Benjamin arrives at the logical conclusion regarding taxes

[FlorC]

On 1/18/2025 at 1:52 PM, topt said:

Seems to vary as other posters have apparently got away with it. Plus there was this a month ago - 

 

Yes I know about that , but the dude at the road tax office said I had to pay it.

500 B for a red light is ok though.

[sandyf]

On 1/17/2025 at 10:13 PM, KhunHeineken said:

You are asking, "Why would they chase it?"  Perhaps you should be asking, "Why wouldn't they chase it?"  

The "why would they scenario" only applies to a certain part of the expat community. Certain visa types already have to provide tax information as part of the visa process,  others have tax exemption from their visa.

Why would they chase the Non O category when the chances are that they will get very little. In most cases it would be time and effort for no gain.

[KhunHeineken]

10 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

That's what I said

I remember when it was called "scaremongering" for saying it. 

 

It's an easy way for enforcement.  The Thai government would be aware how easy it would be to add this requirement.   

[sandyf]

21 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

 

Why do you think they are incapable of enforcing tax policy against foreigners also? 

That is too generalised a question.

HMRC told me I do  not need to file a tax return, they just collect the same tax every month.

Why would it be out of the question for the RD to have a similar policy?

I suspect the majority of pensioners have no liability so little point in making a return. Best advice is to wait for further clarification.

[KhunHeineken]

15 minutes ago, sandyf said:

The "why would they scenario" only applies to a certain part of the expat community. Certain visa types already have to provide tax information as part of the visa process,  others have tax exemption from their visa.

Why would they chase the Non O category when the chances are that they will get very little. In most cases it would be time and effort for no gain.

Not everyone on a Non O is on a pension living month to month.  

 

In any case, most pensions from around the world still go over the threshold, so they make money out of the pensioners, as well as other more wealthy retirees.   

[KhunHeineken]

4 minutes ago, sandyf said:

That is too generalised a question.

HMRC told me I do  not need to file a tax return, they just collect the same tax every month.

Why would it be out of the question for the RD to have a similar policy?

I suspect the majority of pensioners have no liability so little point in making a return. Best advice is to wait for further clarification.

How does the TRD know that a Non O visa holder is ONLY on a pension?

 

This why the tax is on the remittance, not the individual, and most pensions go over the threshold. 

[KhunHeineken]

8 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

Where did you get that idea from?

I work here and already pay tax every month. I won't have any problem to pay tax on my pension too.

It's not about if paying the tax is a problem, it's about what the Thai government can / may / will do if people do not pay tax.  

 

I've suggested no visa / extension to be one method of enforcement they may consider.    

[KhunHeineken]

5 hours ago, Dan O said:

Its a lot more complicated than your post as the are a variety of "income" streams that may or may not be as cut and dry as you write. Every countries DTA is different and so is how each country treats those moneys.

 

Then there's the paperwork on transferring  money into the country and where did the money come from as far as qualifying or not to be taxed. Then did you already pay tax so is any more tax owed . Thats just on the TRD side. Sure if all that's figured out you could be issued a cert of some sort but I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

So your simple connect the dots would be great but doesn't work quite like you imply.

 

Imm is also not connected in any way to Revenue Depart so then you have to build infrastructure to accomodate that connection. Your thinking is far to simplistic for what is an enormous integration on tge tax scheme that MAY happen on the tax side. 

I know it's a lot more complicated, I agree with you on that.

 

However, I would not be surprised if the Thai government simplifies it in order to still make a baht, but the system is basically laughed at. 

 

I have even said all the TRD might want is 1000 baht out of every expat tax resident for a document needed for an extension, just like the certificate of residence.  It should be free, but most pay 300 baht.  Some shouldn't have to pay the 1000 baht but will have to pay it anyway, and others should pay maybe 100,000 baht but only pay 1000 baht.  It could be laughable, but at the end of the day, that money goes into the pocket of the TRD, and goes all the way to the top.   

 

Another method is all they may do is ask you to produce a document from your Thai bank showing your overseas remittances.  They may tax you on that figure and not explore the the source of the income.  If you refuse, no extension, and leave Thailand, and come back on a tourist visa.  

 

I have posted before, who is brave enough, or stupid enough, to take the TRD to court over this?  They will make an example of anyone doing so. 

 

Basically, it will be pay "something" or no extension. 

 

Like yourself, I can't see them being interested or care about assessable / non assessable, pre 2024 savings blah blah blah.  They will simplify it and give you the bill.  Pay it, or accept the consequences. 

[KhunHeineken]

20 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I would not be surprised if they ended up charging a flat tax of 1,000 baht as a "processing fee" to every long-staying farang extending their visa, and all we would need to do is check a box stating "I certify being a resident of a country having a DTA with Thailand". If, say, 200,000 people are liable to the tax, that's 20 million extra per year for Thailand, just 1,000 baht extra per year for us, face is saved and everybody comes out satisfied. Now that, IMO, sounds a lot more Thai-realistic.

I said exactly that from day one, and it was called "scaremongering."  Discussion that connected this tax policy with immigration and a visa extension was not allowed.

 

I would not be surprised if exactly what you describe is the way it unfolds.

[KhunHeineken]

19 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

"Time will tell, but don't sell the Thai's short when it comes to making a quick and easy baht out of foreigners."

 

They are also very sensitive about their image abroad. Currently, this tax thing is very negatively perceived and neighbouring countries are increasingly presented as better alternatives.

 

We should never forget about face-saving and its influence on the Thais' behaviour: IMO this will weigh in the process and final decision on how to proceed.

I agree with what you say, however, is it possible they may use this tax policy to "tip out" Cheap Charlies, thus, only keeping the retired expats with money? 

 

Whilst we know the Thai economy is not in good shape, why are they pulling the trigger now on this? 

[rattlesnake]

27 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

I agree with what you say, however, is it possible they may use this tax policy to "tip out" Cheap Charlies, thus, only keeping the retired expats with money? 

 

If they are trying to go down this route, they are making a mistake IMO.

 

Thailand is not a destination for wealthy people and won't be anytime soon. Furthermore, the objective result of loosening the short to medium-term visa requirements has been a massive influx of people with meagre incomes (one just needs to see the number of videos flourishing on YouTube about "how to live in Thailand with $500 per month" and the like).

 

I think whoever in this government is relying on foreigner influx to enrich the country has got it all wrong, they should take the (already massive) revenue from 2-week holidayers and invest it in national infrastructure, but that implies long-term vision, which seems to be critically lacking.

 

27 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Whilst we know the Thai economy is not in good shape, why are they pulling the trigger now on this? 

 

IMO some people high up in the political chain probably had this "great idea" and don't realise how difficult and inefficient it is going to be in practice.

[TheAppletons]

2 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Not everyone on a Non O is on a pension living month to month.  

 

In any case, most pensions from around the world still go over the threshold, so they make money out of the pensioners, as well as other more wealthy retirees.   

 

  I've seen you state this a couple of times now.  

 

  There is no "threshold" to go over if one's pension is non-assessable for Thai tax purposes via DTA.  One can remit the entire pension  - regardless of value - and there's no consequence regarding taxation.  It's all still non-assessable if stated as such in the bilateral agreement.  

 

 

 

  

 

  

 

  

[KhunHeineken]

3 minutes ago, TheAppletons said:

 

  I've seen you state this a couple of times now.  

 

  There is no "threshold" to go over if one's pension is non-assessable for Thai tax purposes via DTA.  One can remit the entire pension  - regardless of value - and there's no consequence regarding taxation.  It's all still non-assessable if stated as such in the bilateral agreement.  

 

 

 

  

 

  

 

  

I'm Australian.  The Australia / Thailand DTA only covers government service pensions, not the aged pension.

 

The Australian aged pension is not covered under our DTA.  

 

I don't know what country you are from, perhaps you can post it.   

[TheAppletons]

6 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

I'm Australian.  The Australia / Thailand DTA only covers government service pensions, not the aged pension.

 

The Australian aged pension is not covered under our DTA.  

 

I don't know what country you are from, perhaps you can post it.   

 

  Understand - which is why I specifically stated "IF one's pension is non-assessable for Thai tax purposes via DTA."

 

  I understand that each DTA is different; I asked because your posts imply (or perhaps I infer) that what you describe applies to all pensions/persons/remittances.  That's the part I was questioning.

 

  (American citizen.)

 

  

[KhunHeineken]

32 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

If they are trying to go down this route, they are making a mistake IMO.

 

Thailand is not a destination for wealthy people and won't be anytime soon. Furthermore, the objective result of loosening the short to medium-term visa requirements has been a massive influx of people with meagre incomes (one just needs to see the number of videos flourishing on YouTube about "how to live in Thailand with $500 per month" and the like).

 

I think whoever in this government is relying on foreigner influx to enrich the country has got it all wrong, they should take the (already massive) revenue from 2-week holidayers and invest it in national infrastructure, but that implies long-term vision, which seems to be critically lacking.

 

 

IMO some people high up in the political chain probably had this "great idea" and don't realise how difficult and inefficient it is going to be in practice.

Some good points, and worthy of consideration. 

 

I said from day one the Thai government must have something up their sleeve.  if they have, they haven't revealed it yet, but the clock is ticking, and we'll soon see if they have. 

[KhunHeineken]

6 minutes ago, TheAppletons said:

 

  Understand - which is why I specifically stated "IF one's pension is non-assessable for Thai tax purposes via DTA."

 

  I understand that each DTA is different; I asked because your posts imply (or perhaps I infer) that what you describe applies to all pensions/persons/remittances.  That's the part I was questioning.

 

  (American citizen.)

 

  

Noooooooo.

 

I have always said everyone's circumstances are different. 

 

If your pension is covered by a DTA, good luck to you.  The Australian pension (I'm not on it) is not covered by the DTA. 

 

It's important for members to note that not all DTA's are the same. 

[oldcpu]

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

I said exactly that from day one, and it was called "scaremongering."  Discussion that connected this tax policy with immigration and a visa extension was not allowed.

 

Who did not allow it?

[KhunHeineken]

1 minute ago, oldcpu said:

 

Who did not allow it?

The Mods. 

 

I, and many others, had their posts discussing it deleted. 

[oldcpu]

Just now, KhunHeineken said:

The Mods. 

 

I, and many others, had their posts discussing it deleted. 

 

I guess I am from Missouri on that.  My suspicion is any deletion was due to in-polite bickering, and not because of any possible immigration-RD link.

[CallumWK]

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

I said exactly that from day one, and it was called "scaremongering."  Discussion that connected this tax policy with immigration and a visa extension was not allowed.

 

I would not be surprised if exactly what you describe is the way it unfolds.

 

And it is still scaremongering, which should not be allowed.

There is no news, info or indication that the tax return will be connected to visa extensions.

You are the only one continuing with the scaremongering without any evidence.

Give it a rest

[KhunHeineken]

1 minute ago, CallumWK said:

And it is still scaremongering, which should not be allowed.

How so?

 

In my opinion, members sprouting "just do nothing, it will never happen" is more dangerous than giving consideration the what moves the Thai government might make. 

 

3 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

There is no news, info or indication that the tax return will be connected to visa extensions.

There's no news on Thaksin's future, nor the next Thai lottery winning numbers, the weather, whatever, so what? 

 

Question:  If I started a thread titled "Will they raise the 800k to 1 million baht?"  Is that scaremongering. or just a discussion exploring how it's been 800k for decades, yet the value of that 800k has diminished, so it's probably due for a rise?

 

5 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

You are the only one continuing with the scaremongering without any evidence.

What evidence do you have about any of this tax policy? Zero. 

 

We are all speculating what MAY happen and in my opinion there's nothing wrong giving some consideration to collection and enforcement.