connda

Eat the bugs. That will fix it all.

Are the Gore's, Obama's, and Biden's ocean-front properties flooded yet by the "melting glaciers?" No. Didn't think so. "But but but - Asia!!! Asia is under water!!!" What? Now we're suppose to believe that the world is tilted and the melting glaciers are flooding Asia but not the East Coast of America? Ok - whatever. To paraphrase PT Barnum, "There is a sucker in every crowd."

Ditto. I love this. The "vaccine" that doesn't stop transmission is affecting global public health. "But it will keep you from getting hospitalized." Bunk - I never got the shots and Covid was a 4 day mild flu. If the "vaccine" was actually a "sterilizing vaccine" that stopped transmission there wouldn't be vaccine hesitancy. Instead, people take the shots and get Covid once, then maybe get it again, and then are told - "See, it kept you out of the hospital." What utterly flawed logic. They started off in 2020 and 2021 by having world leaders tell the population that "If you get the shots you won't get Covid." So people took the shot and -- got Covid. So now there are a lot of people who feel they have been lied to. And rightly so. To the Op. When they develop a sterilizing Covid vaccination (or sterilizing flu vaccination) that has long-term safety testing and is proven to stop transmission - I'll be first in line to take it.

But you already do. You pay 7% VAT on all sales and if you have a saving account the Thai government automatically extracts 15% of your earned interest. So - you already are paying taxes in Thailand. You may not pay "income taxes" but you do pay taxes.

Unfortunately if you read the US-Thai Dual-Tax Treaty it's based on how residency is interpreted. Well, except for Social Security which is only taxable by the US <period>. I wrote about it and included the DTA earlier in this thread. There are cases when Thailand gets first shot at taxing your US earned pension, as suckola as that may be. The easier method to bypass this madness is, imho, not to transfer any more than you can claim exemptions for. Bottom line - don't be a target.

Eat bugs, stay home and never drive again, and give GammaGlobulin half your income in carbon offsets (so he can buy and fly a private jet and buy some beachfront property next to Al Gore) and the Earth will be saved.

My favorite - stringing utility cable across roads at "neck high" for the average motorcyclist. I've seen it. It boggles the mind. Kills people every year too.

That's sucks. RIP.

Probably because Singapore is one of the most expensive places on Earth to live.

It's called "pollarding" and it is a common practice here in Thailand, especially with fruit trees like Lamyai.

This isn't Buddhism. It's really time for another purge of Thai Buddhism as there was during the reign of Rama IV.

Now there's a change of pace, 'eh?

Thai scientists discover snow fossil fuel pollution in Antarctica's soil There! Fixed it!

Yes - they are. Welcome to Thailand.

If you are using Linux Mint. Once this is set up it's Cntrl + Mouse Wheel.

For myself? My transferred funds will be well below the taxable threshold. So what I'll do is give my wife my bank books and tell her that all the taxes taken out of my bank accounts for tax on interest income is hers and then put her to work to retrieve it. She'll be like a pit-bull. Again - I have let all of that tax on interest income slide. I just declare the interest income on my US returns and let the Thai government keep what they withhold. However - now that they force me to file? Their loss. They'll end up giving my wife the money that I allow them to keep because I don't consider it worth the hassle to file the income tax paperwork. Make me file it? Ok - wife will get every satang that the Thai government takes out of my accounts. So for everyone here who has a bank account that accrues interest income? If you're forced to file tax returns for the ludicrous dog-and-pony show, then go claw back all your interest income. Especially if you are over 65 and retired. But remember to declare it on your home-country tax returns.

The Thai government is shooting themselves in the foot. How many foreigners are now going to defer or simply not make purchases they had planned to make? Thailand can chose to make it's money from foreigners in one of two ways: Sales taxes or income on remitted foreign funds. Start taxing remitted funds and foreigners stop buying and they keep their funds transfers under the tax threshold - so all the Thai government is doing is screwing itself out of foreign funds transfers as well as losing sales tax revenues. It's a lose-lose proposition. These are not the brightest bulbs in the box of light-bulbs. I absolutely understand 100% - Tax your own citizens. But start categorizing foreigners who have no rights to permanent live in Thailand or become citizens as "tax resident" and watch what happens in the long-term. They will lose tax revenues in the long-term.

I agree with you. So in that case, start looking at the US-Thai DTA for guidance. Actually I just looked at it. There is next to nothing regarding capital gains. Realistically, when you cash out a Roth, your brokerage isn't going to show an assessment for capital gains because they don't exist for a Roth IRA. So what are you showing on a brokerage balance sheet? A debit from a non-taxable account that doesn't show capital gains. The Thai Revenue department can only work with what you give them. Anyway - probably a good question for an accountant. I only have a traditional IRA. It will probably go to my wife when I die so I'll let her figure it out.

Yes sir I have. But that doesn't mean that I understand what it means and how to apply it correctly. Which is why I asked the question. "No such thing as a dumb question," right? As an ex-instructor (English, computer systems engineering), I always thought that way and urged my otherwise reticent students to speak up when they are confused or didn't understand something I presented. So thank you for the clarification. It's truly appreciated as is your efforts to take the lead to provide members of AN with this information. Kudos!

Just being Captain Obvious here, but if Thailand really wanted to collect tax revenue they would start with their own citizens. Honestly, outside of Thais who work for incorporated businesses and businesses who actually file income taxes (as many small Thai business do not - think massage shops) I personally don't know any Thais who file income taxes other than my son who has a corporate job and I'm sure they withhold taxes. Filing taxes is not exactly the first thing on the minds of people (poor villagers) who are making 300 to 500 THB per day (cash) doing day labor - like a lot of those in villages and even in cities. What they are thinking about is surviving day to day and making ends meet. So in a discussion on tax evasion, which here in Thailand is being so poor that driving to file your taxes is going to cost you a days wage which you can't really afford, the first place to start is with average Thais. Of course that would expand their tax base but at what social and political costs? It's much easier to just ramp up the VAT taxes, like the new VAT on foreign goods. So instead? Go for the deep pockets - foreigners whom you will never allow to be permanent residents or citizens, but still class as "tax residents" because - "Foreigners are rich!" Slightly off topic and yet, tax evasion is probably much more widespread than the Thai government is willing to let on. Just saying...

@Mike Lister So let me do a "back of a napkin" calculation to determine the top threshold of what I can theoretically remit to Thailand this year just using exemptions: Here are the exemptions listed from the article: a) Personal Allowance for self (PA1) - 60,000 b) Personal Allowance for wife (PA2) - 60,000 c) Over age 65 years exemption (OAE) - 190,000 d) 50% of pension income received, up to 100k (PD) - 100,000 e) In addition, the first 150,000 of assessable income is zero rated and free of tax (ZR) Am I missing anything here? The way I read it is that I can bring in upwards of 560,000 that is exempted income - in my case US pension income. Any flaws in my calculations? I'm I missing anything? Making assumptions that are incorrect?

Deleted

Anyone who places movie stars on a pedestal and worships their views need to have their head's examined.

Hello Dubai. Guess that isn't so "green", but it is very welcoming to the Uber-Riche. Or London. It's nice and green, well, when you can see through the fog.

I just reread the definitions and terms of the US-Thai DTA that are applicable to pensions. The language is explicit, but there is some contentious language: Article 3 Definitions h) the terms "a Contracting State" and "the other Contracting State" mean the United States or Thailand, as the context requires; i) the term "tax" means United States tax or Thai tax, as the context requires; ARTICLE 20 Pensions and Social Security Payments 1. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 21 (Government Service), pensions and other similar remuneration paid to a resident of a Contracting State in consideration of past employment shall be taxable only in that State. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1, social security benefits and other similar public pensions paid by a Contracting State to a resident of the other Contracting State or a citizen of the United States shall be taxable only in the first- mentioned State. So my Social Security is exempt (Article 20, 2.) The tax status of my US pension is interpreted as per "residence" and in my case I can be declared a "resident" of both the United States and Thailand. That is defined here under Article 4, Residence) Article 4 Residence 2. Where by reason of the provisions of paragraph 1, an individual is a resident of both Contracting States, then his status shall be determined as follows: a) he shall be deemed to be a resident of the State in which he has a permanent home available to him; if he has a permanent home available to him in both States, he shall be deemed to be a resident of the State with which his personal and economic relations are closer (center of vital interests); b) if the State in which he has his center of vital interests cannot be determined, or if he does not have a permanent home available to him in either State, he shall be deemed to be a resident of the State in which he has an habitual abode; c) if he has an habitual abode in both States or in neither of them, he shall be deemed to be a resident of the State of which he is a national; d) if he is a national of both States or of neither of them, the competent authorities of the Contracting States shall settle the question by mutual agreement. Now my US pension as per Article 20, 1) The sticky question is, where are you a resident? In my case, both the US and now according to Thailand I'm a "resident" of Thailand BUT only for taxation. So - which takes precedence? See below: (a) Bingo - I only have a permanent home in US. Read my visa stamp - I am only a visitor temporarily visiting my wife. And, my "personal and economic relations" are closer to the US: My permanent address for finances, taxation, ID, and voting is in the US, SSA and pension come from the US, my biological family is in the US, I am only a "temporary visitor" in Thailand, and if forced to leave Thailand, I will return to the US to my US "permanent home" to reside with my biological (US) family. (b) This is Non-applicable as I have a permanent home in the US so I'm deemed a resident of the US as per sub-paragraph (a). Sub-paragraph (a) superceded sub-paragraph (b). And as per sub-paragraph (a) I have no "Permanent Home" here in Thailand as I'm only a visitor, I only have a "Permanent Home" in the United States. (c) I have a habitual abode Thailand, but sub-paragraph (a) supercedes sub-paragraph (b) so sub-paragraph (c) is Non-applicable. And as a "visitor" is it actually my habitual abode? (d) Read that - which boils down to if there is a problem, then I go on a letter writing campaign. Possible problems: What takes precedence under Article 4, paragraph 2? I assume that (a) takes precedent over (b) which takes precedent over (c) which takes precedent over (d). There is a possible point of contention because it is not clearly defined. But they logically seem to be written in precedent order. And "Permanent Home" and "Habitual Abode" are not defined in Article 3: Definitions. They should be. That could be another point of contention. So for you US pensioners out there - this is the thought exercise you're going to individually need to do based on your own home-county's DTA. The tax experts aren't going to do it for you unless you pay them.