LosLobo

What is the point you are trying to make here?

What eye drops were you prescribed?

Neither of those options will be available to me. Good to know about savings I assume that would also apply to my superannuation, though any ongoing investment returns may be taxable.

Yes, I am confused by the amount of conflicting information coming from the ATO. Not only this instance but in general. I suggest My Ego's response will be the definitive answer. Though if aged pensions are now taxable in Thailand under its Amendment of the Revenue Code Act, the exercise will be moot. As Thai banks now require the Thai version of a tax file number (TIN) to open bank accounts, compliance will become compulsory.

'Only for you'? I would suggest that this discussion may be existential for some as expats in Thailand and possibly not the place for ad hominem remarks. My goal is to share information and perspectives and sort through the array conflicting viewpoints to achieve a consensus. To add to your perspective, I would like to share this, though it is for Service Pensions and 20 years old. ATO ID 2003/154 | Legal database

Articule 19 of Norbra's email seems to be for Govt Pensions, Articule 18 seems to be for Aged Pensions. Without the context of the question which promoted Norbra's email more confusion is added to the mix.

No, you do not need to be resident for two years to qualify for the AAP, if you are a returning resident the AAP is available on application, if eligible. But you need to wait two years to gain portability. There was some discussion that portability may not be indefinite for someone who returns too long after gaining portability and may have to re-apply. The links were posted some years ago, but hard to find now that this topic was been polluted with unnecessary repetitive reposts. This view does not seem to have gained any traction lately and I suggest may not be an issue.

With respect, you are trying to use a logical fallacy called an “Argument from Ignorance” or “Ad Ignorantiam.” commonly known as 'trying to prove a negative', to prove your argument. This fallacy occurs when it’s assumed that a claim is true because it hasn’t been proven false, or it’s assumed that a claim is false because it hasn’t been proven true. In this case, you are suggesting that because there is no link stating that Age Pensioners pay tax, it must mean that Age Pensioners do not pay tax. Nevertheless, I suggest that there are links that say the aged pension is taxable income. 'Taxable government payments, pensions and allowances include age pension' Government payments and allowances | Australian Taxation Office (ato.gov.au) I can see where you are coming from there is a perception that if your aged pension payment is your only source of income, then you do not need to pay tax. But the aged pension is still taxable and the reason for not paying tax in this case is only because of thresholds and offsets. Ergo, according to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), Australian non-residents who receive the Australian Age Pension are also subject to taxation but without the threshold. As a foreign resident for tax purposes, you will pay income tax according to foreign resident rates. This means for all income under $180k, you’ll pay 32.5c per dollar. You’ll likely be eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset (SAPTO), meaning you’ll get a tax offset to help counter the tax payable.

I would agree Donald is about to throw her under the bus. 'Donald Trump’s fans paid for his revenge lawsuits, a private defamation case, his bail, and many more legal headaches. But they also paid to investigate his lawyers. He was looking into the actions of his own lawyers'. 'According to a source familiar with the situation, the private investigators were commissioned to look into missteps by Trump’s legal team in the early stages of his rape defamation case against E. Jean Carroll'. Trump PAC Paid to Investigate Stupidity of Trump’s Own Lawyers

You seem to forget I am the one who first posted the link about Blake last year. Do you remember Blake the guy you have dreamt of and fantasized about ever since. I would post my contribution again so you could memorialize it, but it is too difficult to find in this monster of 620 reposts, that you have created, Herr Frankenstein.

Answer to your silly question: Here

Hi, though it is extremely difficult for me to admit, I agree with KH here, sorry.

I must apologise for using the unfair tactics of reasoning, logic and facts in my discussion arguments. In reality, I welcome ad hominem attacks as they represent a subliminal yielding to a more worthy opponent when all else has failed and they have nothing more to offer. So, thank you for your admission. Seems there are more than two girls who have filed lawsuits against Trump for assault. There are five: 1. Ivana Trump: During their divorce proceedings in the early 90s, Ivana Trump accused Donald Trump of assaulting and raping her. 2. Jane Doe (also known as Katie Johnson): Jane Doe accused Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her in 1994 when she was 13 years old. 3. Summer Zervos: A former contestant on “The Apprentice,” accused Donald Trump of groping her in a Los Angeles hotel room in 2007. 4. Alva Johnson: A former campaign staffer, accused Donald Trump of forcibly kissing her without her consent in 2016. 5. E. Jean Carroll: Accused Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her in a Manhattan department store in the mid-1990s In fact, there have been 26 women who have accused him of sexual misconduct. The 26 Women Who Have Accused Trump of Sexual Misconduct

Seems Antonin Scalia may have come back from the grave to haunt Trump..... 'Former conservative appellate judge J. Michael Luttig, who has become an outspoken Trump critic, cited Scalia in a brief to the court this week. The Scalia concurrence, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and two other conservatives, involved a dispute between the teamsters and a soda distributor. The late justice wrote that all “officers” of the United States must be appointed by the president “except where” the Constitution “provides otherwise.” It is on that caveat that Trump’s critics hang their argument.' Trump’s critics hope that Antonin Scalia can sway the Supreme Court in 14th Amendment fight | CNN Politics

More on Weisselberg, how it might impact Trump and Judge Engoron's verdict.

1. Thai is useful in a country where the national language is Thai. 2. Thai is not a dead language. Ergo, your only motivation to learn Thai is 3.

Seems there has been an increase in burning and deforestation in Cambodia in recent years. The main drivers behind this are the conversion of forest lands for agricultural use and targeted logging of valuable species, such as rosewood, for the Asian furniture markets. At their peak during the dry season, thousands of fires burn throughout the forests of north and central Cambodia, more than in any other country throughout Southeast Asia. As for the role of Chinese investment, China is the largest investor in Cambodia. Chinese investment in Cambodia has increased significantly over the years, with a large amount of this investment going into infrastructure projects and industries such as real estate and rubber plantations. These developments have sometimes led to the clearing of natural forests. Cambodia Burning | Rainforest Journalism Fund

Yet, there was no bubble to burst, just posting the facts. You are preaching to the choir about the uncertainty of polls. You seem to have a poor opinion of women, there is not a stereotype as there is not one for men. Bottom line, nothing is ever over with Trump. If Trump is still on the ticket, as you suggest November is 'still light years away', he will brag about his victory irrespective if he wins or not. I believe in facts, not dreams, propaganda, misinformation or conspiracy theories.

The “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory is alive and well.

While I didn’t major in education, I believe that learning is a lifelong process. We all have the capacity to educate ourselves and others, regardless of our formal education. In discussions here, for example, we’re educating each other about important issues and perspectives.

'Not a coincident (sic)'? Seems you don't know the difference between the words 'running for office' and being a 'high profile celeb'. Also, though understandable for MagaWorld talking points, your post seems to be a logical fallacy salad, comprising: Post hoc ergo propter hoc (After this, therefore because of this): This fallacy is present in the assumption that because the lawsuits were filed after Trump announced his candidacy, they were filed because of his candidacy. Correlation does not imply causation. Ad Hominem (Attack on Character): The phrase “funnily enough wasn’t hated by the media back then” could be seen as an ad hominem attack, as it attempts to discredit the claims by implying a bias in the media, rather than addressing the claims themselves. Hasty Generalization: The statement “didn’t feel the need to file a lawsuit in 2 decades” is a hasty generalization. It assumes that the timing of a lawsuit is solely based on ‘feeling the need’ to file it, oversimplifying the many factors that can influence such a decision.

Depends, if you think getting your personal information published is stardom and you and your family getting death threats is not suffering.

Your post demonstrates MagaWorld's lack of reasoning and critical thinking as it is full of logical fallacies: Overgeneralization: The statement assumes that “everyone” who criticizes Trump is celebrated by “the left” and becomes famous. This is an overgeneralization as it simplifies the diverse range of views and responses within any political group. Ad Hominem: The phrase “old has-been columnist” is an example of an ad hominem attack, which involves attacking a person’s character rather than addressing their arguments or points. Straw Man: The statement could be seen as a straw man argument, as it misrepresents the position of “the left” by suggesting that they universally celebrate anyone who criticizes Trump, which may not accurately reflect the nuanced views within this group. Obviously, you took the blue pill.

Hmmm, it’s important to remember that survivors of sexual assault often face significant barriers to coming forward with their stories, including fear of retaliation, shame, and societal stigma. The timing of when a survivor chooses to disclose their experience or file a lawsuit does not determine the validity of their claims. It’s also worth noting that high-profile figures running for public office often face increased scrutiny, which can lead to previously unreported allegations coming to light.

You mean like this? 'A lawsuit filed in California in April 2016 accused Trump and Epstein of forcibly raping three 12 and 13-year-old girls at underage sex parties at Epstein's Manhattan residence in 1994'. Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations - Wikipedia or this? Met Gala - YouTube