Transcript of the above video: 

As the title of this video suggests, we are talking about tax in Thailand and yet again this whole notion of some sort of "global shift" with regard to Tax Policy. I think this is turning out to be a lot of nonsense if anything. I think especially as evidenced by the fact of Mr. Trump's re-election last week, I think we're actually pushing against this overall movement if you want to call it here in the world with regard to tax and this notion of Global mandatory or Global Minimum Tax. I think it's all nonsense; I think it was created by a bunch of people in their own basically self-beneficial, ivory tower feedback loop and these folks just, they are to my mind globally sort of on the outs. I've called them the World Economic Forum people, the Davos crowd, yeah these folks. 

Now what's the meaning of the thumbnail here? Why do we have old Wile E. Coyote with his knife and fork out? Well it's because I have kind of felt like that's what the Davos crowd has been doing for about a year. I couldn't quite figure out what was going on. The changes in policies here in Thailand just seemed so abrupt and quite honestly so apropos of nothing; it just seemed to pop up out of the blue. Like last year they said "oh we're going to put Chinese police on the streets!" What? Like where did that even come from? Then later on they came up with digital money; we were going to have digital money. It's like what? Who wanted that, and we are going to go into a bunch of debt for this Digital Money. Now this Global Minimum Tax thing is being pushed; again this is another Davos thing. And for those out there who think I'm some sort of Conspiracy theorist, the Prime Minister under this same government, in the party that's currently in this same government who has now fallen from power, went to the World Economic Forum meeting himself. I mean I don't know how much more evidence you need that there's at least some level of influence on this government by the World Economic Forum. I think that's clear. Meanwhile, let's dig in here, and what am I talking about with regard to Global Shift. Oh wait! Regarding old Wile. E. Coyote, it just feels like the wolves have been, it's like Thailand's like this debutant at a new ball and all the old sort of libertine dudes are looking at her, trying to get an angle or something like this. That's what I feel like. The wolves are just sort of looking at Thailand with their knife and fork out because for 10 years she's sort of been insulated, and kind of doing her own thing and quite honestly was rebuilding, in my opinion again, you can say what you want about the last government, there's a lot to be said, but they did start some economic programs that were at least fiscally conservative. Thailand has a good debt to GDP ratio; she has a good history of paying off her national debt. She got it done after the '90s, dealt with the IMF very professionally, very efficiently, got it done, got down the road. Yeah I could see where the globalists, especially those in the West were completely broke at this point, because most of the Western countries are heavily in debt, many of which I can't foresee how they get out of it. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I just can't figure it out at this juncture. Meanwhile, Thailand doesn't have these problems and I'm starting to think that there are those who would like to lead Thailand down the primrose path or even those in Thailand's Government that may somehow benefit by taking Thailand into a less than optimal scenario, and look all of this in problematic. I don't like seeing this at all. I wish everybody would just kind of go away and leave Thailand alone; let Thailand do Thailand's thing, but that's not the world apparently we're living in right now. 

That being said, I thought of making this video after reading a recent article from the Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com, the article is titled: Call for auto taxes to match Global Shift. So as in the title, what Global Shift? Stop it Bangkok Post, stop it all you press people out there who are pretending that this is a foregone conclusion. It is not. Global Minimum Tax, this OECD, all this supranational nonsense, Thailand may join some of it, she may not, but she's going to make those determinations. It's not a foregone conclusion that this is going to happen and I'm really tired of it being talked about as if it were. It is misleading quite honestly. It's goes beyond the point of disingenuous; it's misleading. There is no Global Shift, okay? There's not, people around the globe, there's not hundreds of millions of people sitting around saying: "We need to harmonize our automobile taxes." That is nonsense. That said, there is a bunch of technocrats primarily from places like Davos etc., who think we should be and if it was reported correctly, it would be "there are those who advocate a global shift". It's not a foregone conclusion that it is a global shift. That said, quoting directly: "The structure of Thailand's automotive excise taxes must align with global trends..." - who says? Thailand is a sovereign state. It can decide whatever it wants to do. If the rest of the world wants to do it, fine. If they don't, fine too. Where is it that "must align with global trends". Who says? In fact, it's Thailand's history of not aligning with global trends that makes her so special, not her constant alignment, like some docile vassal state. It's nonsense. Quoting further: "…particularly the shift towards the electronic vehicle industry says Deputy Finance Minister Paopoom Rojanasakul." That said, are these the same electric vehicle producers that came hat in hand to the Thai Government not 10 days ago, demanding almost or in dire need of not paying back their own state subsidies because there isn't the inherent demand for this product? Is that the same EV producers? Again, you're talking about this stuff like it's a foregone conclusion. The math and the economics are not bearing this out. Quoting further: "Referring to competition in the Auto industry he said, quote: "The dust has not yet settled", Well then, what are you talking about? "..as either battery electric vehicles or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles could become the market leader. "A tax structure that leans exclusively towards EVs may not be the answer." Well you think? When they can't even sell enough of them that they are already making, maybe it isn't the answer. Maybe internal combustion turns out to be maybe far more efficient when you put all the inputs and everything in. Maybe a lot of the entire Global EV market comes from state subsidization. Quoting further: "We need to maintain a balance across the entire tax system." What does that even mean? A balance across the entire tax system? Quoting further: "If the global trend favours PHEVs, (that's plug-in) Thailand would still be well-positioned. Similarly, if EVS are favoured, we should be prepared." Well that's a big "IF". As we discussed in another video, again these companies which have been state subsidised, looks to me like can't pay back their subsidies because there's no inherent demand in the market for the product. So, what are we talking about? And why are we even talking about the tax regime associated with something we're already paying for here in Thailand through those subsidies? Why are we even being taxed on these vehicles? We are already paying for it. Quoting further: "He said it is clear the world is moving away from internal combustion engine vehicles." Really? In Eurasia? The most industrializing region in the world? Are they really carrying felled trees and cranes and stuff on semi-trucks run by electric vehicle technology? Is that what's really going on because I'm not seeing it. This is what's really bugging me about all of this and I'm not a real partisan guy, and I don't usually get all that worked up regarding elections, but I have got to say, last week I just felt like a load had been lifted, not because I really care one way or the other about the politicians in America but you could just instantly feel it. The gas lighting is stopping and that's all I can describe this as. Quote: "He said it is clear the world is moving away from internal combustion engine vehicles." By whose metric? What are you talking about? This is just constant gas lighting into a narrative, a pre-set narrative that is not based on any reality and that is the problem in the West. It is falling apart because the narratives don't meet with reality, at all. If you read the book The Oligarchs, about the end of the Soviet System, that's exactly what happened to the Soviet System. The rhetoric, the propaganda, everything, ceased to match with the reality and then the outcome was it just sort of collapsed, it imploded because it's not real. Again, this notion that EVs are taking over from internal combustion isn't based on any evidence that I can see in the real world. That said, quoting further: "However, the Government has refrained from imposing an excessively harsh tax structure on internal combustion engine powered vehicle manufacturing..." Oh thank you. Thank you, thank you so for not imposing too much of a tax. The power to tax is the power to destroy. Are you looking to destroy internal combustion engines in Thailand because you will destroy the economy in the process. Don't ask for thanks for your forbearance in not taxing us on something that's self-evidently better than what you're proposing. Quoting further: "..because the production lines and supply chains for this industry are still extensive." What does that mean? Oh it employs a lot of people? Yeah, because it's employing a lot of people in something people want to buy. This whole EV thing is similar to Socialism or USSR, the Socialist Republics where they just said "we're doing this now, this is a good thing". The market isn't agreeing with it. If the market was agreeing with it, do you think that the EV manufacturers would have to rush cap in hand or cap on their head to say, "hey we're not going to pay back the subsidies" to Thailand that they already took money on. If it was so efficient and it was so self-evident, why isn't it self-evident? I love that line in Moneyball where they're trying to figure out who the best batters are for their baseball team, they're trying to recruit people, and they are looking at their numbers and the captain or the manager of the team says, "if he can hit, why doesn't he hit good?" He's sitting there looking at the numbers. If these things are such a great boon and windfall to the economy, why haven't they been? Why have we continuously had to shell out public money from the public coffers to subsidize this thing? And then meanwhile, we have to hear this constant propaganda of how we need to harmonize our taxes, apparently because EVs are good or something. That said, quoting further. So as they go on in the article and I urge those who are watching this video, go check out that article in detail, Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com, they go in and start talking about all the tax structures associated with this. It's just micromanaging nonsense. I mean this stuff has got to be straight out of the playbook of Trotsky or something. I don't know where you would come up with this stuff. That said, quoting directly: "The new excise tax structure for ICE vehicles, effective from 2026 to 2030..." So again, so from 2026 to 2030 we have to have a new tax imposed upon us on vehicles we are already using, on a technology that's already proven, because of a new technology that's really not proven and is state subsidized. So effectively, we've already been taxed on that technology to begin with; we get taxed less if we use that technology - again that isn't proven - that the market itself is not really demanding, we get taxed less on that but moving forward from 2026, we're going to get taxed more on the cars we have just because they say so. That's what I'm most tired of all this Davos nonsense, it's just you putting edicts on us, on things that aren't even proven. Trust the science you said. Where's the science behind this? The economics certainly isn't there, when the owners of these manufacturers are running to the Government saying we can't pay back the money we already took to build these things, because there isn't any inherent demand to buy them to begin with. Quoting further: "A new excise tax structure for internal combustion vehicles effective from 2026 to 2030 (correction), incentivises production of low-emission vehicles." Who said we want that incentivised? Quoting further, and this gets more to the point. "In 2026, Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles emitting 100 grams or less of CO2 per km are taxed 13% rising to 14% in 2028 and 15% in 2030." So they're going to add taxes on cars we've already bought and paid taxes on, to incentivise us moving this over to an EV system, Electric Vehicles, which aren't even in demand, have already been subsidized, so we taxpayers are already paying for those to be built notwithstanding the fact no one really wants them and there isn't inherent demand for them but we're going to be taxed more starting in 2026 for the cars that do work. That's Communist nonsense thinking, just a pure quintessential case and point. Meanwhile, where's the data that suggests that CO2 emissions drive anything.

Again, that's another nice thing about this post-Trump election situation is we get to finally talk honestly about a lot of big topics. COVID is one of them by the way, not the bailiwick of this video, but look, this “climate change” narrative which was something that prior to COVID I was perfectly happy to just kind of whatever, let the scientists say whatever on it, then in the aftermath of that, I'm coming to find out wow that's just big of a con as anything. Where is there any data whatsoever that CO2 emission has anything to do with “changing” the weather? I mean I'm sorry, it's just nonsense. And now we're going to have to pay more taxes on cars we've already bought and paid taxes on, because they're trying to incentivise us to move over to something that's already subsidized although no one wants it. What's the purpose of that?