AlexRich

5 hours ago, Neeranam said:

Wrong, they can't tax me on my income from  British company going to my Scottish bank. It is entirely up to me if I want to take it into Thailand, and entirely up to me if I want to pay tax on it. 

I believe that Thailand is part of OECD agreements involving bank information. If you have a Scottish address for the account the information will not go to Thailand. If you have a Thai address on your account it will. 
 

Either way, if you are in Thailand for more than 180 days you are a tax resident, and your Scottish bank interest is taxable under these new rules. Not including that detail in your return is tax evasion. 
 

The problem is that even if they don’t know now they might find out on the future. Countries are being more and more open about information swaps. So it makes sense to organise your life to have residency in the country that has the least tax impact, and only be in Thailand below 180 days. 

7 hours ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

Not condoning the Brits actions but unprovoked?

 

Looks like the village manager went over and was asking for it. 

 

 

It is true that we don’t know the full facts. However, anyone who does their homework on how to live in Thailand knows that hitting a Thai, and an old man at that, will only get you in serious trouble. So you need to keep a calm head all times.

Hitting an elderly man is just shameful. I think Matthew needs to spend some time in jail.

I think that going to Ao Nang would benefit your health, so it sounds like a good plan. 

Trump just got a reality check. 

Donald J Trump was tonight found guilty on all 34 counts. Is he now finished as a Presidential Candidate?  

There is a daytime UK Channel 4 show called "Bargain Brits in the Sun", about people born in the UK but living and retiring in Benidorm, Spain.

It appears to be a place where drag queens and gays go to retire. The programme is full of them, possibly because they are more entertaining on camera than your average retiree. 

39 minutes ago, stoner said:

 

You might want to get a refund for the education you paid for. Comprehension isn't your strong suit.

Apparently, interpretation is not your strong suit. 

Phillips & Associates

Attorneys at Law

What are considered sexual advances in the workplace?

"There's no rubric or rulebook on what constitutes a sexual advance. For example, it could be physical touching, it could be groping, and it could also be more subtle types of physical touching. And a lot of time these types of physical conduct are accompanied by perverse comments, propositions, emails, text messages ..."

28 minutes ago, stoner said:

 

Getting handsy is sexual assault. An inappropriate advance would be saying I want to make you cream in front of her husband. 

 

See the difference.

You can interpret "inappropriate advance" more widely than just inappropriate words. The fact is that not one knows the exact details of the so-called advance, and whether it involved placing hands on the subject. And it wasn't just one advance, according to a report that I viewed on You Tube it was escalatory ... so the guy had enough and lamped him. Your interpretation of what constitutes an inappropriate advance is narrow, mine is wider. 

3 hours ago, ujayujay said:

You are probably one of the kind of miserable men who think that conflicts can only be solved with violence...disgusting

You think all conflicts can be solved by talking? The Russian was dealt with in the only language he understands. 

1 hour ago, Brian Meyers said:

Sexual assault and inappropriate advances are  two different things. Ether way the aggravated battery Trump's a verbal assault and the Brit will now face prison .

Do you think the Russian asked her to lunch? Inappropriate advance means a little more than that ... like getting handsy or otherwise physically over familiar. Either way, I don't blame the Brit for what he did ... and I doubt he'd get more than a slap on the wrist if he were Thai. 

7 hours ago, stoner said:

 

did you even read the article ? 

Yes, did you? Or were you stoned?

I’d be very happy with a “Mexican suicide” … dying whilst sleeping on my porch wearing a sombrero. 

38 minutes ago, Ricksta1985 said:

Yes, I know Mr 0, and I chose to express my opinion of your opinion and point out some facts.

 

You seem to be failing to understand the concept of the platform. Just because the cause does not identify with what you deem a worthy fundraiser, it does not mean it is not suitable, just your opinion and a dumb was is all 🙂 

I’m not alone in my opinion. No due diligence or audit of how funds are applied. I don’t doubt some genuine people get funding, but don’t ask us to believe that plenty of the unworthy and out and out grifters don’t benefit also … but please continue to gaslight us all that this fundraiser is worthy. 
 

Are you involved in this fundraiser? That might explain your objection to my first post, that got a very popular response. 

20 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Who decides who should donate whatever sum to a charity?

I am  against Go Fund Me in principal and I will never donate to it but I also believe that it is up to each individual who, what and how, if any, they choose to donate any of their money to!

I don’t decide either, I express my opinion. That’s what Thai Visa forum is for. You don’t need to like it. What other people do is up to them. 

The problem I have with GFM is that it is a platform that can be used for grift and fraud … with no due diligence undertaken by the platform to confirm that any claims made are genuine, and no attempt to find out if the proceeds are applied for the stated purpose. Anyone can claim poverty, no proof required. I would only donate to people I knew and whose circumstances I could verify. And I would do it directly, not on a platform that retains a fee. What you do is up to you.
 

19 minutes ago, Ricksta1985 said:

Luckily, that is not for you to decide what is and what isn't appropriate. Someone can travel to Thailand for 2 weeks for £1500 - £2000, which can be paid for over the course of 6 or 7 months. No, he is not in full-time work - He was..... It has become clear you make only assumptions, assertions, and ''guesses''. You seem desperate to justify your original retarded comment by now blabbering on about a load of other nonsense that is completely irrelevant.  My point remains, things like this are what the platform is for, and that will not change if you like it or not. Whether his family had an alternative or not, you have zero clue about, only your guesses. You little man are the epitome of an imbecile, and, this comment above proves it Mr 0. 

This is a forum you muppet, where people express their opinions. I decide what I believe, not you or anyone else. I don't care whether you or anyone else contributes to Go Fund Me. 

If someone chooses to go to Thailand uninsured it is their decision. And the unintended financial consequences when something goes wrong are down to them and their family. No one else. Anyone who can afford to go here frequently, can afford to get back once. As for assumptions, you are also making them ... assuming that there is no financial resources available for this other than charity? You make your assumption, I make mine.  

2 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

When somebody dies you can't immediately access their funds and/or assets. It can take months or years for all the probate stuff to be sorted out. 

GFM is a perfectly sensible way to raise funds from those who want to donate, rather than cause added stress to his closest friends and family who may be stretched for money. 

That’s what insurance is for. And if you didn’t take insurance out and your family is under resourced, that is not the world’s problem. 
 

My guess is that the deceased has sufficient assets to cover these costs, and if access is a problem his beneficiaries can get a short term loan to cover the costs until such assets are released. 

3 hours ago, Woof999 said:

 

Actually what you are doing is indirectly questioning the intelligence of people that donate on GFM. It's there for a reason. Helping out others in their time of need is one of them. Nobody is expecting you to donate and, conversely, you don't show much class by slagging off those that do, or those that use it as a platform.

 

Perhaps those that donate knew him, know somebody that knew him, or are just decent people willing to spend a few quid to help out others. Maybe they already did their due diligence and know that its not a scam. Maybe they didn't. So what?

No, I am not doing that. What I am doing is responding to a cretin who insults people in his posts because he doesn’t agree with their opinion. He’s getting back what he dishes out! 
 

If you or anyone else knows this guy and wants to contribute, fill your boots up. I couldn’t care less what you do.