CygnusX1

Amazing that the humble washing machine now comes with a motherboard, just like my gaming PC. My Philips automatic washer at my place in Australia is still going strong after 42 years, never serviced, never needed repairs.

I’ve just bet $500 with Australia’s TAB on a Harris win, odds of 2.4 were too good to pass up. Would be almost worth losing $500 to enjoy seeing the woke leftists having conniptions after a Trump victory though. However, talk of Trump withdrawing support for Ukraine and threatening a tariff war would be enough to make me an extremely reluctant supporter of Harris, though I think both candidates are frightful.

Quick web search shows cheapest 6 inch subway (plain ham) is $8 in Australia. From memory, couple of weeks ago I was paying around 110 baht or $4.90 at Jomtien subway (today's ex rate 22.3), but cheaper if you get the sub of the day. Nearest I'll get to real Thai food. Of course, as others have already pointed out, Thailand is hugely cheaper for the things that really count, such as housing and services. I paid $270 in Oz for an electrician to change a light switch, 2 minute job (he gave me a $30 discount as I'm retired). Paid 120 baht, or $5.40, for a lady in Pattaya to fix the soles of my sandals, over an hour's work, and my apologies to some here, I tipped her 80 baht.

A practice known as "dogging" according to my nephew. However, I don't think even he would have imagined in his wildest dreams anyone doing it to an ambulance, in any country.

I don’t think Thailand’s leading the way to a cashless society. I still have to sign my name at some supermarkets when paying by credit card, and Bangkok’s still full of ATM machines, including some fancy looking new ones. Australia’s far ahead. Thought I’d buy an ice cream at the little kiosk staffed by a couple of kids at Coogee beach, and was happy I had some cash in small notes, as they surely wouldn’t take plastic. To my astonishment, they would only take plastic, which I fortunately had, as I wasn’t swimming, just on a long walk. But when I do swim at a beach anywhere in the world, I never have plastic or my phone with me, as having those stolen while I was in the water would be a catastrophe, but losing $10 or $20 in cash is trivial.

So the $345 is for 3 months. Cheaper than I thought it would be. Delicate question, you’re not aged in your twenties or thirties?

That’s bad news for me, was hoping to have 6 months free insurance until I turned 70 (when the medical part of the free travel insurance stops). It always did seem to be too good to be true. ANZ hasn’t sent me anything yet, and their website still states 6 months.

4 MyEgo - Thanks once again for your help. Great to know that the 2 year rule shouldn’t apply to me. I’m back in Australia next week, so if I have any issues I will consider contacting Centrelink Tasmania - somewhat bizarre they apparently are the only helpful branch in Australia! I’m well aware of the deeming rules that apply to financial assets. I also think that my Thai condo wouldn’t be classed as a financial asset since it’s property I don’t derive income from, and so would only be included in the assets test. I’ll lose most of any pension I do succeed in getting through the income test rather than the assets test, so any over valuation by Centrelink of the Thai condo based on the assumption it would have appreciated in value at the same rate as Sydney property wouldn’t matter.

Thanks so much for that, you’ve set my mind at rest, and convinced me to undergo the no doubt lengthy and complicated process of applying for the OAP. As a bonus, I don’t spend all of my 8 months overseas in Thailand, but spend nearly 3 months in Europe each year (just shy of the annoying 90 day limit of the Schengen zone). I realise I have to be in Australia when applying. As for the question of whether someone in my rather comfortable financial position should get the OAP, that’s another topic for discussion!

I’m forced to maintain a residence (I believe ‘domicile’ is the technical term) in Australia so I can keep my tax residency status while spending 8 months or so overseas each year. I suppose I could just sell my flat and rent a place for the 4 months I’m in Australia, but changing address every year would look more than a little iffy to the tax office, and renting the same place for the whole year would end up nearly as expensive as keeping my flat, with all the disadvantages of renting. If my flat was in Bondi, no doubt I could profitably rent it out short term while I’m not in Australia, but since it’s in a place no tourist would want to visit, I could only really do that for 12 month periods, as well as having to spend tens of thousands to bring it up to a condition suitable for renting out. To bring this back on topic, I’m about to apply for the OAP. Apologies if this has been already covered in the past 215 pages, but does anyone know if my 8 month absences each year would prevent me from getting the pension? There’s a lot of talk about the 2 years spent in Australia to qualify, hope I wouldn’t have to suspend much of my travel for that period of time.

There have been recent stories in the media about people being denied boarding on a flight due to some microscopic level of damage to their passport. It’s safest to treat your passport with great care, and carry it about and handle it as little as possible.

No, afraid I have no advice for those guys. If I did know of a way around it, I’d have been living in Thailand full time for the last six years myself. Instead, I’m forced to permanently lock up a large amount of money in my flat in Australia, along with paying thousands each year in council tax, body corporate fees, fixed charges for electricity and water, air fares between Sydney and Bangkok. I do save on health insurance that I would have had to purchase were I living in Thailand full time.

My understanding is that the proposed new legislation is not as clear cut as Thailand’s 180 days. If you genuinely maintain a domicile in Australia, and have certain long term links to Australia, you would still be a tax resident, while being present for less than 183 days, possibly need to be there minimum of 45 or maybe 90 days. Can’t see the Australian tax office declaring someone a non resident for tax purposes just because they had a 7 month round the world holiday post retirement. For some wealthy people, it’s a big advantage to be non resident for tax purposes, and the tax office wouldn’t want to make it as easy for them as just being out of the country for 183 days. Of course, things don’t look so good for someone who’s obviously not been living in Australia for several years.

Two sides of the same hateful coin. Christians are not better than any other Medieval pile of lies. They’re both equally ridiculous of course, and both equally dangerous if taken to the extreme. However, one of those religions is hugely more dangerous than the other at the present time, and I think we all know which one that is.

Already have reading glasses. Too much hassle to carry them around along with sunglasses. Don’t think there’s any advisable corrective eye surgery for the relatively mild deterioration in close vision most of us experience with advancing age.

I’m going to be one of the brainwashed idiotic sheep when I get back to Australia next week. The worldwide data e-sim in my ipad was fantastic on my recent trip through Europe for stays in Airbnbs with hopelessly slow internet, and I need a new phone that’s also e-sim capable to avoid the nightmare of having to sort out a new sim card for each new country I visit. The pro model’s 5x optical zoom’s a bonus. Would like the max version for my failing close vision, will have to see if it fits in a pocket. Agree that I’ll only be using 1% of the phone’s features.

My 2 shots of Shingrix a few months ago in Australia for free. Didn’t realise how much money I’d saved.

Having just returned from a 3 month holiday spent in several European countries, I don’t think so…

How on earth does someone’s views on morality have anything to do with playing rugby or any other sport? Why do you assume that Folau’s expression of his moral views would alienate rugby’s customer base? When I’m enjoying watching sport played at the highest level I couldn’t care less whether the participants are far left woke, far right, centre, religious fundamentalists, atheists, pro or anti abortion or pro or anti homosexuality. Why must Folau share the same moral views as his employer? Your analogy of a burger chain not being made to employ someone who’s a campaigner against eating meat fails because in that case there’s a direct link between that particular moral view and his or her employment.

The fact that Folau was made to sign a contract in which he had to agree not to state his views on morality in public makes this even worse! That’s an outrageous violation of the right to freedom of speech, and is a perfect example of where I said in my original post that if I were still employed, I’d be wary about making statements that could offend the woke. You state that he didn’t lose any fundamental right of free speech, but he lost his job, due to an outrageous contractual obligation. That’s like saying that someone living in Putin’s Russia has full freedom of speech, but shouldn’t complain if he’s thrown in prison for opposing Putin’s war, as although his speech might be free, what he says has consequences. On speaking in tongues, blaming bushfires on lack of morality, that just reinforces my opinion of Folau’s lack of sanity. I suspect our views on moral issues are similar, it’s just that my understanding of the meaning of free speech is more robust, to say the least! The out of court settlement was confidential, but I trust it cost Rugby Australia a very large sum of money as a result of their unforgivable conduct.

In my first post I already stated that’s there’s not an absolute right to say anything, giving the examples of defamatory and threatening speech. I’m certainly not confusing ‘hate speech’ with free speech, as I consider ‘hate speech’ to be one of the more dangerous and pernicious ideas propagated by the woke. Folau wasn’t “imposing” his religious dogma on anyone. He was warning homosexuals, atheists such as myself, and in fact just about everyone else, to repent to save us from hell. Crazy in my view, but as I said before, that’s the kind of speech that is most important to defend. I think anti-vaxxers are crazy, but would never, ever agree with censoring their opinions. You might disagree with someone who states that homosexuality is a sin, or that all religions are ridiculous, or that men who identify as women aren’t really women, but just men pretending to be women, or that men are over-represented in physics and engineering faculties because they’re naturally more interested in those fields, but you have no right to censor the opinions of such people. Speech which really is inciting violence against others is of course a different matter, but that’s definitely not what Folau’s crazy statements were. Actually, under your definition of ‘hate speech’, I’m guilty of inciting hatred against fundamentalist Christians, in calling Folau crazy.

I feel entirely free to speak my mind, but only because I’m retired. If I were still employed, I’d have real concerns about conceivably being dismissed from my job for saying the wrong thing. Look at the case of Israel Folau, a supremely talented Australian rugby star, who was sacked from the team for stating that atheists, homosexuals, fornicators etc were going to hell unless they repented of their evil ways. Now as a lifelong atheist, who’s also guilty of just about every other of the sins enumerated by Folau, with the sole exception of homosexuality, I think Folau’s an idiot who’s left 90% of his brain on the football field, but I also respect his right of freedom of speech. In fact, the most important speech to defend is that with which you profoundly disagree. Can’t get my woke sister, who has no problems with severely punishing people for stating views with which she disagrees, to understand that. Freedom of speech is a very complicated matter, with proper limits on defamatory and threatening speech that democratic governments and courts have figured out over many years. Woke leftists are doing their best to dismantle all of that, and are looking more like those from the furthest of the far right, with their censorship of views with which they disagree.

Maybe not the best name to give the proposed smokers’ booths, as according to many sources on the web, Hitler strongly disliked the practice of smoking, and the Nazis mounted a campaign against smoking.

In Montenegro last week. Around 3 euro or 110 baht a pack at supermarkets, no idea if premium though. Half the people at the beach were happily smoking.

For Australians on certain types of superannuation pensions, it’s catastrophic financially to not be a “resident for tax purposes” - instead of losing 2% of your pension as tax, you lose 30% of the whole pension. Makes the hassle of filing a tax return well worthwhile, and is the reason I had to give up my dream of living in Thailand full time.