Transcript of the above video: 

As you can see I am still working with these, I'm still kind of playing with this less formal model of making some of these videos. I'm trying to do the more topical stuff through this format from now. Again we are still playing with it so kind of bear with me. Thanks a lot for the technical advice I've gotten in some of the comments regarding for example the microphone here. I'm trying to offset this now a little bit so that the sound isn't so bad, and somebody told me in one of the prior videos I did, this kind of microphone needs to sit off set from me; I kind of looked up a few things, apparently that is true okay, so thanks a lot for that.

That said, we are looking at a recent article from the Bangkok Post bangkokpost.com, as the title of this video suggests, we are asking whether or not tax authorities here in Thailand are attempting to "Kill the Golden Goose" if you will. Again I thought of making this video after reading this recent article from the Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com, the article is titled: Law to tax income from overseas in the works. Quoting directly: "Rules will follow widely accepted International Principle says Chief of Revenue Department." Well first of all, ‘widely accepted International principle’, does not mean the rule of law here in Thailand, and it is not a foregone conclusion that Thailand “adopts” this International Principle. We've discussed this in other videos but the OECD is part of the reason behind this, and I'll get into this further, but long story short it is basically a bunch of bankers getting together, trying to consolidate up an international banking syndicate and part and parcel with that is going to be this massive overhaul to Thailand's Tax System. And again as suggested in the title of this video, this overhaul could in my opinion, kill the Golden Goose if you will. It could actually kill Thailand's viability as a place to invest; it could have all kinds of negative implications. Meanwhile, what are we getting out of this? Let me get further into it. Quoting directly: "The Thai Revenue Department is drafting a law," again drafting a law, this is not a foregone conclusion. Thai folks out there who are concerned about this should be keeping a close eye on it, being in touch with their respective legislators if for no other reason than to tell them not to pass this law. Quoting again: "The Thai Revenue Department is drafting a law to tax the income of individuals residing in Thailand that originates from overseas." Now okay, the first thing to bear in mind. This is one of those that at first glance oftentimes what I would call political demagogues, whatever you want to call it, will use this notion that 'Oh these foreigners are here in Thailand and they're not paying their fair share, etc., etc." Well they are also coming to Thailand to invest, so the prospect of putting them in a tax vice is not going to make them overly conducive to investing in Thailand. They're coming to invest in Thailand for the laissez faire economic situation in Thailand; we have very much a pro-entrepreneurial, very free market oriented paradigm here in Thailand and for the fact that we are not tied in with this insane International, quite honestly Banking and tax regime because that's what it is. As we've discussed, this so-called Digital Wallet which would put the government into massive debt or gut the budget, one of the two in order to create a totalitarian financial system, again but it's something we all have to end up paying for. Well if we try to tax the foreigners, they're just not going to come here and it's going to cause a dramatic decrease in foreign direct investment, a dramatic decrease in foreign nationals who are coming to Thailand to do business; it's just not a good idea. 

That being said, quoting further: "The draft follows the international principle of worldwide income under the residence rule." Let's be clear, the ‘international principle’ okay? This is not a law. It is being spoken of in terms of great gravitas in order to try to convince us all to make it a law, but it is not a law. And this notion of an international principle, you mean an international principle like a principle that everybody at the World Economic Forum in Davos all got together and just decided was an international principle? Did anybody that is a rank and file citizen of any of the various countries in this International consensus, were they consulted at any point? Good question. Quoting again: "The draft follows the international principle of worldwide income under the residence rule, said Kulaya Tantitemit, the Director-General of the Department. This principle holds," and this is of the Revenue Department and again they talk about this like it's just a given and like it's law and like it's something we've all subscribed to. I get really upset with the media doing all this stuff. "This principle holds that income earned by an individual, regardless of its source country, must be taxed by the country where the individual resides for a specified period." And bear in mind, the state gets to dictate the terms and parameters of all of that. So first of all ‘the principle holds’. This is a principle that none of us adhere to, none of us came up with, nobody at a rank and file level anywhere in the world really came up with. No this was decided in international forums amongst the "International Elite" or those who would have themselves be called the “International Elite”. Then ‘must be taxed where the individual resides for a specified period.’ Who determines where someone is residing, one, and who determines the specified period? Quoting further: "The drafting of the law requires an amendment to section 41 of the Revenue Code. The amendment would stipulate that individuals residing in Thailand for 180 days or more must pay personal income tax on income earned overseas regardless of whether that income is brought into Thailand." I can't tell you how bad of an idea this is Thailand. This is terrible; this is up there with Kamala Harris's recent announcement that she wants to tax "unrealized gains". This is where people that know no other thing, other than to take money from the productive. They are getting desperate, because as the meme notes, only for example the American Government can have the ability to basically steal money from other people and still run a massive debt. And this is what I worry about, all this neo-Keynesianism, modern monetary theory bleeding into Thailand and the net result is just a bunch of taxes to pay for a bunch of nonsense pie in the sky economic ideas. Again, I quote that again: "The amendment would stipulate that individuals residing in Thailand for 180 days or more, must pay personal income tax on income earned overseas." And what that implies is earned, but not brought into Thailand. As it sits now, if you remit money into Thailand that's where you're probably going to have some possible tax liability. If they have their way on this thing, whether or not you bring it to Thailand is going to be irrelevant, it's just "oh, we can assess you because we say so" even though said funds and again income is probably the wrong word, but let's just call it accrued capital in some foreign jurisdiction exists, they somehow now get to say that they tax you in Thailand. This is nonsensical; they're claiming they have tax authority over money they don't have jurisdiction over. Quoting further: "Ms. Kulaya said the proposed amendment would specifically target personal income tax and would not include corporate income tax or income from mutual funds investing abroad except for private funds." Well first question is, isn't that what you should be going after? The more inert money? Income presumes that is money operating actively in the economy, whereas just capital gains, again it's your money, I'm not in favour of taxing one but not the other, I don't think any of this is legitimate, but at least you can make the argument with capital gains or something 'well it's more indirect, you're not active, that Capital isn't actively doing any work.' With income, presumably especially with wages, it presumes somebody is actually doing some work and being paid for it, whereas gains on assets, that's a different thing. Quoting further: "If and when it is enacted" and again the way that they're writing this - first of all, there is no "when" yet. It "if" it's enacted, it's not a foregone conclusion. This Parliament, again it's not a foregone conclusion. "If and when it is enacted, the new law would follow a major change that took effect this year in the way income from foreign sources is treated for tax purposes in Thailand." Well it wasn't that major a change really. It talked about the way in which liability would be applied on already assessed income. It changed things but again it was actually rather minor if you sort of understand the way it actually works. That said it was also, I think that minor change was specifically rolled out in order to be sort of for lack of a better term the tip of the spear to getting this further in my opinion really detrimental tax policy if not passed, but at least introduced into the public collective consciousness if you will. Quoting further: "The new law will follow a major change that took effect this year in the way foreign income from foreign sources is treated for tax purposes in Thailand. The current tax law calls for individuals who reside in Thailand for more than 180 days per year to pay taxes to Thailand on income earned locally and also on any income earned abroad that is brought into the country. So for right now, if you and again income is the wrong word but accrued capital depending on whether or not it can be considered assessable and liable to tax, it first has to be brought into Thailand but they want to change the Law to make it so if you don't bring it into Thailand, they can still assess tax against you. I argue this is illegitimate because they don't have jurisdiction over the funds at the end of the day; they don't have physical jurisdiction, what we would call in the American vernacular, personal jurisdiction if you will over the funds. They are just claiming it under this notion, ‘well there is an international principle’. Well you came up with the principle unilaterally. It's not just some sort of generally accepted principle, it's just an international principle that you say exists or that certain people say exists. I don't buy it, I don't consider any of this legitimate. Basically the tax assessors, and the high level Finance Ministers of certain aspects of the world, basically the OECD, or what we sometimes refer to as the G7, all got together and decided 'hey we're going to figure out a way supranationally to tax our people in ways that we could not do at a national level; it's bootstrapping is basically what it is from a tax standpoint. Quoting further: "Previously, if an individual met the 180 day tax resident requirement, and had foreign income, they paid personal income tax on that income only if it was brought in the country within the year it was earned." Yeah, that was the old school rule. As we discussed in prior videos, that changed January 1, 2024. Quoting further: "This rule was revised effective from January 1, 2024. Tax is now payable on foreign income regardless of when it is brought into the country. To give an example, Mr. A sold shares in an overseas company in 2020, realized a capital gain and banked the money in an overseas account. If he brings the proceeds from that capital gain into Thailand in 2024, he must report it as assessable income when filing a tax return." Well first of all, maybe. There's a whole bunch of variables that factor into that as far as whether or not it is even assessable or liable, but long story short, yeah generally, again if you made the money and then you bring it into the country, that's where the rubber hits the road. What they're trying to do is change this so that they can assess it and say you are liable even if you don't bring it in the country. Quoting further: "Expats in Thailand meanwhile have raised questions about tax treatment of pension income from past employment when that money is brought into Thailand." Yeah I know this is a big thing and people get very frustrated with me because I'll say ‘look, I mean it depends on the factual situation in a given case’ and it really is getting old listening to all these people trying to give this sort of one size fits all advice regarding tax and legal liability for tax when the reality is it's all going to be driven by the underlying facts in each specific case. Quoting further: "If this money is taxed in their home country and that country is one of the 61 that have agreements with Thailand to prevent double taxation, in theory there should be no problem." Again, in theory. It's going to be based on the facts of your case. Quoting further: "Debates about interpretation of the law are ongoing." Quoting further: "Ms. Kulaya said that in practice, collection of tax on foreign income will depend on International cooperation and information exchange." That's really key. Quoting further: "Collection of tax on foreign income will depend on International cooperation and information exchange." This is the point; this is why I have such a problem with the OECD, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, this is why I have such a problem with the World Economic Forum is because what they can't do at a national level, they're attempting to do by bootstrapping and circumvention at a supranational level, utilizing these international conventions they all go to and then they sign up to what effectively amounts to an International Treaty in order to override their own nation's laws, and I would argue, the best interests of their own nationals at the same time. Quoting further: "Collection of tax on foreign income will depend on international cooperation and information exchange." For example, the World Economic Forum is a forum in which International cooperation and information exchange is occurring; I expect the OECD will operate very similarly. Quoting further: "Thailand is already a member of the Tax Information Exchange Group spearheaded by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development." No, not a member. They’re talking about joining it. This was discussed in the Bangkok Post's own columns; it's going to take five years for Thailand to fully join this. They are not in it yet. Stop talking about this like it's a foregone conclusion. They are talking about it and they are promulgating legislation to possibly join and cooperate in it. It is not a foregone conclusion. I don't think when most Thais figure out how this is going to actually operate and work, that they are going to want to even be part of this anyway. Quoting further: "Section 41 specifies that individuals who have assessable income under section 40 of the previous tax year from duties, work or business conducted in Thailand, or from the activities of an employer in Thailand, or from assets located in Thailand, must pay taxes according to the provisions of this section, regardless of whether the income is paid within or outside the country." Again, let’s go back over this. ‘"Section 41 specifies that individuals who have assessable income under section 40 of the previous tax year from duties, work or business conducted in Thailand’’ again, ‘work or business conducted in Thailand or from activities of an employer in Thailand or from assets located in Thailand, must pay taxes according to the section regardless of whether the income is paid within or outside the country. Yes, but those are things occurring in Thailand. Again, ‘work or business conducted in Thailand, activities of employer in Thailand, assets in Thailand’ - what this would change is it would not be required that anything occur in Thailand. They just get to assess and declare you liable for taxes on things that are occurring in a jurisdiction they don't have jurisdiction over, they don't have authority over. Again this OECD, in effect it is bootstrapping, it’s a trick; it's doing something that they couldn't normally do under their own national level laws, they're trying to do it utilizing a supranational entity. Quoting further: "Individuals residing in Thailand who have assessable income under Section 40 in the previous tax year from duties, work or business conducted abroad or from assets abroad, are required to pay income tax according to this provision when that income is brought into Thailand." - 'When it's brought into Thailand'’ – again they want to change this. So again it makes sense if it's brought into Thailand. That brings it under Thai jurisdiction but where do they get the legal authority other than "we say so" to tax somebody on something that they don't have jurisdiction over and again they're doing it supranationally where they can't do it nationally, or they're trying to, if we go along with this. My personal opinion is this is all going to fail because it’s pie in the sky, it's attenuated sophistry level or I should say sophist level type legal thinking; it really is nonsense when you really break it down. Quoting further: "Minimum corporate tax," this is another pie in the sky notion from these OECD folks, quoting further: "In addition Ms. Kulaya said the Department is drafting a law to set a minimum corporate tax rate, following International agreements led by the OECD." Well first of all Thailand has not engaged in an international agreement with the OECD. Why are we talking about this like it's a foregone conclusion? How about we deal with the matter of whether or not we want to be part of OECD before our national authorities start trying to draft tax laws to put us all under a massively Draconian International supranational tax structure. Quoting further: "The principle of a global minimum tax," - now if you go back about, I guess it's been about 3 years now probably right around there, Yellen, and this may have started occurring under the Obama Administration when Yellen was still over at the FED if I recall, but they first started talking about this Global Minimum Tax. This is nonsense. This is a bunch of Governments getting together and cartelling with each other against average people, against small businesses in the world and saying’ well because we have all gotten together, we are going to declare a minimum tax that again we probably can't get accomplished at a national political level. We're going to try to do supranationally what we cannot do nationally. “Principle of a Global Minimum Tax is to ensure that large multinational corporations pay a minimum tax of 15% worldwide in the countries where they operate’, except for the fact it will also bleed over and have an impact on small businesses and individuals as well because when they enact it, they'll make it a set 15%. They will use the pretext that they are going after large multinational corporations because Lord knows all of us hoi polloi don't like them but then, it will be used in practice against everybody. It's not going to only be used against large multinationals. And by the way, large multinationals have lots of tax lawyers to figure out how to get out from under a lot of these taxes. Quoting further: "If a corporation pays less than 15% in any given country, it must pay additional tax to bring the total up to 15% in the country where its parent company is headquartered." Well who gave the authority to do that? Again they can't tax at a national level so they're getting together like a cartel and forcing people to be taxed on something they could promulgate legislation for on a national level, they're going to do it behind closed doors, claim it operates under International Treaty and thereby trumps national law. That's how they're going to try to do this. And I don't see where they get the authority to try to do it let alone do it. Quoting further: "The GMT agreement applies only to multinational companies with global revenue exceeding Eur750 million per year." Except for the fact that they're trying to change the law broadly. Again it's interesting. The GMT agreement applies only to most multinational companies. Yes that is probably true on its face, but what they are trying to pass here is a law that would apply to everyone.

Quoting further: "In the first 11 months of the 2024 fiscal year, the Revenue Department collected 1.963 trillion baht exceeding its target by 0.4% or 8.44 billion baht." So they are already over their target. Why do they need to do this? If they exceeded their target, then they're receiving the revenue that they expect to receive and that they consider necessary so why do they need to tax us even further? And why do they need to engage with a bunch of international entities in order to tax us further here in Thailand? Again, I brought this up before. Why is effectively the World Economic Forum or even the OECD being able to effectively colonize Thailand, if only in a name not never known as colonization up to this point but effectively that's what they are doing. These are outsiders, outside of Thailand, telling Thailand how to apply its tax laws and then operating in conjunction with Thailand to create this sort of international tax cartel, and I fail to see what is going to be benefited by this. As we discussed in other videos, joining the OECD requires Thailand to give out a bunch of foreign aid which is that a good idea? Thailand needs all of her resources for herself. She doesn’t need international agencies and tax authorities telling her how to collect and assess taxes on her own citizenry and then have that same money be offshored to some other nation. What’s the point of joining this organization? Quoting further: "The good performance was attributed to government measures to stimulate consumption..." Oh yeah, those Government measures. No it couldn't have been the fact that our economy opened back up and then we saw one of the best high seasons we had ever seen because there was new demand for tourism to Thailand; we also saw Cannabis legalized which resulted in a totally new commodity coming on the market and creating an entirely new market cap, an entirely new industry!! No it couldn't be anything having to do with that! No, it was ‘Government measures’.

As per usual, I'm going to for these sort of less formal videos, we usually like to cite on the screen but I will go ahead and put the link up to this video in the description below, but I just love it. Yeah, the good performance was attributed to Government measures. I love how anything good that happens according to the press like Bangkok Post, some of these outlets, it's the Government that got it done. No, no, it doesn’t have anything to do with Private Enterprise kicking back on and really quite honestly doing a heck of a job taking back the mantle of top tourism destination here in Southeast Asia and one of the top in the world, I mean Thailand quickly got on it, but it's government measures, that's what really was the key driver! Quoting further: "..to stimulate consumption such as the easy e-Receipt program." Yeah, all that digitization of the tax system, that's what really is driving the vibrancy of the economy." Quoting further: "which increased the collection of value added tax from domestic consumption." Yeah that's more taxes is helping things. Quoting further: "Ms. Kulaya said she expects that by the end of the fiscal year on September 30, the Department will have met its target of 2.28 trillion Baht."

So again they're saying that they are meeting their targets for revenue generation, so why do we need this stuff? And, why does it need to be directed by folks that aren't even Thai, aren’t in Thailand and should therefore they never have authority over Thais? Quoting further: "For fiscal 2025, which begins October 1, Ministry of Finance has tasked the Department with collecting a total of 2.372 trillion baht." Well great, and if they hit their target like last year it begs the question again, why do we need all these new changes to the tax law if you're already hitting your targets for tax collection? Why are these things required to begin with and then even if you weren’t hitting your target, that still doesn't justify allowing outsiders who aren't Thai to dictate Thai tax policy. I mean, one man's opinion, but seriously it seems self-evident to me.