52 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

How about this?

My country has a DTA with Thailand. My pension is the equivalent of about 400K Thai baht.
I don't pay any income tax on it, because it is below the threshold for income tax in my country.

In Thailand the threshold is only 150K, so what if I send my pension every year to Thailand?

It depends on which country your pension (not you) is from & what it says in the DTA between there & Thailand...

E.g. If it was UK (assuming it's not a government pension) then you would need to pay tax on the whole amount minus any tax already paid in the UK (In your example None) if your pension is from somewhere like Canada then it can only be taxed in Canada so no tax to pay irrespective of whether you've paid tax in Canada or not.

3 minutes ago, SamSpade said:

It depends on which country your pension (not you) is from & what it says in the DTA between there & Thailand...

E.g. If it was UK (assuming it's not a government pension) then you would need to pay tax on the whole amount minus any tax already paid in the UK (In your example None) if your pension is from somewhere like Canada then it can only be taxed in Canada so no tax to pay irrespective of whether you've paid tax in Canada or not.

My country is Belgium and all pensions are paid by the government

10 hours ago, CallumWK said:

My country is Belgium and all pensions are paid by the government

I know nothing about Belgium pensions but to use the UK as an example of where the Government pays a pension to (almost) everybody, there is a difference between a "Pension Paid by the Government" (E.g. the UK State Pension) and a "Pension Earned Whilst Working for the Government" (E.g. Public services, Military etc...) with the former being Tax Assessable if remitted to Thailand and the latter exempt.

A quick look at the Belgium-Thailand DTA (https://www.rd.go.th/english/2558.html), Article 18 covers any pension earned whilst working for the Government wouldn't be taxable & Article 17 covers other Pensions (Private or State) which would be tax assessable...

ARTICLE 17
Pensions

 

1.         Subject to the provisions of Article 18, pensions or other remuneration for past employment arising in a Contracting State and paid to a resident of the other Contracting State may be taxed in the first - mentioned State.

2.         Pensions or other remuneration for past employment shall be deemed to arise in a Contracting State if the payer is that State itself, a political subdivision or local authority or a resident of that State. Where, however, the person paying such income, whether he is a resident of a Contracting State or not, has in a Contracting State a permanent establishment, and such income is borne by the permanent establishment, then the income shall be deemed to arise in the Contracting State in which the permanent establishment is situated.

 

 

ARTICLE 18
Government service

 

1.         (a)        Remuneration, other than a pension, paid by a Contracting

                         State or a political subdivision or a local authority thereof to

                         any individual in respect of services rendered to that state or

                         subdivision or local authority thereof shall be taxable only in

                         that State.

            (b)        However, such remuneration shall be taxable only in the

                         other Contracting State if the services are rendered in that

                         State and the recipient is a resident of that State who:

                         (1)        is a national of that  State; or

                         (2)        did not become a resident of that State solely for the

                                      purpose of performing the services.

2.         (a)        Any pension paid by, or out of funds created by, a Contracting

                         State or a political subdivision or a local authority thereof to

                         any individual in respect of services rendered to that State or 

                         subdivision or local authority thereof shall be taxable only in

                         that State.

            (b)        However, such pension shall be taxable only in the other

                         Contracting State if the recipient is a national of and a

                         resident of that State.

4 minutes ago, SamSpade said:

A quick look at the Belgium-Thailand DTA (https://www.rd.go.th/english/2558.html), Article 18 covers any pension earned whilst working for the Government wouldn't be taxable & Article 17 covers other Pensions (Private or State) which would be tax assessable...

Thanks and sorry for the misunderstanding about government pension. I never worked for the government

I had a look at it myself yesterday, and my pension is not due any income tax in Belgium because of the amount being below the threshold, so if I send it to Thailand, I will be taxed on everything above 150K Thai baht.

So Belgium is where my pension will remain.

On another note, I have an account with a significant balance in Belgium, and where the last movement, other than interest accumulation, was before January 2024.

So do I understand correctly from the OP that I can send the balance of that account to Thailand without paying income tax on it?

To make clear, my pension payments started January 2024 and are deposited in a different account.

Just now, CallumWK said:

Thanks and sorry for the misunderstanding about government pension. I never worked for the government

I had a look at it myself yesterday, and my pension is not due any income tax in Belgium because of the amount being below the threshold, so if I send it to Thailand, I will be taxed on everything above 150K Thai baht.

So Belgium is where my pension will remain.

On another note, I have an account with a significant balance in Belgium, and where the last movement, other than interest accumulation, was before January 2024.

So do I understand correctly from the OP that I can send the balance of that account to Thailand without paying income tax on it?

To make clear, my pension payments started January 2024 and are deposited in a different account.

Check your allowances, you have at least the 60K personal allowance (if you're married and your wife does not work you can have her 60K as well) & if you're >65 you get another 190K "Age Based" allowance, add this to the 1st 150K being "Taxed at 0%" and you may find that you can bring the 400K over with no tax...

Yes, any savings in a Bank account as at 31/12/2023 can be brought in without Tax, however as with everything to do with Thailand/Tax it's not that straightforward as they operate on FIFO (First In First Out).

So if you had 100K in your account as at 31/12/2023 but have since spent 60K of that replenshing it as your income has come in, then the available amount is 40K not 100K.

There's a long thread on here covering the Personal allowances (TEDA)... https://aseannow.com/topic/1324294-introduction-to-personal-income-tax-in-thailand/#comment-18822996

5 minutes ago, SamSpade said:

Yes, any savings in a Bank account as at 31/12/2023 can be brought in without Tax, however as with everything to do with Thailand/Tax it's not that straightforward as they operate on FIFO (First In First Out).

So if you had 100K in your account as at 31/12/2023 but have since spent 60K of that replenshing it as your income has come in, then the available amount is 40K not 100K.

Thanks for the clarification about the allowances.

Though the above is not clear to me.

The money in the savings account in Belgium hasn't had any movements since end 2023, other than interests been added yearly. In 2023 I didn't earn a pension yet, and pensions earned since 2024 are deposited in a current account, and eventually moved to other deposit accounts.

So far I didn't transfer any of my pension to Thailand.

3 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

Thanks for the clarification about the allowances.

Though the above is not clear to me.

The money in the savings account in Belgium hasn't had any movements since end 2023, other than interests been added yearly. In 2023 I didn't earn a pension yet, and pensions earned since 2024 are deposited in a current account, and eventually moved to other deposit accounts.

So far I didn't transfer any of my pension to Thailand.

Then all of the money in the savings account (excluding interest earned on it since 1/1/24) is not tax assessable when you bring it over :)

18 hours ago, JimGant said:

Interesting. What country are you from?

One which doesn't have a DTA that covers my private pension. And my pension is small enough not to attract any tax. The only reason I file a return in recent years is to claim a refund of withholding tax on Thai bank interest.

22 hours ago, CallumWK said:

My country is Belgium and all pensions are paid by the government

My view is it behooves all expats who may remit income (from abroad) to Thailand, should be aware of the DTA of their income source country with Thailand. I think there is more than one thread specific to the taxation aspects of income from different specific countries. For example, I did my best in contributing to a thread in regards to the Thailand-Canada DTA here:

Those from other countries, if there is not already a thread on one's country, one could consider starting such a thread (for a specific country) to share information.

On 1/16/2025 at 4:47 AM, ChasingTheSun said:

It is easy for immigration to require a tax ID for all 90 day renewals.

 

Once they have your tax Id they will monitor your Thailand bank accounts and your tax returns or lack thereof, and flag you at your next 90 day immigration appointment if they think something is fishy with your tax filings.

 

🍺

On 1/16/2025 at 7:31 AM, Badrabbit said:

Where do I go to get help with this which isn't going to cost an arm and a leg, the tax office doesn't seem to care or are not bothered.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it......if they are not bothered why should you care

Just came from the Revenue office in Sangkha. Took my Thai tax return with all pages, and my US tax return showing I paid tax there. He looked at everything, went called his boss (whoever) and came back and told me (and the wife) I don have to file anything here because I paid tax in the US. If anyone ask about taxed just show them my US tax return.

The last time I looked at any tax deductions in Thailand, I qualified for the following:

• 60 baht for myself

• 190,000 baht being over 65 years of age

• 100,000 baht for pension

• first 150,000 baht not taxed

That comes to 500,000 baht in deductions before I consider that all of my US Social Security is not taxable.

I doubt that I will ever cross the 1 million baht threshold in any year unless the exchange rate goes to hell.

And of course, Thailand could change how they calculate everything. TIT.

3 hours ago, Ricohoc said:

I doubt that I will ever cross the 1 million baht threshold in any year unless the exchange rate goes to hell.

Yet another I am all right jack post. Lucky you....

What about all the others who spend more............🙄

27 minutes ago, topt said:

What about all the others who spend more............🙄

It depends how much more. If you fall in the much much more category you should be able to financially structure yourself and/or afford an LTR visa in order to not pay legally any tax in Thailand.

1 hour ago, Yumthai said:

It depends how much more. If you fall in the much much more category you should be able to financially structure yourself and/or afford an LTR visa in order to not pay legally any tax in Thailand.

Sorry but what about the ones who fall in the middle - or cannot prove 80k or whatever it is ongoing.....Unfortunately there is a fairly big gap which is what I was referring to.

16 minutes ago, topt said:

Sorry but what about the ones who fall in the middle - or cannot prove 80k or whatever it is ongoing.....Unfortunately there is a fairly big gap which is what I was referring to.

There's no way that anyone could have known about drastic changes to the immigration policies here. When it's all said and done, we might all be put in a position to have to leave.

No matter how it looks today for some, we're all at their mercy.

8 hours ago, topt said:

Sorry but what about the ones who fall in the middle - or cannot prove 80k or whatever it is ongoing.....Unfortunately there is a fairly big gap which is what I was referring to.

The laborious and resilient middle-class you mention - mostly the vast majority of the population not only in Thailand but also in the developed and emerging economies - are the ones who pay taxes and finance the State governance. Not the poor (obviously), not the wealthy (less obvious but factual, an example being the LTR visa allowing tax-free remittances privilege for those who reach the wealth threshold conditions).

On 5/28/2026 at 7:13 AM, Yumthai said:

an example being the LTR visa allowing tax-free remittances privilege for those who reach the wealth threshold conditions

You gotta be joking, the 80 KUSD requirement for LTR/WP is stuck in the middle of the [struggling] middle class, far from any wealthy status.

4 minutes ago, Peter Crow said:

You gotta be joking, the 80 KUSD requirement for LTR/WP is stuck in the middle of the [struggling] middle class, far from any wealthy status.

The world is not US centered.

For the majority of people US$80K a year in passive income puts you among the wealthy or at the very least in the upper middle class.

Edited May 31May 31 by Yumthai

5 hours ago, Peter Crow said:

You gotta be joking, the 80 KUSD requirement for LTR/WP is stuck in the middle of the [struggling] middle class, far from any wealthy status.

I agree the LTR holders are not rich in the real sense. That's why they are in Thailand rather in Dubai or the Bahamas.

On 5/28/2026 at 7:13 AM, Yumthai said:

The laborious and resilient middle-class you mention - mostly the vast majority of the population not only in Thailand but also in the developed and emerging economies - are the ones who pay taxes and finance the State governance. Not the poor (obviously), not the wealthy (less obvious but factual, an example being the LTR visa allowing tax-free remittances privilege for those who reach the wealth threshold conditions).

I think it should be noted, that Just because one has an LTR visa, does not mean one does not pay taxes anywhere in the world. The LTR-WP and LTR-WGC do provide "Thailand specific" tax advantages, but dependent on one's income, in many cases so do Double Tax Agreements (DTAs) with ones income source country provide expats living in Thailand some tax advantages.

Paying taxes is a case by case aspect dependent on DTA content - and many of us on an LTR-WP (myself for example) still do pay taxes that finance the state governance in the country where our income comes from.

BoI, with the blessing of others in the Thai government, decided they wished to attract foreigners, with certain levels of income, to spend their money in Thailand. BoI (with support from the Thai government) presumably figured even thou they did not tax foreign remitted income, the LTR visa holders will benefit the Thai economy, by the money spending of these foreigners in Thailand, making this worth while. I am 100% certain you and others may disagree with the BoI choice, but that was and still is, the BoI assessment. if it was not the BoI assessment, BoI would stop the LTR visa program.

IMHO this is more balanced than what I quoted (from your post) might lead one to believe.

Edited May 31May 31 by oldcpu

31 minutes ago, oldcpu said:

I am 100% certain you and others may disagree with the BoI choice, but that was and still is, the BoI assessment. if it was not the BoI assessment, BoI would stop the LTR visa program.

IMHO this is more balanced than what I quoted (from your post) might lead one to believe.

I don't disagree with BOI choice (acknowledged by the Thai government anyway). LTR is certainly the best visa for long stay residents in Thailand who meet the financial requirements.

My point was just the more money you have, in any country, the more you have legal opportunities to mitigate and totally dismiss your tax burden.

Edited May 31May 31 by Yumthai

16 minutes ago, Yumthai said:

My point was just the more money you have, in any country, the more you have legal opportunities to mitigate and totally dismiss your tax burden.

I agree. Although I think we look at this a bit differently compared to the other.

The debate about who carries the 'tax burden' often misses the broader economic reality of how nations compete.

While it is true that the middle class forms the primary, stable tax base for most developed nations, this is largely because the middle classes economic activity is geographically 'fixed' — their jobs, homes, and daily lives are tied to a specific jurisdiction.

In contrast, high-net-worth individuals and mobile professionals possess 'liquid' capital, which is geographically 'footloose.' Governments that offer tax-mitigation strategies—like the Thailand LTR — are not doing so to grant special favors to individuals; they are engaging in international competition to attract mobile capital from the wealthy. These governments have identified that capital is a global resource, and they are essentially 'bidding' for that capital by offering a more attractive fiscal environment.

When a nation provides tax incentives, it is making a strategic calculation: it prefers a share of the economic activity (spending, investment, consumption) generated by that mobile capital, even if it forfeits a portion of the direct income tax. This isn't about 'fairness' in a domestic sense; it is about national economic policy competing in a global arena where capital naturally flows toward the path of least resistance.

At least that is my view here - and I believe that is what Thailand with the LTR-WP and LTR-WGC visas are trying to do. Thailand wants more of those who meet the LTR-WP and LTR-WGC category to retire/live in Thailand. Fortunately for many of us, who meet the LTR-WP category, while we would not be considered wealthy in most first world nations, but relatively to Thailand, we are very well off.

Edited May 31May 31 by oldcpu

14 hours ago, oldcpu said:

While it is true that the middle class forms the primary, stable tax base for most developed nations, this is largely because the middle classes economic activity is geographically 'fixed' — their jobs, homes, and daily lives are tied to a specific jurisdiction.

In other words, they are trapped so let's milk them till death.

That is why personal income tax is a subtle unfair system. Tax should mainly be levied on spending with progressive sales/VAT rates depending on goods/services necessity so that, in absolute number, wealthy will fairer contribute than the others.

3 hours ago, Yumthai said:

In other words, they are trapped so let's milk them till death.

That is why personal income tax is a subtle unfair system. Tax should mainly be levied on spending with progressive sales/VAT rates depending on goods/services necessity so that, in absolute number, wealthy will fairer contribute than the others.

I don't think "trapped" is quite the right description. Most middle-class people are not literally unable to move; rather, their economic and social ties make them less geographically mobile than highly paid professionals or people with substantial mobile capital.

As for replacing income tax with progressive VAT or sales taxes, there are practical challenges. A seller generally cannot know whether the person making a purchase is wealthy, middle class, or acting on behalf of someone else. That makes it difficult to apply different tax rates based on the buyer's wealth.

There's also a fairness question. Should two people pay different taxes on the same loaf of bread, medical treatment, or utility bill simply because one has a higher income? Many would argue that basic necessities should be taxed equally—or not taxed at all—while redistribution, if desired, is better handled through the income tax system.

Clearly there will be need for discussion on the ideal tax mix, but every system involves trade-offs between fairness, efficiency, simplicity, and enforceability.

As noted, recognizing the reality of the world today, BoI as part of an effort, to help Thailand, are trying to attract mobile capital to Thailand, from what BoI see as wealthy persons, via variants of the LTR visa.

It is also worth noting that LTR-WP and LTR-WGC visa holders are not exempt from Thailand's tax system. Like other residents, they remain subject to Thai tax on local Thai income that falls within Thailand's tax jurisdiction. The incentives are designed to attract mobile capital and talent, not to eliminate taxation altogether.

Edited June 1Jun 1 by oldcpu

1 hour ago, oldcpu said:

I don't think "trapped" is quite the right description. Most middle-class people are not literally unable to move; rather, their economic and social ties make them less geographically mobile than highly paid professionals or people with substantial mobile capital.

This is exactly what I meant. Middle class is trapped and less able to move mostly because of their social and economic background.

Meanwhile the most wealthy escape the tax system. The people who set the rules (and the legal workarounds) are obviously not among the poor or middle class.

1 hour ago, oldcpu said:

As for replacing income tax with progressive VAT or sales taxes, there are practical challenges. A seller generally cannot know whether the person making a purchase is wealthy, middle class, or acting on behalf of someone else. That makes it difficult to apply different tax rates based on the buyer's wealth.

It's not the sellers who set the VAT rates, government does applying different rates on essential (0% - low rates) vs non-essential products/services (higher rates).

1 hour ago, oldcpu said:

Should two people pay different taxes on the same loaf of bread, medical treatment, or utility bill simply because one has a higher income?

Loaf of bread, medical treatment, utilities and such should be categorized as essential.

13 minutes ago, Yumthai said:

This is exactly what I meant. Middle class is trapped and less able to move mostly because of their social and economic background.

Meanwhile the most wealthy escape the tax system. The people who set the rules (and the legal workarounds) are obviously not among the poor or middle class.

What tax system do the wealthy escape? Ultimately they too (or their estate) get taxed to a greater or lessor extent, dependent on how their exposure is managed. But they do get taxed.

The wealthy, have mobile capital that makes their capital of interest to governments around the world. Knowing the wealthy have liquidity in their funds to move such to different countries, different governments of the world, offer incentives for the wealthy to re-invest or spend their money in their country (instead of simply spending or re-investing the money in other countries), where those incentives result not only in less tax for the wealthy (which is what you note), but it also results in significant benefits to the countries where the wealthy reside and where the wealthy re-invest and spend their money. Such is the idea of BoI and the LTR-WP and LTR-WGC visas.

That spending of money, by the wealthy, ultimately benefits the country where the money is spent.

I think you agree, that VAT, while it may look attractive on the surface, is not a fool proof practical method to tax the wealthy more than what exists at present (such as a wealth tax on certain luxury items).

Further, once the wealthy decide to liquidate their assets, to enjoy the benefits of such to a significant degree, if they have no corresponding investment offsets, the wealthy will get clobbered with massive taxation. There are many such cases of the wealthy getting clobbered and paying high taxes, when they decide to use their massive assets for expenditures - where there are no means for them to 'tax deduct' against their asset liquidation.

Death and taxes. Neither can be avoided. Ultimately - even for the wealthy, it can't be avoided. This applies to LTR visa holders as well.

4 minutes ago, oldcpu said:

What tax system do the wealthy escape? Ultimately they too (or their estate) get taxed to a greater or lessor extent, dependent on how their exposure is managed. But they do get taxed.

Legal tools and structures exist to achieve 0% (estate) tax, including moving to a more favorable tax environment.

16 minutes ago, oldcpu said:

I think you agree, that VAT, while it may look attractive on the surface, is not a fool proof practical method to tax the wealthy more than what exists at present (such as a wealth tax on certain luxury items).

There is no perfect system. Practically, the more money you have the more you spend (except for the stingiest ones).

24 minutes ago, oldcpu said:

Further, once the wealthy decide to liquidate their assets, to enjoy the benefits of such to a significant degree, if they have no corresponding investment offsets, the wealthy will get clobbered with massive taxation. There are many such cases of the wealthy getting clobbered and paying high taxes, when they decide to use their massive assets for expenditures - where there are no means for them to 'tax deduct' against their asset liquidation.

Everybody makes mistakes. But again there are ways to plan and structure your finance and wealth transmission in order to substantially mitigate the tax impact.

2 hours ago, Yumthai said:

... there are ways to plan and structure your finance and wealth transmission in order to substantially mitigate the tax impact.

Boom.

Every time there is a new tax, the rewards to the government decrease over time because people adjust their habits to mitigate the tax. Foreigners are already doing it in various ways in anticipation of what may next come down the hill. The smart ones have a plan, and a Plan B and a Plan C.

On 6/1/2026 at 4:15 PM, Yumthai said:

Legal tools and structures exist to achieve 0% (estate) tax, including moving to a more favorable tax environment.

While true, there are also typically downsides for such. There is no 'free lunch' (as the saying goes).

On 6/1/2026 at 4:15 PM, Yumthai said:

There is no perfect system. Practically, the more money you have the more you spend (except for the stingiest ones).

Often the wealthy get wealthy, by being stingy, and they do not spend more money, despite having more money.

On 6/1/2026 at 4:15 PM, Yumthai said:

Everybody makes mistakes. But again there are ways to plan and structure your finance and wealth transmission in order to substantially mitigate the tax impact.

And anyone who has spent the time to look into such will know that these 'mitigation' strategies invariably come with a "downside", whether it be having to live in Country B (while one's preferred country is A), or whether it means a necessary re-investment (which nominally one would not do), or a necessary donation to some charity (which one would nominally not do) , ... or something else. In the vast majority of cases, a charity, or the public, in some fashion, benefit by the wealthy adopting a mitigation strategy. Of course the press doesn't mention that - its far easier to make villains of the wealthy who worked their butt off, and took the risks, to get where they are today.

Frankly - Death and Taxes. Can't be avoided - despite what the spinning press and those with less money are inclined to state and believe.