newnative

As always, no doubt he is 'satisfied' with his performance and he has instructed himself to continue with his fine service to his people.

I was just re-reading this post and I think one of your statements may be incorrect. You say that if you sell a house you have lived in but don't buy a replacement you will pay a capital gains tax on the profit, which, as you say, can be 'huge' as most homes do increase in value over time. However, this seems to be current tax law, which I'll paste from Investopedia: On Aug. 5, 1997, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 took effect. The act did away with the continual unlimited deferral of profits and replaced it with capped exclusions.4 The current capital gains rules around the sale of your main home allow single taxpayers to exclude $250,000 in profits on their home's sale. Married couples who file jointly can exclude $500,000 from their taxable income. Age is not a factor, and you do not have to buy a replacement home. After you take the exclusion, you could buy a less expensive home or revert back to being a renter. Better still, the IRS will let you use the exclusion each time you sell your primary residence.5 To qualify for the current deferral rules, there are two rules: You must have owned and used the home as your primary residence for at least two out of the previous five years. These two years do not need to be consecutive. You cannot have used the exclusion during the preceding two years.5 The change in the tax law wouldn't have helped your father if he sold before 1997 but if he sold after the new law and the home was his primary residence for 2 of the last 5 years, it seems he should not have had to pay any capital gains tax except on any of the profit over the limit allowed, depending on his filing status. This 1997 tax law seems like a positive change for homeowners, unless I am misreading it.

Uh, oh. The dreaded word 'should'.

Committee after committee after committee. Where's the acceleration?

As always with the police, laser-focused on what is not in the least bit important or relevant.

It doesn't really matter, anyway. The important thing is TAT always counts the same way, whether it's 2019 or 2022. In 2010 there were about 16 million visitors, including me moving to Thailand. In 2019 there were 39 million visitors. This year, around 3 million and change so far. Easy to see, still very bad compared to 2019. And 2010.

I was just going to text the same thing. Madness, indeed. Take them off the market already so customers don't keep making the cheap, dangerous, deadly choice.

Yes, there will always be some racists. But, there has been change in racial attitudes. And, it doesn't need your 'A few more generations need to go before there might be a change' to see that change. It's happening already. A prince of Britain marries a bi-racial American and it's celebrated with a broadcast seen around the world. A person can be racist to their heart's content in the voting booth; their vote is completely private. To refresh your memory of another change in racial attitudes, Americans went into the private voting booths and freely chose to elect the son of an interracial marriage between a Black man and a White woman, along with his Black First Lady, President of the United States. Twice. Nice it didn't take 'a few more generations' to see that change.

Yes, let's definitely focus on what is good for the children. But, with the caveat that we live in an imperfect, diverse, and often messy world. So, what is good for the children? What some research is finding is that children do better when raised in a stable two-parent environment. It doesn't matter if the two parents are straight or gay. The key is a stable family environment--whether gay or straight--which can produce better outcomes. It's true that some children raised by a single parent, gay or straight, can face some disadvantages. Some single parents have to work longer hours, resulting in less family time, and some have lower incomes than a two-parent family, which can present some added challenges. But, there have also been a number of strengths identified in being raised by a single parent, including a strong parent-child bond and a more independent and responsible child. I wonder what is more, in your words, 'sub-optimal'--keeping a child in impersonal government foster care or allowing the child to be adopted by a single adult yearning to be a parent? What I think would be an interesting study would be charting the outcomes of children adopted at birth by single parents, gay or straight, who have passed stringent adoption requirements, vs. children not adopted and raised in foster care until they age out. Studies have shown that the earlier a child is adopted the better but I couldn't find anything focused solely on outcomes with single parent adoption. Getting back to same-sex couples, one interesting study from the Netherlands, which had gay marriage before any other country, showed that children from same-sex families performed better in school, both at the primary and secondary level, than children from straight families. Good to know that academic outcomes are not compromised for children in families lacking either a mother or a father in the equation. Other research also supports the growing body of data coming to the conclusion that children from same-sex marriages at least do equally as well as those from straight marriages. It can be confusing, though, because some research reached different conclusions. Happily, Cornell University has stepped in. Cornell took on the task of reviewing all the credible research studies it could find on the topic of the well-being of children raised by gay or lesbian parents. They identified 79 scholarly studies. Of those, 75 came to the conclusion that children raised by same-sex parents fared no worse than those raised by straight parents. With the other 4, Cornell found that the research was flawed as most of the children studied had not actually been raised by same-sex parents but by parents with one partner who later came out as gay. In any case, 75 out of 79 is good enough for me. One argument that is sometimes raised has to do with children of same-sex marriages being possibly bullied or ridiculed in school. Likely this has occurred but should something that may or may not happen in the future nix the possibility of children being adopted by gay parents? In an earlier post, I mentioned that in 1958, 96% of Americans opposed interracial marriage. Imagine the bullying and discrimination a mixed-race child faced back then. However, despite the possibility of bullying and discrimination, laws prohibiting mixed-race marriages were struck down; a fundamental equal right outweighed a possible, initial negative impact on the children of these unions. Eventually, attitudes changed. Now, there's been a complete reversal, with 94% of Americans supporting interracial marriage. Quite a turn around. Gay marriage and gay adoption are still relatively new but both have seen approval ratings increase as people adjust to change, and as they see that there has not been a negative impact with either.

I think you are way behind the times. Even a majority of Republicans now support gay marriage by 55%. But, yes, let's definitely differ on this.

If they had checked Mountain B for weapons, exits, and 'safety' (whatever that is), it likely would have passed, too. "No weapons, check, there are exit doors, check, certainly looks very safe with those tires on the roof keeping it from blowing away. Check. Next!"

Buh bye bye

Oh, for sure, there likely will always be a minority against. 6% of Americans are still opposed to inter-racial marriage. In 1958, that figure was 96% opposed. Changing attitudes takes time. For gay marriage, the percentage in favor of it keeps going up. As recently as 2014, a small majority of 55% supported it. Today, it's at an all-time high of 71%.

There's no going back. Not with gay marriage rights, not with inter-racial marriage rights, not with women's rights, not with abortion rights, not with minority rights. Those in opposition, including a handful of conservatives on the Supreme Court, are swimming against a tide that has turned. It was quite heartening to recently see very conservative Kansas vote overwhelmingly to retain abortion rights in the state.

How about not just 'entertainment venues' but all buildings where large numbers of people gather?

As always, a few weak, useless words from the PM with no force behind them. In a few weeks, another useless statement that the PM is 'satisfied' with the results.

I sincerely hope this horrific tragedy receives the same lengthy, detailed, relentless scrutiny that the actress falling off the boat got. Just as an aside, there's a new, very cheap-looking building being constructed on 2nd Road near the 747. Long rectangle, few windows, looks a bit like the one that burned. Hope it gets a thorough inspection before it's allowed to open.

Yes, that's exactly what the PM should have done--immediate closure until a full inspection is done. Just ordering an investigation is far too weak and slow.

He's not the only one disappointed. Instead of starting so many projects at the same time, with not enough manpower to finish them, why not consolidate the workers at the most critical projects (hello 2nd Road!) and get them finished, then move on to the others.

Yes, that area isn't noisy. Mostly other hotels such as Mercure, Pattaya International hospital, and a few condos.

The last two flights I took before covid hit were in December 2019. I had made an unexpected trip to the US for my mother's funeral and had to make hasty travel arrangements. I left to return to Bangkok on Dec. 23rd. The first leg was Lufthansa from Dulles to Frankfort on a 747. I remember just before takeoff a big group of college students on the flight flying home for the holidays sang Christmas carols. Nice. The flight was packed. Service and food were both fine. The airport at Frankfort wasn't. I expected a lot better. Unimpressive and I had to take a shuttle bus from one terminal to another one. Freezing cold, drizzly, and we had to wait and wait until enough people had boarded that we were packed in like sardines before the shuttle would take us to the other terminal. I likely would have missed my flight had I had a tight connection. Perhaps I was spoiled by the wonderful airport at Seoul--which I had stopped at on my flight to America. Changing planes there was a breeze. The flight from Frankfort to Bangkok was on Thai, on an A380, my favorite jet. I had been assigned a window seat--which I hate because you usually have to disturb 2 other people when you need to get up. I asked the staff if they could switch me and they were able to move me from the lower level to the upper level, to an aisle seat in a row with just 2 seats. This flight was almost fully-booked and the staff was nice to make the change for me. This was my third time flying on Thai. People complain but all three flights were fine. The food and service were good. The flights left and arrived on time. No complaints. Sometime afterwards, I wondered if I had flown my last flight on a 747 and A380--hope not for the latter.

Pity the same effort was not made to capture the Red Bull killer.

Interesting. Thanks for posting.

Lots of rich people live in Pattaya. It's a big city, with a large variety of housing, some of it very nice. Perhaps you need to get out more and do some exploring.

It depends on the project. Always important to check the financials and the sinking fund, which is meant to help with big repairs. Check how the property is being maintained. The last condo I owned was in an upscale, older project with less than 200 units, mostly larger than the condos in newer projects. We had a special assessment each year because the condo fee was inadequate to maintain the project to the high standard the owners wanted. The owners, including me, we're happy to pay as it maintained our property investment. With some condo projects, the owners care more about keeping the condo fee low, even if the project is not very well-maintained. Important to investigate before buying.