Jump to content

ftpjtm

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    860
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ftpjtm

  1. 2 minutes ago, BobbyL said:

    As I posted in a similar thread a day or so ago - 

     

    Thailand was a haven for western tourists in the 90s and early 00s. Every Tom, Dick and Harry wanted to come here for something different - backpackers, couples, sex pests, retirees, beach goers, adventure seekers etc. Nowadays, relying on one or two (e.g - Chinese) tourist markets was never ever going to end well. 

     

    What the TAT and the boys in charge failed to realise was to keep this tourist momentum up you need to improve, be innovative and develop the industry so it continues to grow. What I believe Thailand did in their partly ingrained arrogance, is basically nothing. They believed their own hype and thought we will always be able to attract tourists no matter what. 

     

    IMO it's worse than that. In the '90's and early '00's there was a very active Amazing Thailand campaign to draw tourists into the country from the US.

     

    It was effective, many, many American friends expressed interest in visiting Thailand.

     

    As that was replaced by news of coups, bombings, police crack downs on night clubs and card playing, unsolved murders etc etc there is MUCH less interest in Americans visiting Thailand. 

     

    Government tourism campaigns are helpful, but when is the last time you heard of one aimed at Westerners?

    • Like 2
  2. 3 minutes ago, EricTh said:

     

    Hong Kong and Singapore are known to be anti-mainlanders from what I read even though they are of the same race.

     

    It's a case of being arrogant and they think they are better just because they are richer. Just pure ignorance and nonsensical arrogance.

     

    They are very small countries the size of island, so they don't know that it is nonsensical to ban huge countries like USA, Canada, China just because one city got the virus. 

     

    Okay, so you've explained why banning main landers isn't racist.

     

    Nowe explain why its sensible to allow entry to persons who have a piece of paper declaring them disease free, when it's impossible to know if they're carrying it during the incubation period?

    • Like 1
  3. 3 minutes ago, EricTh said:

    I think this is a more sensible approach rather than a blanket, racist ban like what some countries do.

     

    There are many people with various diseases from all the world, we shouldn't ban them just because a small percentage has that virus or disease. Eg. 

     

    There are many countries with HIV carriers, do we see ban from these countries as well?

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_HIV/AIDS_adult_prevalence_rate

     

    Clearly, this is racially-motivated by certain anti-Chinese countries.

    Then explain how the certificate will identify persons carrying the disease during the incubation period.

     

    And explain why the Chinese of Hong Kong and Singapore are racist for wanting all persons, regardless of race, to be banned from entry?

    • Thanks 1
  4. 3 hours ago, Time Traveller said:

    Well that sucks for Pedo guy. Those high priced rock star american lawyers don't come cheap.

    Probably had no understanding that in America, ordinary people stand no chance against the wealthy. Of course his lawyer wasn't going to tell him that. They get paid no matter what happens.

    You and everyone else who've said this are wrong. Very good chance the case was taken on contingency, which means Unsworth spent nothing but his time and possibly some travel expenses. If he won, he would have shared 33% of the proceeds with his lawyers who likely insisted on the $190M figure - they were making a bet and lost.

     

    Musk on the other hand paid out a hefty sum in lawyers fees to defend himself.

    • Like 1
  5. 32 minutes ago, Jeffrey346 said:

    I think that's a myth. I have only heard of one person who came here specifically for med reasons. How many do you know of??

    I recently had a tour of Bumrungrad Hospital by a person involved in marketing the hospital for medical tourism. It's certainly big business there, mainly for middle easterners they say. They have a visa extension department in house, a large staff dedicated to processing paperwork in various languages, airport shuttles and plenty of other evidence of it being a major medical tourism destination. 

     

    While I've had no such tour at Bangkok Hospital, I've seen enough of it to believe that it too is a major medical tourism destination. Bangkok Hospital Pattaya has an entire tower dedicated to cosmetic surgery. I'm sure there are plenty of foreigners making use of that facility.

    • Like 2
  6. Imagine! Korean hotel staff assumed she was a sex worker just because she was Thai!

     

    I can't count how many times Thai hotel staff assumed my Thai wife is a sex worker when entering the hotel late at night - just because she's Thai.

     

    We make a game of it, book the room in her name so I'm the one who would have to pay a "joiner" fee, and she flashes her US passport when they ask for ID. I think it's hilarious. Her - not so much.

  7. 34 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

     

    An insurance policy is a legally binding contract. They can't "dump"you if you continue to pay the premiums and the policy guaranteed lifetime cover (most do, but check the wording, a few stop cover at a certain age which is obviously not a policy to get).

     

    Most (but not all) Thai insurance companies include a provision that allows them to raise premiums based on claim history and/or "change in risk profile" so your concern about being priced out once ill with a chronic condition (and thus unable to get another policy) is valid and a good reason to avoid such policies. Internationally issued expat policies almost never allow for this, it would contravene the insurance regulations of their countries (health insurance regulatory environment in Thailand is rather weak).  As I have repeatedly said, being insured in Thailand does not have to mean buying insurance from a Thai company. Many western insurance companies offer expatriate policies specifically tailored to the needs of people living outside their own country. Dollar for dollar they do nto cost more, in fact often the opposite, and they come under the regulatory framework of whatever country the company is registered in.

     

    Policy documents will spell out the terms of premium raises and renewals etc. I advise against taking out a  policy that allows for increases based on claim history or change in health status if you are planning on growing old here and don't have a clear repatriation plan set up. You will still have to contend with increases based on age, that is inevitable, but at least those can be predicted and budgeted for. Likewise I advise against any policy that does not guarantee lifetime renewal.

    Thanks for some level headed advice. From previous postings I've read of yours I'm guessing you are involved in the medical profession, and from this one it seems like you have some working experience with some of the insurance companies offering insurance to expats residing in Thailand?

     

    If this is the case, could you name a few who you believe offer a decent product?

    • Like 1
  8. On 4/19/2019 at 2:30 AM, connda said:

    But back to the original charges in the investigation - what was Russia's role in criminally conspiring with the Trump campaign to swing the 2016 presidential elections, and what were the Trump campaign's role in criminally conspiring with Russia to swing the 2016 presidential campaign?  
     

    *Tinfoil hat on*

     

    Taking a look back, I still believe what I believed 2 years ago. Yes, the Russians spied on US institutions, and yes, the Trump campaign gladly accepted dirt on Hillary and Democrats given to them by the Russians during the campaign.

     

    But I don't believe that the Russians wanted Trump to win. I think like everyone else they believed that the election was a sure victory for Hillary. So why help Trump?

     

    Not because they wanted him to win. I believe that they had some serious dirt on Hillary (maybe the 30,000 emails?) which they were keeping to themselves. While relishing the prospect of using it to influence a President Hillary, they couldn't resist making her squirm over that prospect and were therefore leaking relatively inconsequential stuff to keep her on edge. I found it telling, for example, that all of the emails leaked from Podesta's account were written by him to Hillary, while her replies to those emails were not leaked. Her replies would certainly be more damaging to her than what Podesta wrote to her. 

     

    Hillary had already proved herself willing to assist with things in Russia's interest for a price through the Uranium One deal. And she had the perfect money for favors mechanism in place with the Clinton Foundation. I believe that the Russians would have far preferred her in office than Trump, and had some blackmail material with which they could have place pressure on a President Hillary Clinton.

     

    The Russians were playing with their victim by feeding information to Trump. Unfortunately for them, they played a little too rough.

    • Thanks 1
  9. More complete info on Sanders charitable giving here.

     

    "Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) released a decade’s worth of tax returns on Monday, detailing millions in income—2.26 percent of which he donated to charity. The documents show that over the years, Sanders’ income ranged from $205,617 to $1.1 million, while his charitable giving ranged from less than 1 percent to just over 4 percent depending on the year.

     

    Last year, Sanders’ total income was $566, 421 and he donated $18,950 or 3.35 percent. In 2017, his income was $1.1 million and he gave away $36,300 or 3.15 percent.

     

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-sanders-donated-226-to-charity-tax-returns-show

  10. 6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

    Yep Bernie Sanders is the real problem:

     

     

    EE0310E4-A838-4D86-855D-3A28F874373C.jpeg

    Nice graphic but, have you ever looked into why these companies didn't pay tax? Let's take a look at 2.

     

    General Motors - Between 2005 - 2008 they lost $82 Billion. They borrowed money to keep their business running in spite of those losses, and were able to do so because of the "loss carry forward" provision in the tax code. That is not something only applied to corporations, it applies to individuals as well. How does it work? Imagine a salaried employee who received company stocks as part of his compensation. After decades of working for the company he had $150,000 in stock, which was the bulk of his life savings. And then the company went into bankruptcy. Overnight he suffered a $150,000 loss. Or his uninsured house burned down and he suffered a $150,000 loss. Or he had a $150,000 judgement levied against him due to a lawsuit. In all cases, if he earned $50,000 income in the same year as suffering the $150,000 loss, he would be exempt from income tax because he lost more than he earned. The next two years, if he earned another $50,000 each year, he would still be able to apply his previous year's loss against his income and would be exempt from income taxes until such time as his income exceeded his "loss carry forward". GM is doing the same thing. They earned income in 2018, but they have still not earned more income than they lost in the 2005 - 2008 period. If you think they should have paid taxes before recovering their losses, then you presumably think companies should not be able to balance past losses against current income. If they were not able to do that, then in most cases, and certainly in the case of GM, a large loss would bankrupt the company, putting 10's of thousands out of work. And you also need to answer the question, if corporations can't carry forward losses, can individuals carry them forward? If yes, how about LLC's?

     

    Amazon - Amazon is does not have a carry forward loss, and yet pays very little corporate income tax. The reason for this is that rather than distributing their profits to owners/shareholders, they have a history of reinvesting it in their business. That has made them a company that has grown exponentially, has hired tens of thousands of employees (who pay huge amounts of income tax), has invested in enormous amounts in plants and equipment (resulting and huge amounts of property tax payments), and has invested heavily in R&D (resulting in the creation of large numbers of high paying jobs and requisite income taxes paid). In other words, they've done exactly what is most beneficial to the economy. Rather than hording cash, or distributing it to the owners, they invested it ways that were of maximum benefit to the community and economy instead. Through this Bezos has become tremendously wealthy, but mainly "on paper", in that most of his wealth is based on the valuation of Amazon stock, not based on money which is in his personal bank account. If Amazon was disallowed corporate tax credit on investments and R&D, they would have paid more corporate income tax, but would also be much smaller and would not have revolutionized retail in ways that benefited consumers and created 10's of thousands of jobs, and as an entity would have paid less taxes if you include income taxes paid by their employees, property taxes, etc.  

     

    In general, corporations who don't pay tax in a particular year either had tremendous losses either that year or in a previous year(s), or reinvested most of their profits in the business/economy rather than taking it as "owner's profit". 

     

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephaniedenning/2019/02/22/why-amazon-pays-no-corporate-taxes/#5fe14f8954d5

     

    https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/03/business/gm-federal-tax/index.html

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...