Working Online

[AYJAYDEE]

lol! tell that to the american government which is presently demanding US citizens living in foreign countries pay capital gains tax on houses sold in those countries.

Yes, but that's really a kind of pressure being exerted on their own citizens with a risk of penalty under the laws of the country for which they hold citizenship (not that this makes it okay, of course). That's a different situation. The jurisdiction is over their own citizens, not over the foreign economic system.

sorry pal. the demand is being put on the banks and governments of those nations to report on any income and capital gains made. it is most definitely interfering with foreign economic systems. but the thais are not. they are making demands on folks who have chosen to live IN thailand.

Edited August 19, 2014 by AYJAYDEE

[jpinx]

lol! tell that to the american government which is presently demanding US citizens living in foreign countries pay capital gains tax on houses sold in those countries.

Yes, but that's really a kind of pressure being exerted on their own citizens with a risk of penalty under the laws of the country for which they hold citizenship (not that this makes it okay, of course). That's a different situation. The jurisdiction is over their own citizens, not over the foreign economic system.

sorry pal. the demand is being put on the banks and governments of those nations to report on any income and capital gains made. it is most definitely interfering with foreign economic systems. but the thais are not. they are making demands on folks who have chosen to live IN thailand.

Didn't the US strong-arm the Swiss government to make it's banking more open so that US could track "threats to the USA" accounts held by non-US people ?

[Delphis]

sorry pal. the demand is being put on the banks and governments of those nations to report on any income and capital gains made. it is most definitely interfering with foreign economic systems. but the thais are not. they are making demands on folks who have chosen to live IN thailand.

Again, there's a big distinction between "putting pressure on" (banks that might have branches within the US for example) and "having jurisdiction over." Sorry pal

[Fab5BKK]

A 3-dimension discussion and some tend to forget about it ;-)

1. Labor (i.e: do I have the rights to do this job, here, in this capacity? = Labor Law Framework)
2. Immigration (i.e.: do I have the rights to live in this country? = Immigration Law Framework)
3. Fiscal (i.e.: do I have to pay tax, income tax, etc. = Fiscal Law Framework)

And please remember: "dura lex sed lex", for the ones who didn't study Latin: "law is harsh but it's law"

Just my 2 cents

PS: as a funny note: "I don't like to stop at traffic lights, a waste of time, so inconvenient, I don't stop at them when in my country, why should I stop here?" I know, I know, my case IS different!

[AYJAYDEE]

sorry pal. the demand is being put on the banks and governments of those nations to report on any income and capital gains made. it is most definitely interfering with foreign economic systems. but the thais are not. they are making demands on folks who have chosen to live IN thailand.

Again, there's a big distinction between "putting pressure on" (banks that might have branches within the US for example) and "having jurisdiction over." Sorry pal

lol! an american government has demanded and economically forced foreign governments and banks to report these financial dealings of people LIVING IN OTHER COUNTRIES and you claim that thailand forbidding people who live IN their country to engage in overseas economic activity while living in their country is more egregious? lol

Edited August 19, 2014 by AYJAYDEE

[Delphis]

lol! an american government has demanded and economically forced foreign governments and banks to report these financial dealings of people LIVING IN OTHER COUNTRIES and you claim that thailand forbidding people who live IN their country to engage in overseas economic activity while living in their country is more egregious? lol

My point is that countries don't have jurisdiction over foreign economic systems. There are such things as international laws, of course, but for the most part they operate on treaties and other synonyms for an "honor system." The scenario you've described is really apples and oranges to individuals working online and living in Thailand. A country does have jurisdiction over how branches of big banks conduct their affairs within the host country, but again, this is getting too off the topic.

Thailand has no jurisdiction over economic activity that does not take place within its own system.

[AYJAYDEE]

lol! an american government has demanded and economically forced foreign governments and banks to report these financial dealings of people LIVING IN OTHER COUNTRIES and you claim that thailand forbidding people who live IN their country to engage in overseas economic activity while living in their country is more egregious? lol

My point is that countries don't have jurisdiction over foreign economic systems. There are such things as international laws, of course, but for the most part they operate on treaties and other synonyms for an "honor system." The scenario you've described is really apples and oranges to individuals working online and living in Thailand. A country does have jurisdiction over how branches of big banks conduct their affairs within the host country, but again, this is getting too off the topic.

Thailand has no jurisdiction over economic activity that does not take place within its own system.

obviously they do if it involves people living in their country and engaging in that economic activity. and who said anything about bank branches?

[jpinx]

This has become a personal platform for the OP -- now on ignore.....

[JLCrab]

The reason the law is vague IMHO is that -- should the Thai authorities choose to prosecute someone for a violation of the Alien Working Act 2008 - they would not be spending time in Court arguing on whether the alleged activity was 'working' or not. If you would like to assume that in their discretion the authorities would like to consider an individual's moving a bank account an Act violation worthy of prosecution, then up-to-you.

I think you misunderstand my point. I understand perfectly well that Thailand (or any country) can choose to call whatever it likes work. It can choose to call wearing a yellow hat on a Saturday work, or for that matter it can just choose to turf you out of the country for no reason. But that doesn't make a law well thought out or sensible. And I don't think it is "Thai bashing" to criticize a particular aspect of law, otherwise laws would never be changed.

It remains true that a country has no jurisdiction over economic activity that takes place outside of its own economic system.

What point? That you don't think the law was well thought out and sensible? Why does someone on the receiving end of a law -- that is in this case an allien -- have to think it is well thought out and sensible if those that wrote it thought it was well thought out and sensible from their perspective.

And I can see that their objective was to avoid nonsensical court time by someone who they would choose to prosecute going through legal gymnastics trying to assert that the act in question was not working.

[Delphis]

obviously they do if it involves people living in their country and engaging in that economic activity. and who said anything about bank branches?

No they have jurisdiction over the people, not over the foreign economic activity (see my earlier post).

"who said anything about bank branches?:

You did: "an american government has demanded and economically forced foreign governments and banks to report these financial dealings"

[larsjohnsson]

Those ridiculous statements always come up. Checking your bank account or moving money from one account to another is not working. And no one gets deported for doing that.

Things like that has nothing to do with having an online work

Actually though, it is, because in switching funds from one bank account to another, say from one of lower interest rate to one of higher interest rate, I am arranging for the earning of money, i.e. "work." And this is doubly the case if I were to shuffle funds around in private investment structures. Of course, no country would stop people it invited there from doing this. The point is: it's not the statement that is ridiculous, it is the law itself if you actually insist on the letter of it.

No it's not work. And like most of your other statements here, you don't know what you talk about

[AYJAYDEE]

obviously they do if it involves people living in their country and engaging in that economic activity. and who said anything about bank branches?

No they have jurisdiction over the people, not over the foreign economic activity (see my earlier post).

"who said anything about bank branches?:

You did: "an american government has demanded and economically forced foreign governments and banks to report these financial dealings"

those are not branches, those are the head offices of the banks. and youre the one who was saying they are claiming jurisdiction over the dealings not me. all they need is jurisdiction over the people and they are engaging in it. and if the people dont like it? they can leave or be deported if caught.

[Delphis]

What point? That you don't think the law was well thought out and sensible? Why does someone on the receiving end of a law -- that is in this case an allien -- have to think it is well thought out and sensible if those that wrote it thought it was well thought out and sensible from their perspective.

And I can see that their objective was to avoid nonsensical court time by someone who they would choose to prosecute going through legal gymnastics trying to assert that the act in question was not working.

Laws only tend to get changed when there is a voice for change.

I'm not on the receiving end of that law at present. I'm in the process of contemplating whether I want to be on the receiving end of it.

[bangkoklasse]

It's obvious that the OP just started this thread to argue. And coming with the same boring statements as every thread about online work and digital nomads..........

[JLCrab]

It's obvious that the OP just started this thread to argue. And coming with the same boring statements as every thread about online work and digital nomads..........

Sorry -- conmputer hiccup.

Edited August 19, 2014 by JLCrab

[ZAKY]

Okay, I'm confused.

I understand that any work requires a work permit. But I'd like to reverse the usual sense of the question. I suspect it to be realistic that there are a great many expats living in Thailand earning at least *some* extra money for online activities. For the sake of argument, as it is what I am interested in, let's talk about having ebooks available via Amazon.

Under what "structure" are expats in Thailand doing this? Under what structure can anyone recommend it be done?

Specifically:

1) Are there expats on retirement visas doing this? If so, what is theire real-world risk level for this?

2) Let's say someone is on a work visa for teaching? Obviously this has nothing to do with teaching. But if they were doing this kind of activity in addition, again what is their risk level?

3) Is there a truly legitimate way to do this?

Im also confused about it, because this kind of activity qualified as illegal can be carried any where and anytime ! No need for a proper office, no need for staff, can be done even with a cell phone. On the other hand if Thailand can authorise such buisiness it could be profitable for the country. An updating of some specific kind of work should be done.

[Delphis]

No it's not work. And like most of your other statements here, you don't know what you talk about

Can you explain to me why it's not work though?

Better, can you explain to me what the practical difference is, to anyone in Thailand, or to the Thai economy, whether someone's money available to spend in Thailand is earned from a 10% gain in their foreign investment fund, or by a a foreign company selling coconuts to Australia. I doubt you can.

[AYJAYDEE]

It's obvious that the OP just started this thread to argue. And coming with the same boring statements as every thread about online work and digital nomads..........

thai bashers always start out denying what they are about to do.

[JLCrab]

What point? That you don't think the law was well thought out and sensible? Why does someone on the receiving end of a law -- that is in this case an allien -- have to think it is well thought out and sensible if those that wrote it thought it was well thought out and sensible from their perspective.

And I can see that their objective was to avoid nonsensical court time by someone who they would choose to prosecute going through legal gymnastics trying to assert that the act in question was not working.

Laws only tend to get changed when there is a voice for change.

I'm not on the receiving end of that law at present. I'm in the process of contemplating whether I want to be on the receiving end of it.

What makes you think any change to the 2008 Act (i.e. not pre-Internet) would be a change in the direction you favor?

[Delphis]

Im also confused about it, because this kind of activity qualified as illegal can be carried any where and anytime ! No need for a proper office, no need for staff, can be done even with a cell phone. On the other hand if Thailand can authorise such buisiness it could be profitable for the country. An updating of some specific kind of work should be done.

Exactly. I'm glad someone here agrees with me!

[larsjohnsson]

No it's not work. And like most of your other statements here, you don't know what you talk about

Can you explain to me why it's not work though?

Better, can you explain to me what the practical difference is, to anyone in Thailand, or to the Thai economy, whether someone's money available to spend in Thailand is earned from a 10% gain in their foreign investment fund, or by a a foreign company selling coconuts to Australia. I doubt you can.

Because you are allowed to open two Thai bank accounts. And move money from one to the other without any WP

[AYJAYDEE]

Im also confused about it, because this kind of activity qualified as illegal can be carried any where and anytime ! No need for a proper office, no need for staff, can be done even with a cell phone. On the other hand if Thailand can authorise such buisiness it could be profitable for the country. An updating of some specific kind of work should be done.

Exactly. I'm glad someone here agrees with me!

be sure to let us know how you two do convincing them! lol

[Delphis]

It's obvious that the OP just started this thread to argue. And coming with the same boring statements as every thread about online work and digital nomads..........

I started the thread with exactly the intent I stated in the OP. In other words, I sought recommendation over what people were really doing on the ground with respect to this question. I did get ticked off when certain individuals tried to sabotage the thread right from the word go, tried to coerce moderators to get it shut down. But I don't find it hard to handle petty cyber bullies. I can do it with one hand tied behind my back. Two people on this thread have had no business on it except in trying to close down a discussion from the first posts they made. It's a tactic I've seen on many forums, and judging from some other responders, it's perfectly visible to most people.

[khunerik]

It's obvious that the OP just started this thread to argue. And coming with the same boring statements as every thread about online work and digital nomads..........

And he use exactly the same arguments that he has been reading in those other threads......ha ha ha

[Delphis]

No it's not work. And like most of your other statements here, you don't know what you talk about

Can you explain to me why it's not work though?

Better, can you explain to me what the practical difference is, to anyone in Thailand, or to the Thai economy, whether someone's money available to spend in Thailand is earned from a 10% gain in their foreign investment fund, or by a a foreign company selling coconuts to Australia. I doubt you can.

Because you are allowed to open two Thai bank accounts. And move money from one to the other without any WP

That's got nothing to do with it. I'm not talking about bank accounts in Thailand. I'm talking about bank accounts outside of Thailand.

[AYJAYDEE]

It's obvious that the OP just started this thread to argue. And coming with the same boring statements as every thread about online work and digital nomads..........

I started the thread with exactly the intent I stated in the OP. In other words, I sought recommendation over what people were really doing on the ground with respect to this question. I did get ticked off when certain individuals tried to sabotage the thread right from the word go, tried to coerce moderators to get it shut down. But I don't find it hard to handle petty cyber bullies. I can do it with one hand tied behind my back. Two people on this thread have had no business on it except in trying to close down a discussion from the first posts they made. It's a tactic I've seen on many forums, and judging from some other responders, it's perfectly visible to most people.

you were not interested in finding out what others were doing so much as promoting your personal views on the shortcomings of the thai government with respect to online work. something that has been covered here in many other threads. and you got called on it.

[Delphis]

No it's not work. And like most of your other statements here, you don't know what you talk about

Can you explain to me why it's not work though?

Better, can you explain to me what the practical difference is, to anyone in Thailand, or to the Thai economy, whether someone's money available to spend in Thailand is earned from a 10% gain in their foreign investment fund, or by a a foreign company selling coconuts to Australia. I doubt you can.

Because you are allowed to open two Thai bank accounts. And move money from one to the other without any WP

That's got nothing to do with it. I'm not talking about bank accounts in Thailand. I'm talking about bank accounts outside of Thailand.

[AYJAYDEE]

It's obvious that the OP just started this thread to argue. And coming with the same boring statements as every thread about online work and digital nomads..........

I started the thread with exactly the intent I stated in the OP. In other words, I sought recommendation over what people were really doing on the ground with respect to this question. I did get ticked off when certain individuals tried to sabotage the thread right from the word go, tried to coerce moderators to get it shut down. But I don't find it hard to handle petty cyber bullies. I can do it with one hand tied behind my back. Two people on this thread have had no business on it except in trying to close down a discussion from the first posts they made. It's a tactic I've seen on many forums, and judging from some other responders, it's perfectly visible to most people.

you were not interested in finding out what others were doing so much as promoting your personal views on the shortcomings of the thai government with respect to online work. something that has been covered here in many other threads. and you got called on it.

[ZAKY]

No it's not work. And like most of your other statements here, you don't know what you talk about

Can you explain to me why it's not work though?

Better, can you explain to me what the practical difference is, to anyone in Thailand, or to the Thai economy, whether someone's money available to spend in Thailand is earned from a 10% gain in their foreign investment fund, or by a a foreign company selling coconuts to Australia. I doubt you can.

Inversely it is also difficult to explain where the word 'work' starts and where it ends. If washing one's car or doing some volontary domestic work is considered as work there will be always some confusion about knowing when exactly it is illegal and when it is not. I have read in one of the forum of TV that a foreigner owner of a bar was caught working illegally in his own bar because he was sitting and talking to customers, he was considered to be illegally working as entertaining people

[Delphis]

It's obvious that the OP just started this thread to argue. And coming with the same boring statements as every thread about online work and digital nomads..........

I started the thread with exactly the intent I stated in the OP. In other words, I sought recommendation over what people were really doing on the ground with respect to this question. I did get ticked off when certain individuals tried to sabotage the thread right from the word go, tried to coerce moderators to get it shut down. But I don't find it hard to handle petty cyber bullies. I can do it with one hand tied behind my back. Two people on this thread have had no business on it except in trying to close down a discussion from the first posts they made. It's a tactic I've seen on many forums, and judging from some other responders, it's perfectly visible to most people.

you were not interested in finding out what others were doing so much as promoting your personal views on the shortcomings of the thai government with respect to online work. something that has been covered here in many other threads. and you got called on it.

Oh I was and am VERY interested in what others in a similar situation to myself have been doing, and that was my reason for starting the thread. Those were the very people I thanked for their contribution, most especially those who gave anecdotes of what they were told at immigration.