Etaoin Shrdlu

8 minutes ago, Pib said:

 

Whatever date you put on your application that you wanted your benefits to begin is the date you are paid from.  Of course it can't be benefits begin date for many, many moths ago....has to be within a window of plus or minus 3 months I think of your application submittal date.

 

Say you submit your application 1 March and on the application you said your want your benefits to begin 1 May.  But it takes say till Sep before your application is approved for whatever reason.  Once approved the SSA will issue backpay pay for May, June, July, and Aug....4 months of backpay.  And then you get paid for Sep in early Oct which gets you all paid up.    

 

 

You're correct. I checked my SSA correspondence and 1099 form and I did not receive backdated payments. My mistake.

26 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Actually, in most western countries you can be a resident in a country/state if you live there long term. But to be a formal 'resident' in Thailand is extremely difficult - huge application process, expensive and takes years.  Technically all Expats in Thaiand that are on long-term non-immigrant Visas are actually here as a Tourist visa - they are all variations of the same basic Tourist Visa. Except for the LTR Visa recently implemented. 

PS - if I do ever win, the Thai wife will be able to receive it, but not me.

I have permanent residency, so I'm familiar with the process, although I received it about 25 years ago when it was slightly easier than it is now and wasn't as expensive. I think I spent less than 50,000 baht all in. Technically, I'm an immigrant (and resident) and not a tourist, but not being able to buy lottery tickets online does not bother me.

And to correct an error on my part, the residency requirement on the lottery ticket I bought in the US years ago wasn't state residency, it was US residency. 

14 minutes ago, cracker1 said:

Digital ticket sales to foreigners are unavailable and of course prize winnings are not permitted to be paid to foreigners, from KTB.

It is hard to understand why we would be excluded, other than a level of jealousness if a foreigner one a big one.

At any given time, the majority of foreigners in Thailand are tourists who won't have tax ID numbers or bank accounts, so I suppose it might be to avoid issues with this if a tourist were to win. Easier to ban sales to all foreigners than to check to see if they are resident with tax ID and bank account. Perhaps the same issue would arise with printed tickets, but much more difficult to administer. Of course this is just speculation on my part.

In a similar vein, I bought a lottery ticket in the US some years back and read the small print on the ticket. It stated that sales were only permitted to residents of the state where I bought it. Not too different, I guess.

The phone call from Manila SBU only takes about 10 minutes or so and they just ask questions to verify that it is really you. I was also instructed to fill out and submit an application for a new SS card although I still had the card I was issued some time back in the 1960s.

My benefits started within a month or two and for some reason I also received about three months' backdated payments even though I did not request it.

This was six years go.

Several insurers in Thailand offer outbound travel insurance.

AIG Thailand's TravelGuard product will cover up to 85 years of age, however after 75 the medical benefit levels are reduced.

AXA Thailand also offers travel insurance, but I don't have any information as to benefit levels or age restrictions.

Ask a broker to help you find a product that most closely meets your needs.

This company imports Swedish snus. You can buy online or contact them and ask about a retailer in CM.

https://swedishsnus.co.th/collections/snus-smokeless-tobacco

5 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

 I commented as I have never heard or seen it used, other than in error.

 

I've already mentioned the lack of present perfect tense in American English. Is "have went" an Americanism?

So far, I've only encountered its use by speakers of American English.

It is a regional usage if the US is considered a region, but I don't think it reflects a regional usage within the US. I think it is often a marker of informal versus formal speech, or educational attainment/socio-economic status when used in a more formal setting. Same with "I didn't go there yet".

16 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

It's incorrect. Sometimes it's lack of knowledge. Sometimes regional.

 

I remember a colleague of mine from Barnsley saying " Them's yours, them is" when referring to someone's belongings. He didn't know what he'd said incorrectly when I questioned him. Regional?

 

I've had colleagues from London and suburbs there of saying things like " I didn't do nothing" or " I done it yesterday". Regional?

 

Then, of course, there is USA English which lacks present perfect tense and adverbs.

"I didn't go there yet". " Did you have lunch yet?". "You are doing real good." Clearly regional.

 

With regards to "gonna" and "wanna", I feel it's more to do with laziness in speech. " I'm going to" and "I don't want to" being contractions. Important to teach listening skills to pick this up but shouldn't be taught in writing.

I'm aware that there are regional usages and informal speech which don't conform to generally accepted norms. But I've seen and heard "have went" in enough instances, including in situations in which I would expect the speaker to use more formal speech, that its use appears to have become quite widespread. I am not a grammar Nazi, but this one tests my patience.

I often see "have went" instead of "have gone" in written English as well hear it in spoken English. To me, this seems to be a recent development. I wonder where it came from.

Sight bills are used in international trade as a means of payment. In a sense, they're like a cashier's check. I don't know why they would attract a preferential rate.

Deleted

Phuket.

https://edition.cnn.com/travel/2023-worst-destinations-overtourism-avoid-crowds/index.html

This is a few. years old now, but may still be correct.

Received my payment yesterday, January 3rd.

Haven't yet received the annual letter from the SSA advising of the new, inflation-adjusted amount, however.

23 minutes ago, Ben Zioner said:

Ambien. But I doubt you can find it in Thailand. More useful than an Uzi under some circumstances.

Zolpidem. It's marketed here as Stillnox, in the US as Ambien.

I ask my doctor for a few tablets during a visit if I'm planning to go to the US. 

I remember watching the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour as a teenager on the family's black and white television.

For some reason, the routine that comes to mind when I think back is the one where Tommy goes on about the pumas in the cravices (crevasses).

Tommy waged war with the censors at CBS over political content criticizing the war in Vietnam. Tame stuff by today's standards, but cutting edge back then.

An icon of the late 1960s.

5 hours ago, jphasia said:

Yes Klonko above mentioned that his DP is valid for 3 years. I rechecked mine and confirm it's 1 year validity. It might depend on DLT offices.

I don't know about Koh Samui as I am doing in Phuket everytime. 

There are two major road conventions that different countries have entered into.

The Geneva Convention on Road Traffic is the older of the two and an IDP is issued for a one-year period for use in the countries that have ratified. The US has ratified this convention.

The Vienna Convention is newer and one gets a an IDP with a three-year validity. The US does not observe this convention but many European countries and others do.

The DLT will ask which country or countries you plan to visit and will then issue the relevant IDP, either per Vienna or Geneva convention and your IDP will have either a one-year or three-year validity. I suppose it would be possible to need two IDPs in some situations for trips involving multiple countries.

3 hours ago, marin said:

• For the last 7 years I have simply used my Thai drivers license everywhere.  USA, France, Germany, the UK, Canada and Mexico not a problem one. Why the need for this outdated document?

Some states in the US require the IDP in addition to one's foreign drivers license. Not having an IDP could potentially void the insurance of the vehicle if driven in one of those states. For this reason some rental companies will insist on an IDP.

2 hours ago, JimGant said:

 

If push came to shove between a country's Tax Code and a Tax Treaty, the treaty would prevail. As an example. The US Tax Code says that you can get a tax credit on your US tax return for taxes paid to a foreign country IF those taxes were against foreign earned income. But, under the US DTA with Thailand, for example, if Thailand gets exclusivity (overriden by the saving clause, however) in the taxation of my IRA or private pension (which they do, if, currently remitted), the treaty says I can get a credit for those taxes paid on my IRA, even tho' this is US income, not foreign income. You simply have to attach Form 8833 to your tax credit Form 1116, which tells the IRS that their Code has been trumped by an international treaty.

 

Hopefully, we won't have to get the Embassy involved with the Ministry of Finance over any misunderstandings.....

In the instructions for form 8833 there appears to be a carve-out of reporting requirements for individuals who claim relief under a tax treaty for, among other things, pensions. What is your take on this? Does this mean that form 8833 is not required if claiming tax credits under form 1116 for Thai taxes paid on remittances of private pensions or IRA/401k withdrawals?

2 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

Didn't BM Simon go to OIC that was a while ago? heard nothing

I don't know about Simon going to the OIC.

One can always take an insurer to court if the OIC does not give a satisfactory result, but I would first go to the OIC.

10 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

a good example where a lawyer may be required, can't just rely on OIC, how long would that drift on

Filing a complaint with the OIC would likely resolve the issue more quickly than going to court and with much less expense.

If there isn't a policy condition that stipulates that the policyholder must obtain a blood alcohol test after an accident, then I would question how an error or omission of a hospital that is not a party to the contract of insurance could void coverage for the policyholder.

I do see how an insurer might take this stance, but I'm not sure it would stand up if this were taken to the OIC.

Is there something else in play here that isn't mentioned in the OP?