wprime

3 hours ago, bkk6060 said:

When things open she can go from 300 b a day to 3,000.

Think she will keep pumping gas?

I'm sure she'd still open them if you offered her 3000 now.

Somebody subscribed you to get the referral credits.

If they're not billing you you can just disregard it.

The Krystal Club spreaders had the Alpha strain, not the Delta strain.

42 minutes ago, Marvin Hagler said:

In India now they believe deaths were up to 10 times more than reported. Why would Thailand be different? We could easily be at 300 to 400 deaths a day right now.

Higher than that. Randomised samples indicate 2/3 of the population have antibodies: https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-govt-survey-shows-two-thirds-have-coronavirus-antibodies-2021-07-20/

Assuming no sampling issues, that would indicate about 20x reported numbers.

I've done it many times, 8 hours is realistic if you drive at night but not in the day time. Budget for around 10 hours particularly if you have some time deadline like a ferry  booking.

The roads haven't changed much in the last 10 years. The road into Surat is still under perpetual roadworks, everything else is still 2 lanes all the way with the left lane damaged in places so trucks use the right line a lot of the way.

Obviously they rounded to the nearest 10 million

3 hours ago, steven100 said:

Elements Of Self-Defence 

The elements of self-defence are established under section 248 of the Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 which states:

(2) A harmful act done by a person is lawful if the act is done in self-defence under subsection (4);

(…)

(4) A person’s harmful act is done in self-defence if – 

The person believes the act is necessary to defend the person or another person from a harmful act, including a harmful act that is not imminent; and

The person’s harmful act is a reasonable response by the person in the circumstances as the person believes them to be; and

There are reasonable grounds for those beliefs. 

Who Has The Burden Of Proof?

In a trial, the burden is on the state to prove the charges before the court. When an accused raises self-defence, they bear an evidential burden of adducing evidence or pointing to prosecution evidence, capable of raising the issue of self-defence. 

I don't know what part of that you think supports your claim. The defendant does not need to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt.

25 minutes ago, steven100 said:

I totally agree, it's certainly at the least manslaughter, possibly murder,  unless she can prove beyond reasonable doubt that he attacked her and she was defending herself, which here seems very unlikely.

That's wrong, you don't need to prove self-defense beyond reasonable doubt.

3 hours ago, Karma80 said:

All noise until anything happens. The digital nomad visa is a winner for remote workers, but the devil will be in the detail and all the meaningless hoops that will no doubt be added that's out of touch with how globally positioned people actually work.

Thailand did do something like this to help bring money in after the 1991 recession (the condo act), and in 1997 (the sale of various significant real properties to foreign corporations for development). It's not unprecedented and it will probably become necessary if Thailand seeks to rise out of the current recession quickly.

I for one am looking forward to acquiring a nice beachfront home if they go ahead with freehold for foreigners.

15 minutes ago, robblok said:

Does not happen in the West, i do agree with higher premiums. I mean the premium is based on what they think will be the risk so that is fair. What is not fair is to change the terms after an agreement. Its a business if it makes a mistake it should pay for it like any other business. I mean someone who did not take the insurance took a risk too, should they get money too because they did not have insurance but then buy one when there is a problem. That is not how insurance works.

 

I hope the government can stop this practice. 

The government will stop it. All SMK is done is destroy their reputation.

12 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Why?   It's an employee benefit, how can that be "utterly ridiculous"?

Because generalised benefits benefit those who use them at the expense of those who don't. In other words, higher risk people have their funeral expenses subsidised by lower risk people. When Somchai undertakes a left turning cement truck and his brains get smeared across 20m of pavement, why should his co-workers have to fork out for his funeral?

(The reason co-workers are the ones that pay are because employers simply factor this as a cost in hiring which reduces the amount they can pay for employees so everyone gets lower wages).

Unless of course they mean dying on the job, in which case it's good because it encourages the employer to invest in safety initiatives.

6 hours ago, SCOTT FITZGERSLD said:

The stark reality is that even if there is a short complete lockdown (which Thailand as a developing nation can't afford) it will only slow transmission until the inevitable reopening, and it only works in tandem with an effective and rapid vaccination strategy (Thailand's is a well documented shambles). The Uk has been locked down for months, is approaching herd immunity, and still has 20,000 cases per day! See Israel too (with Pfizer). Thailand has no choice other than to live with it. Partial lockdowns will achieve nothing, and a months long total lockdown would destroy the country.

Lockdowns are only economically justifiable if you can eliminate the virus. That's no longer possible for Thailand unless neighbouring countries eliminate it which is not going to happen.

Partial lockdowns do have the humanitarian benefit of slowing the demand on hospitals allowing more people to be treated saving lives. The economic damage would probably cost more lives in the long run though.

23 hours ago, chalawaan said:

Australians don't have this luxury, but then again, compared to other expats, our country treats all departees like Christopher Skase even in the good times. Strange, as were not costing the miserable Canberra swine anything by leaving.

Australians can fly to the US to get vaccinated.

Make sure your landlord/you have done the TM30 in your passport.

In Bangkok you must have completed your first 90 day report.

15 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Strange you say that the immigrants are the illegals and should be shot. How did they get in?

 

You need to take a long hard look at the border controls. Corruption is rife at most border crossings.

 

 

Yes they should've come down hard on people smugglers and any corrupt officials helping them. They have emergency powers - just arbitrarily lock them up until the pandemic is over - I don't think anybody would object.

3 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

You make some fair and good points but somehow many companies and individuals pay little or no tax due to tax shelters, dodgy deductions  where the related income from an associated business is declared in low tax countries, and there are a range of ways to lower income through entities such as family trusts. So entities do pay tax on declared net income but they use tax strategies to reduce the  income on which they pay tax. You probably saw how some of the most famous billionaires pay little or no tax while their net worth soars. 

 

On the dividend issue Australia has higher taxes but we do have imputation credits so you get  credit for tax paid by companies on dividends - I concur that that is fair.  One negative is that it is taken too far whereby if you have no tax to pay you get a refund similar to the tax credit which benefits wealthy retirees. It basically meant that the company paid tax and the shareholder got that tax back as a refund so no one paid tax. 

 

As I said too it's not just about tax. 

 

Your comment about famous billionaires paying little to no tax while their wealth soars is misleading.

These cases are generally cases where the billionaire has some capital asset such as shares and the shares go up in value causing his wealth to sore. This isn't taxable at the time but is taxable when the asset is disposed of. As a result, their net wealth will decrease by the expected taxable amount as they have a new liability (provision for future taxes). So while yes it's true that they don't pay tax on such, their net wealth decreases by an amount equivalent to the tax.

The wealthy retiree situation in Australia is misleading as well. The only way they'd be paying no tax is if their income is extremely low and this can only be used for small amounts (total income cannot exceed A$18200). Beyond this retirees can however use their Super Fund to only pay 15% tax on their equity dividends which means if their equities are fully franked, they will get a 15% refund so the government still gets 15% tax.

44 minutes ago, StreetCowboy said:

But there are no races.  Race is a convenient but simplistic way of aggregating people with broadly similar genetic backgrounds.  It works well enough for the people in the middle of the group, but when you try and draw lines between groups, you find that there is no "between". We could assign arbitrary boundaries, if we could quantify those differences and similarities, but they are qualitative rather than quantitative, and defy such simplification.

 

Let's see if that gets the OP in a tizzy.  Or whether our Thomas struggles with the big words.

 

SC 

Yes this is basically true, but some races can be defined genetically with very high degrees of accuracy. E.g. the Andamanese people, Australian aborigines (even West and East Australian aborigines can be distinguished from each other), but even then it's still probabilistic. The longer a race is isolated from the rest of the world, the higher the likeliness of them having more unique mutations. The more unique mutations a race has, the more likely that any individual has at least one and thus that individual can be distinguished with certainty.

That being said, even among races that weren't isolated, for most of human existence, distant travel rarely occurred quickly so mutations tend to be geographically distributed. Thus, there are still probabilistically-definable genetic differences between distant groups. It goes on from this that it's entirely possible for Chinese people to on average be genetically better at math than Sub-Saharan Africans, it would just be extremely difficult to prove and kind of pointless.

29 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO every normal child born has equal abilities.  What they end up actually doing is IMO governed by their family, community, society and environment.

It's a bit hard to succeed if one grows up in a mud hut, and never has access to education. Put an Asian in that situation and IMO they will do as poorly.

 

It's ironic, IMO, that the people that appreciate education the most are those that have the least access to it.

While you're correct in that the environment they grow up in has the biggest impact, your belief that people are born with equal abilities is false. Healthy twins can be born with equal abilities; Beyond that it comes down to a combination of your parents' genetics and luck.

The belief that every healthy person is born with equal abilities stems from a misinterpretation of research showing that genetic diversity within races exceeds diversity between races and therefore, there is no explicit genetic basis for races. Many people (assuming yourself too) took this to mean there are no races, therefore we're all the same, but the research shows the exact opposite is true. It's not because we're all the same but because we're all different.

If the residual value of the car is more than the remainder of the loan against it, then she can sell it. Go with the buyer to the finance provider, the buyer pays off the loan and pays any extra difference to her.

If the residual value is lower, then she has two choices.

 - She can still sell the car, but she will need to make up the difference (the buyer pays off the loan, and she pays an additional amount).

 - Default on the loan, the finance provider recovers the car. She will be blacklisted but since it sounds like she has no other assets, they will not likely pursue this further.

Note in the first case she may be able to negotiate down the debt. Since she has the option to default completely, they should be happy to get whatever they can. She can offer to make a partial payment as a full and final settlement in return for not getting blacklisted. If they refuse, they get nothing at all and she gets blacklisted. If they comply, they get a partial payment and she doesn't get blacklisted. Never heard of anyone succeeding with this in Thailand, but a good negotiator should be able to do it.