Fat is a type of crazy

Interesting post and here's hoping they make further updates on those topics. I have a February booking but if there are no changes I would throw away my ticket. Jetstar sale so no big deal.

They would miss out on my spending for three weeks on hotels and food etc. 

I've booked a cheap ticket for a holiday to Phuket in February. If this is how it is then I have done my dough. It's a holiday. I want to take it easy not worry that this can happen. 

54 minutes ago, ncc1701d said:

Yeah I’ll be liquidating everything. 45 days is not enough in my opinion. And the bigger worry is how they will get the money from you. If you don’t meet 2 of the 4 requirements - Will they demand all your financial details from day 46, tax you and you have to claim it back somehow proving you don’t meet enough of the requirements or will they require proof before hand and then not bother you.. Another Australian government sh!tshow.

In practical terms I don't think it will be that bad. If you have a home and or family in Thailand and you come to Australia for a couple of months to travel or visit friends it will be fine. There is discretion and some common sense in these things.

It would definitely be after the fact. They might send you a letter and ask for information about your situation, give you the proposed decision,  and only then amend or lodge assessments.  The only time you might have an issue is if you stayed many months and they had information about your Australian investments and could not make contact. Then you could object and get it fixed. This is my 2 cents but I think it's likely to be correct. 

5 hours ago, Adumbration said:

Read my other thread on this point.  If someone returns home for medical treatment they will have to resume residency in Australia to get access to medicare.  They will then have to go through a 2 year wait time before their pension is again portable and they can move back to Thailand.

The observation was made that if you are doing it tough for many it would be easier in Thailand than their home countries. I was just noting that for Australians there are other factors to take into account such as free healthcare and other assistance that offset the fact that it is cheap to live in Thailand. 

It was not about the opportunity to live in Thailand, get healthcare back in Australia, and then return to Thailand. I note too I think your example is based on the particular situation of you being away from Australia for more than 5 years and not keeping a current Medicare card. 

1 hour ago, ncc1701d said:

Just did a search, these were the first two that came up. But they basically go through the issues.

 

https://atlaswealth.com/news/changes-to-the-australian-tax-residency-rules-affecting-expats/

 

https://www.mondaq.com/australia/income-tax/1109524/proposed-changes-to-the-tax-residency-provisions-for-individuals-explained
 

 

my worry is how they will implement it - charge you when you go over 45 days and expect you to claim it back, or some other way.

 

This is actually good news for some such as me. My retirement income is Australian based and when I retire and if I live in Thailand I was worried I'll become a non-resident, and pay high taxes on it and  lose all the concessions when you turn 60,  if I stay away for 184 days. If this happens I can just be in Australia for as little as 45 days as long as I keep a home. 

2 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

First as the graph shows the top 1% use to pay only 20% of the total income tax bill while the bottom 90% paid 50%.  The top 1% now pay 40% of the total tax bill and the bottom 90% pay approximately 30%.  So at what point is "it enough" when the top 1% pay 50%, 60% 70%. You can see the creeping socialism where you take from those who produce and give to those who don't. 

As previously mentioned you tax something you want less of and subsidize something you want more of.  Taking from those who produce creates less of them and subsidizing those who live off others gets more of them. 

You say a couple of percent doesn't make a difference.  Consider a lottery with a prize of $10 million, isn't that enough?  How many tickets do you sell.  If you make the prize $100 million, how many tickets do you sell?   The greater the reward the more people who sill strive to obtain it. 

Finally the majority of the wealthy come from business successes.  They certainly don't come from failures.  The more profitable the business is, the more they want to expand.  That is good for the economy, and good for working class people.  Business expands from using retained profits.  The less money they have to expand, the less expansion there is. 

It is like the adage of the cup of water and the pump.  You can drink the water but then the pump will not prime and you don't get more water.   Like it or not, successful people become wealthy from providing something of value.  That should be something encouraged, not discouraged.  The fact that they become wealthy is a "so what"  Would the world be wealthier and the population better off if Bill Gates when he was worth $1 billion had a larger percentage of his wealth confiscated and hence Microsoft didn't expand.   Would the 3 million people who have jobs at Walmart be better off if Sam Walton as the company was successful had his money confiscated and there were only 500 Walmart stores instead of 5,000.  

It would seem far more logical to look for ways to help the bottom 90% improve their skills so they could earn more rather than confiscate the fruits of others labors who are successful just "because they can afford it"  

Look at Thailand where there is this dual pricing for locals and farangs.  They use the pretext  well they can afford it.  The basic tenet of communism is "from each according to their ability, and to each according to their need"  

This idea that somehow the wealthy benefited from what was provided by society in general is ludicrous.  Everyone has the benefit of what society has provided.  The difference is some people use what society has provided to create value and hence become wealthy and others either to lack of ability or lack of initiative do not.  

I just ask, at the risk of repeating myself, weather the increase in tax paid by the top 1 per cent is because each new $ earned is taxed at a higher rate than before, or because their wealth has increased so exponentially, compared to the other 99 per cent.

Sometimes I think that people underestimate the wealth that is out there.  Crypto currency can have billions poured into it and at the same time property and the stock market surge. 

The lottery example is in my favour because you have given an example of a 10 fold increase in prize whereas I am suggesting a modest increase. If it was from 37 to 40 the prize might go from $10m down to $9.25 m. Still worth getting. 

There is a risk of business moving off shore but those taxes can pay for better infrastructure and health and education to get those skills that benefit businesses. 

I see Thailand as the epitome of capitalism where the rich are extremely rich and the poor are poor with few opportunities. Sure you can give examples where the poor become rich, well done to them, but in my opinion that does not make up for the state of most peoples opportunities. The support during the pandemic was fairly woeful. 

The United States obviously does something right given its success. Australia though,  in my opinion, has a fairer taxation system that hopefully still doesn't stifle those who wish to work hard.

17 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

However, to get back to the OP, there was a lovely thunder storm yesterday- nature ( Gaia/ God ) at her best.

 

Anyway, back to the OP, there are some wonderful cloud formations to be seen- thank you Gaia.

Gaia needs your help. Gaia, which I had to look up as being Greek goddess of earth, doesn't need your thanks or fatalism. Everything is connected. If you believe you are Gaia's child stand up for Mother Earth.  

10 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Greta ... seriously, what a joke, a puppet.

 

 

Who is pulling Greta's strings . 

3 hours ago, HAPPYNUFF said:

Greta Funberg, a self serving little twit, with a face like a twisted prune.   Give her time, she will turn into yet another  politician,  willing to say anything  to get elected.

You are acknowledging that she is not acting like a politician as yet. That indicates you acknowledge she may be honest and sincere now even if you may not agree with her solutions. Can you say why it is bad or self serving for her to have an opinion. Is her argument wrong or is it just that it is too extreme. 

4 hours ago, Chad3000 said:

Bill Maher has had a come round and seen the left for what it is. Interesting to watch his monologues last few months.

 

It's not the left of the 50-70s.

 

I despise what's going on ttoday in the US and the world.  It's so vapid, ephemeral and.iIntellectuallyvoid.

 

I used to be a fairly open minded pperson - but I'm no longer wanted ...so I'll take my vote and my money to the side where I am wanted.

 

I'm not going to feel shame for being born white lol. That will never happen. That is an insane position I reject out of hand.

On the same show Amy Klobuchar gave a half decent summary of the specifics of what the democrats are trying to achieve including the key issue of negotiating cheaper medicines. On another part of the show they talked about the black white argument and in my opinion no democrat is trying to say you are bad for being born white. The argument is often around the degree to which there is a inherent racism today and I agree some exaggerate. Often it is students who have always gone to extremes, and have a high purity test,  but in 2021 they have a platform thanks to social media and the rest of the media amplify it further.

I try and look at the policies and not the fluff around the edges.  So maybe don't give up totally on the Democrats especially based on the intellectual wasteland of many on the other side. 

9 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I'll just address one of your points for now, to keep it brief. ????

 

The average warming of the entire globe during the past 150 years or more is estimated to be around 1 degree C . I was raised near the city of Manchester in the UK where average temperatures, which include both day and night, and winter and summer, are a miserable 9.4 degree C.
I now live in Brisbane, Australia, where the average, yearly temperature is 20 degrees C, which is 10.6 degrees warmer than Manchester, and I much prefer that higher temperature. Why should people be concerned with a temperature rise of a small fraction of a degree per decade, which they wouldn't even notice if that temperature rise occurred in their house within the course of a day or even an hour?

 

Surely the concern must be the projected increase in extreme weather events due to a change in climate resulting from that small rise in average global temperatures, which is claimed to be caused by our CO2 emissions.

 

The last major drought we had in Australia, known as the Millennium Drought, ended in 2010-11. I personally experienced the extreme flooding that took place, which was later discovered to be mainly due to mismanagement resulting from inaccurate advice from so-called 'climate scientists'. 

 

During the drought there were a number of proposals to build new dams to reduce the looming water shortage. It does rain occasionally during long drought periods, but below average. However, the advice from the climate experts was that we should get used to the drought conditions because this would become the norm due to global warming, and that there would be little point in building new dams, and that desalination plants would be a better option.

 

So that's what the Queensland government did. They spent money on desalination plants which were used for just a short time before the massive flooding arrived. If the dams had been built, the flooding could have been avoided, and billions of dollars in property and infrastructure damage could have been saved, as well as the 33 lives lost.

 

According to BOM records, the 2010-11 floods in the Brisbane area was the 6th worst on record, in terms of flood height, although the graph seems to show it was the 7th worst.

 

http://www.bom.gov.au/qld/flood/fld_history/brisbane_history.shtml

Can you understand my skepticism about 'climate change alarmism'? When we have a drought in SE Australia, the ice is affected in parts of the Antarctic. Analyses of ice cores from an area called Law Dome have revealed that during the past 1,000 years, SE Australia has had 8 megadroughts (droughts which are longer than 5 years). 6 of those droughts occurred before European settlement in Australia, and the worst occurred in the 12th century AD and was 39 years long.

 

If we have another 39 year drought in Australia, I bet the climate scientists (or more correctly, climate science activists) will claim that the drought is undeniable evidence of CAGW, and will ignore the existing proxy evidence that a similar event occurred long before we began burning fossil fuels.

Melbourne spent ridiculous amounts on a desalination plant too - not needed so far and sitting idle. I am sure the people of Manchester would love an extra degree but maybe not as much if it resulted in differences in flora and fauna and bee patterns and affected local farming or higher sea levels and more floods for their friends in Liverpool. Might be easy for manchurians to adapt but not for other places that have climates that are somewhat arid or prone to floods etc. You are recognising the human frailty in extrapolating what the effect of increased temperatures will be but less accepting of the notion that increased temperatures can, based on the consensus of scientific studies , lead to bad outcomes. I get insurance because something unlikely might happen and I increase it if that likelihood statistically increases. I think it is not unreasonable, based on current science, for world leaders to take the same approach without having knee jerk reactions or just playing to wealthy or political interests.  

The god believers will feel some succor in knowing heaven awaits.  Faith is a strong concept that I think affects the religious and non-religious and can make it difficult to work out the best approach. Faith in god and faith in our personal knowledge and judgement. 

I don't feel a heaven is likely so I want the best and brightest to take out an insurance policy and take action in case bad things happen. 

28 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

I am reminded when I see posts like this of the quote by Joseph Goebbels the Minister of Propaganda for the Nazi's.  He said, tell a lie, make sure it is a big lie, and keep constantly repeating it and people will eventually believe it. 

 

Using figures by the Internal Revenue Service the top 1% of taxpayers pay more than the bottom 90% combined.  So exactly what is "their fair share"  

Have they become wealthy - Yes.  Using just 1 example I am from a midwestern city where a small grocer grew to a chain of now over 300 super centers like Walmart.  That person is a billionaire.   Now is that fair.  Consider, the company employs over 60,000 people directly.  The company stores worth millions pay millions in property taxes that support the municipalities they serve.  The sales tax generated by those stores pays untold millions to the state coffers.  The 60,000 employees pale in comparison to the truckers, food vendors, merchandise vendors, sales people, electricians, plumbers, etc that all provide products and services to this one supermarket chain. 

Would the world be better off if people like this were taxed to the point where they can't expand their businesses and hire more people?  You tax things like cigarettes, alcohol, and gas guzzling cars you want to have less of.  You give tax breaks to things like electric vehicles that you want to encourage more of. 
So what has tax policy done.  It wishes to tax those who are productive and subsidize those who are not.  It has successfully done so to the point that 47% of the tax returns filed in the USA pay ZERO.  That is why it is so disingenuous when the liberals say all the tax cuts go to the wealthy. First, the wealthy pay the bulk of the tax so any cut will benefit them disproportionately.  Secondly how in H do you give a tax cut to 47% of the tax returns that already don't pay anything?  

There seems to be this growing socialist thought process that views "successful" people as somehow the enemy when in fact they are the ones who invent products, provide services, and employ people.  Do they get wealthy doing so - Yes  SO WHAT  Without them would society be really better off if no one had the desire to be a capitalist and invest their money in the hopes of becoming a success?  I am not wealthy but do I have jealousy for the wealthy, no.  I have admiration for them.  I look at the productivity that Bill Gates gave the world and he has been underpaid for the wealth he brought the world. 

Remember those who really want the world as better for everyone wants to make everyone millionaires.  Those that are misguided want to make this "fairer" by having no millionaires.  Be careful what you ask for as it might come true and seeing no reward for their investment and efforts the entrepreneurs just might say, gee taking the chance on running a business just isn't worth the risk.  If I fail, I lose my investment.  If I am a success my reward is that my wealth is confiscated. 



There

https://taxfoundation.org/top-1-percent-pays-more-taxes-bottom-90-percent/

I actually agree with a lot of what you say. I was a bit of a non-committed lefty and in my 20's I read Ayn Rand and it kind of changed my thinking. Even though I don't agree with a lot of Ayn Rand stuff the concept of a healthy society rewarding effort is a good point.

Where I differ is on two points. I'll start by acknowledging a limited knowledge of US tax compared to Australian tax. You say that the proposal is to tax them to the point they are not rewarded for effort - my understanding is that  the proposed increase the top marginal rate is from the current 37 per cent by a few per cent only and only for those earning more than a few hundred thousand. The corporate rate too would be increased from the Trump rates but still lower than recent historical rates. So I don't believe that is a much of a disincentive.  If Democrats can't get together on that are looking at other options with a similar outcome.  

The second point is just that a strength of America is that there are many seriously wealthy people. There are also many many poor or  struggling. A reason many don't pay tax is they earn such low incomes.

A reason the poor are poor may include lack of effort, ingenuity and intelligence of some. A bigger reason though, in my opinion, is due to a range of generational reasons that keeps the rich rich and the poor poor. 

The rich have ways to minimise tax, not available to the poor, and many individuals and companies can strategise to pay little or no tax. I might recommend a marginal rate for individuals at 40 per cent over say $200,000 or $300,000  per year and a marginal rate around 30 per cent for corporations. Close loopholes.

Bill Gates has given a lot to America and should be an inspirational figurehead even though many republicans seem to think he eats babies. But he has benefited to such a degree that I don't think  him paying 40 per cent with no loopholes is unreasonable. If taxing on wealth rather than income gets a fairer outcome then so be it but I concur that they need to be careful not to go to far. 

On 11/5/2021 at 6:05 PM, VincentRJ said:

I hope my following response is not considered to be out of context in this thread. I consider a belief in God to be a belief without sufficient evidence, which is similar to a belief in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

 

I agree that one should look at the evidence. That's exactly what I do, or at least try to do. I check various sites for more precise and reliable information than is provided by the media. I check sites such as the Bureau of Meteorology, NASA, NOAA, and the Working Group 1 section of the IPCC reports, as well as contrarian sites which are skeptical of the significance of AGW. It's important to consider both sides of the story if one wishes to be unbiased.

 

The Working Group 1 section of the IPCC reports deals with the scientific evidence rather than the political advice to policy makers, which is in another section. This WG1 section of the report provides (at least sometimes) a more balanced view of our current state of understanding of climate change. It uses terms such as 'Low Confidence', 'Medium Confidence', and 'High Confidence', relating to the frequency of extreme weather events, for example.

 

What I find in my enquiries is that there seems to be terrible confusion in the media and the general population about the difference between weather and climate. As a result of the widespread 'meme' that has been promoted by the media, that we are on a trajectory of increasingly disastrous changes of climate due to our CO2 emissions, every extreme weather event is seen as yet another example of a looming, world-wide catastrophe due to AGW, yet even the IPCC has clearly stated that one cannot attribute the cause of any particular extreme weather event to AGW.

 

Consider the recent flooding of the Ahr Valley in Germany this July. Angela Merkel immediately associated the event with climate change. "She said the force of the storms suggested that they had "something to do with climate change," adding, "We have to hurry, we have to get faster in the fight against climate change."

 

What you probably won't find mentioned in the media is the history of flooding in the Ahr Valley region. I had to do a lot of searching to find the following site which lists 75 major floods in this region that have occurred during the past 700 years or so, which is more than 7 floods per century, on average.
https://www.kreis-ahrweiler.de/kvar/VT/hjb1983/hjb1983.25.htm

 

Here are descriptions of just a couple of the floods mentioned.
"1590, May, Hemmessen: At the end of May, the Ahr swelled higher than in living memory due to a large storm with torrential rain."

 

"1601, 30 May, Antweiler: On this day, a thunderstorm with rain and hail suddenly arose in the afternoon, the sky darkened, the locks of the sky opened and unimaginable masses of water fell down, so that the horrified inhabitants believed in the end of the world." 

 

In Australia it's common for the media to report on every extreme weather event, such as a major flood, as unprecedented, or the worst in a century, or the worst on record. However, when I do my own research into the BOM records of past flooding events, I find these media reports are false, and that the flood, in terms of flood height, is only the 5th or 6th or 7th worst on record.

 

If you take the trouble to look where the consensus of opinion lies, as you suggest, you will find that the consensus varies depending on what aspect of climate change is addressed.

 

For example, I imagine there would be a very large consensus that we are currently in a slight warming phase, and that average, global temperatures have risen around 1 degree C during the past 150 years or so. However, when one starts being more specific, and asks questions such as: "Is a mere 1 degree warming over 150 year period bad for the environment? Is the current warming mostly due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, or mostly natural? If we continue using fossil fuels, are computer projections of future temperature rises and catastrophic changes in climate, reliable?", then the consensus will change significantly.

 

I also suspect there would be a high consensus that the severity of heat waves has been increasing since the industrial revolution. This is to be expected because we are currently in a warming phase and have created many Urban Heat Islands, that is, cities, suburbs, roads and pavements which absorb a lot of heat when the sun shines, and have also created additional heat which is emitted from lots of vehicles and air-conditioners and other devices. The temperature in cities can often be as much as 3 degrees hotter than the surrounding countryside.

 

Of course the media will create bad news from rising temperatures and heat waves, because creating bad news is their business. The human mind is instinctively programmed to pay more attention to bad news than good news because of our instinct for survival, and the media capitalizes on this fact. They'll report on rising death rates due to heat waves but never mention falling death rates from extreme cold as the climate warms. The reality is that far more people, world-wide, die from extreme cold than extreme heat. As the temperature warms, and cold areas experience less extreme cold periods, the fewer number of deaths from extreme cold are far greater than the increased number of deaths from extreme heat.

 

I think I'd better stop here. ????

It's clear you have a good knowledge of these issues but I just don't concur with your conclusions. For example ,the concerns of scientists are by far based on actual warming, rather than this or that event. I agree that media's claims about links are by nature often just suppositions, or worse, but science can link increased CO2 = higher temperatures = likely more of certain events. Bushfires in Australia and California, I live surrounded by gum trees, are not necessarily caused by climate change but it's not unreasonable to at least propose a link. Otherwise we'll be like frogs boiling in water watching temperatures rise but shouting down anyone who might suggest that there could be a causal effect. 

That's the problem with religion in my opinion. It's fine for people to believe what they want but  it affects all our lives. The religious have a fall back position believing someone is looking out for them if they are good, that there's this other place free of warming and other earthly failings that they will go when they die, that they see some bigger picture that we can't see. So they can look at things like climate change with derision but believe in things like intelligent design. 

On 11/2/2021 at 1:32 AM, WhiteBuffaloATM said:

Marriage gives Women too much Power. It’s their End Game. Especially Uneducated Village types. There must have been pre- marital signs of this Disrespectful Controlling Abuse. It’s never acceptable.

 My old Zero Tolerance tripwire would engage at even one word/ demand/ criticism out of place…. she’d be Done right there. It’s Rare to have a Truly Equal Marriage in this life, in which case the Man MUST be the Boss……..

You're over the top man.  By all means don't take <deleted> but it doesn't sound like a fun life for you or her if she is apparently shouted down for having a different opinion or speaking her mind. 

Zero tolerance trip wire. I'd like to cross it and see what you do to someone bigger and stronger than you. 

29 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

School grade words that rile up the masses.  They fall for it.  Snowflake, cancel culture, woke, etc.  Childish.  But yes, it's working.  As shown above.

Where's there is smoke there is a bit of fire. Sometimes I wonder why the lefties, many of whom I know are well off, fight so hard for many of the poor who are republican poor and who hate them. Enjoy the rising markets and let the poor fight there own fights. If they don't care up to them.

The heat in Thailand is something that makes it difficult to think of retiring full time in Thailand. For the first time in 20 months the doors are opening up. First flight is to Phuket - haven't been there for 8 years - got sick of it - hopefully fun. Might just bring my Thai girl here and that gives me a touch of Thailand in my Australian life. 

12 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Thats a normal accusation by anyone out there on the fringes.

 

I can see how someone of balanced mind and opinions would seem ‘woke’ when not taking up the flag of some of the more extreme right wing or extreme ideologies. 

 

 

 

 

Woke can be out on the fringes or in the middle in my opinion. It is those that talk about how bad and corrupt others are while inadvertently making themselves seem good and relatively pure. Talking about stuff that doesn't really affect their lives. Making unwanted judgement calls. Sometimes it's good to be a bit woke. Caring about others and all that. 

12 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Religions are based upon a consensus and rely upon the continuation of the consensus, which is why there is a history of horrible punishment for those who expressed religious views that criticized and weakened the consensus.

 

The current 'Climate Change Alarmism' is often described as a form of religion because it relies upon a fictitious or exaggerated consensus which is promoted by the 'believers'. Those who question the consensus tend to be vilified, are called 'Climate Change Deniers', and can suffer career consequences as a result.

 

The 'methodology of science' is not based upon a consensus, although consensuses do exist for a while, after all attempts at falsification of a particular theory have failed. However, science is never 'settled', especially when the nature of the subject is complex, chaotic and non-linear, as 'climate change' is.

 

The problem is not necessarily a conspiracy, which by definition is 'a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful'. The problem is more correctly described as 'Confirmation Bias'. Most scientists in the modern era are employees in a business or Government organization. They need a continuation of their salary to support their family and pay off the house mortgage.

 

Many of the great scientists in the past, who contributed to significant scientific progress by challenging the current consensus, were self-funded because they were wealthy, or had another job not directly related to their research.

 

I can imagine quite well, if a person were in a career related to climate science, and enjoyed his job in an organization which was government-funded because of a perceived concern about the potential disasters of human CO2 emissions, that such a person would be reluctant to even attempt to publish research which implied that current CO2 rises had a negligible effect in changing the climate, or, for example, that such effects of rising CO2 levels were more beneficial than harmful because CO2 is a 'food' for plants and essential for all life.
 

All that might have some truth to it. But to me you are always talking at the edges - reluctance, hesitation, and where there is some close calls this might be a factor in decision making. It's not looking at the facts - something that is probably best discussed in a different forum. 

The conspiracy some believe is that the 'powers that be' benefit from climate change when in fact the most powerful and rich often benefit from disproving climate change. Even Putin and the Pope acknowledge it even if they do little about it.  That's why I say don't just look at the possible weaknesses of human nature here and there - look at the evidence and accept that scientific findings are not perfect but look where the consensus of opinion lies. 

I use the term consensus not as a solid object but as many individual's acknowledging what scientific evidence is pointing too.

The fact is I don't care that much and do little about it truth be told. At least your arguments have a point. 

Others just make vague allusions to this or that or just seem to have a fatalist view that worse things could happen so just cop it.  

8 minutes ago, zzaa09 said:

What is clearly not understood or comprehended is that natural cycles exist - good, bad, indifferent. 

All this expected Occidental fundamentalism is sheer fancy and nothing less than a grand distraction.

Similar to religion I am wary of riddles or sweeping statements that go against the consensus.

Terms like Occidental fundamentalism don't mean much to me on their own.   What does mean something are scientists from the east and west who just work with evidence in the real world. Maybe you consider scientific methodology itself as being occidental and therefore flawed. 

Natural cycles likely exist but the consensus is that the last 100 years is not that. By all means fight science with better science, or weigh up the solutions on climate change to consider the impact to the economy and humans, or show us specifics about the distraction or conspiracy that you have identified. Interesting ideas are welcome if you can link it to god or the lack thereof. 

10 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I'm not really talking about western countries Vs Thailand.

I'm comparing Thailand Vs Vietnam/Cambodia/China/Philippines.

 

And without the draw of the reasonably priced women Thailand would be my last choice.

Cambodia has better temples,Indian food, cannabis, cheap food and drinks.

Vietnam has the best beaches and countryside, novel food, and better temples.

The Philippines has the cheapest alcohol and really nice beaches.

Thailand has the best bang for your bucks.

Fair point. Only been to Thailand and Laos in this part of S E Asia. . Probably should look further afield but girlfriend is Thai and for  some reason I feel like Thailand is more my cup of tea. Plenty of cheap good wine, good Vietnamese and Chinese food,  and good beaches in Australia.

3 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Why would any other type of tourist want to come to Thailand?

Reasonably priced women is all Thailand has to offer the world.

Go back to the UK and live through a cold winter with no tropical flora and fauna, fruits, or thai food and you might get your desire for Thailand back

Koh Chang does have a decent sized Tesco Lotus if that is the same as a Tesco. Could be closed. Haven't been for a while.  Koh Chang has many hotels with combinations of forest, beach and nearby shops. At Lonely Beach you can literally stay in the forest but 3 minutes away from shops and 5 or 10 to beach. Sea View is set in forest and beach and a short trip to town. 

I like Chanthaburi and it's a nice place to stop on the way to Koh Chang. Can recommend the Manacheen Hotel for good breakfast and pool sauna and gym but it is a bit out of town and you need to get a room away from the road. They gave us one when we asked. They have a free transfer to town and is quiet at night but some good restaurants.  Sometimes a bit hard to find a taxi back. Hotels in town look mostly basic but near the old part might be fun. Waterfall not far and beaches 30 minutes away are OK but the sand is not as pretty as other places. 

I heard Rayong has polluted beached but not sure. 

6 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Do I really care how many other member "know" her? As long as she takes a shower in between and maybe rests a little that's good enough.

Last of the romantics

It's a bit unclear if you went off at the staff member, and your wife later, or just your wife.

You say this happened before but you just let it happen again and then get upset. Knowing it might happen you should have asked your wife to please go elsewhere, or tell the staff member what you want, before she started. If you missed your opportunity then cop it. Let your wife drink the juice. 

I would go and buy some juice, apologise to your wife, and ask that it is appreciated if she can please get juice from a store with appropriate cleanliness in future.