please excuse me if I slightly digress.Many people come to Thailand, often complaining of their home country restrictions and experience a liberating sense of freedom often misinterpreting Thai pragmatism with a sense of anything goes.They are completely wrong since Thailand at heart is quite a conservative country and applies its laws in a distinctly non pragmatic way.

In other words it's a subjective matter on which common sense and judgement needs to be exercised.

I must have missed that - could you please provide the reference.Many thanks.

A post which began sensibly enough and then descended into nonsense.

Are Nokia phones of the non smart variety - just able to phone and text - available in Thailand?

It's very important we should apply the principle of diversity through all sectors of employment, not just media related.For example we should focus in on the medical and aviation professions where for too long the emphasis in recruitment/hiring has been on merit and potential - thus reinforcing the white male patriarchy.It seems to me we should accept the downside that would be incurred through a more progressive approach to recruitment, ideally with quotas for different ethnicities (not Asians of course - too intelligent and merit oriented) as well as LGBTQ allocations.The most important criterion is diversity not merit. and we should shake off the last century adherence to outdated concepts like professional excellence.

At the risk of stating the obvious, knowing your tax ID/TIN number is not the same thing as having that number registered with the RD. Whether non registration would represent more than a minor administrative blip when filing a return, I have no idea.

Tattoos tend not to age well. As the years go by, skins wrinkle, tastes change, and even the boldest tattoos begin to blur and fade. Those who use their flesh as message boards can be left stranded in time. Apart from the more obvious dangers of dirty needles leading to infections or blood poisoning, tattoos are often offensive on purely aesthetic grounds. Brits have never been known as a particularly visually aware or adept people, but the sheer uglification of public spaces by tattoos is reaching intolerable levels. Those who prowl the streets with hideous inky splodges crawling up their thick necks are not a pretty sight. These are not the picturesquely decorated heroes of Moby Dick or jolly Jack Tars with tales of Tangiers and Trafalgar: they are making a visual statement of their own crass stupidity.

Tattoos do have one useful purpose, however: they silently tell us that the wearer is a moron without putting us to the trouble of speaking to them to verify that fact.

Oh dear

I'm no more a Reform enthusiast than you but it's worth noting they obtained 14.5% of the vote.Under a proportional representation (PR) system they would have won about 90 seats.The same point applies to the Greens who won 6.8% of the vote and therefore under a PR system would have won about 44 seats.Oddly enough the Liberal Democrats who have been persistent champions of PR have won almost exactly the same number of seats as warranted by their vote share. Your comment on despicable corporate media makes no sense.No media outlet has suggested Reform are posed to take power

Taxable - assuming the transmitted cash was not from savings incurred prior to 31.12.2023.If the latter then not taxable - but be sure to maintain records. Theoretically taxable if you are paying off with current income.If you are using the same bank as the one you make transfers to Thailand, that tightens the noose a little. In practice of course no entirely sane person would declare B) on a Thai income tax return.

I have a foreign credit card and I have recently used it to purchase a return air ticket from Bangkok to Singapore.I shall probably use the same card for my hotel as well.The cost will be debited next month to my foreign bank account.That account is not funded by current earnings and is made up entirely of savings made prior to the end of last year.If I complete a Thai tax return for 2024 - and I might not - should I include payment of the costs of my trip as assessable income? I am not looking to use the card as a means of avoiding Thai tax, and generally speaking such expenditure is a very small element of my total expenditure in Thailand.

That may well be the case now but in the 1960's and before many expatriate Brits were of the patrician or upper middle class and had made a deliberate choice to live in Siam.There was certainly no question of them lacking confidence or not being thoroughly at home in British society.They were also at home in upper class and highly educated Thai circles.They had nothing in common with the current British Pattaya oriented expat community - whom they would have regarded as an alien life form.

Some facts 1.Thailand has always attracted slightly odd foreigners, many with outstanding talents but uncomfortable with their lives in the West 2.The numbers of foreigners have increased hugely over the last forty years or so. The profile has also changed essentially from upper middle class to lower middle class and working class.The numbers from what used to be called the criminal class has also increased.