Fat is a type of crazy

27 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The Australian National gallery paid $1.3 million for it.

 

We are still unable to cure ourselves of the compulsion to buy Yankee trash.

That was one of our Prime Minister Gough Whitlam's winners. People derided him at the time - maybe you - but think what it's worth now. Not that into modern art but I think Pollock is the exception where it's not style or spin over substance. 

A new candidate shall emerge. Unless they have similar difficulties communicating the Democrats should win as Trump is that toxic to so many. New highs on stockmarket. Economy going so well. Not hard to sell and a new candidate can talk about changes to deal with the bad things - inflation and the border.

Not convinced Kamala is the best bet but she isn't Trump. 

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"...I just decided to become a cereal topic starter".

And none of the responders realise that!  They really do think that you're interested in other members' opinions of cereals. 

Well some of us are interested in cereal. I am. 

On 7/2/2024 at 12:40 PM, Mekmong MICK said:

Yeah a fair point on Coopers. They were probably the first craft beer company who made it mainstream. I classify it as craft beer as its family owned and taste hasn't changed but its regular in both Southern and Eastern Australia now

I remember in the 80's when it seemed crafty. It had a lot of residue in the bottom of the bottle but that's gone now. At least they have kept the 375 ml bottles unlike others. Love the stout once in a while. 

3 minutes ago, steven100 said:

 

seems like another Bot AI  computer generated topic to me ....    

AN is getting many simple silly questions now every day ?  

Come on...I hear you but Jerry's no bot. I like my cereal .. rather talk about than the latest drunk getting arrested or whatever

3 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Villa has the small shredded wheat for 255 and Tops for over 300, which is a little high. Like anoher said, most of the cereal here is aimed towards kids, highly sweetened and not what I'll buy. I brought back 8 boxes of various cereals last November from Texas but they went fast. Wish they had more here. I can order a case of some online but haven't gotten around to that yet.

If I moved to Thailand I would like to bring good quality cereal, chocolate wine and beer. I brought over 20 blocks of chocolate on this trip - 85 per cent good stuff. Chocolate is something I shall not go without nor pay over double than in Australia.

23 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

There are quite a few healthy breakfast cereals but you won't see them advertised on TV. I've been eating them for decades. Shredded Wheat is one that's recognized, along with Grape Nuts and Corn Flakes. Ones I get at most chain stores in the US (I bring them back when I visit) that you can't get here are Shredded Spoonfuls, Millet Rice Flakes, Heritage Flakes, Shredded Oats, a few from Barbara's, Oat Flakes, and others. I eat oatmeal with banana most every day when I'm out of the flake cereals,along with scrambled eggs, whole grain toast and sugarless jelly, which are all made with whole grains and little to no added sugar. Most are sweetened with grape juice. Granola tastes good but is usually very high in calories and sugar. I follow with 0% ice coffee sweetened with Equal or Splenda with added collagen.

The large Shredded wheat is excellent but  pretty expensive in Australia and probably here. They put them in a big box but it's mostly air per kilo. 220 baht for 360 grams. Mini wheats are the same thing but better value in theory but they add sugar which makes them unpalatable for me. Especially the frosted ones. Terrible. 

In Thailand after weeks of buffets at hotels as I am a tourist I went to the supermarket at Central in Pattaya and they had Coles wheat biscuits from Australia for around 240 baht which is expensive as compared to Australia - double the price or more - but you get over a kilogram. No sugar but a little bit of salt. Bought a kilo of My Choice german muesli too which wasn't too expensive and a kilo of oats from Makro. Then add some papaya or something.

Most cereals in Thailand in most stores are of course sweet crap. Even corn flakes can have a fair bit of sugar. I don't mind sugar as such but I think when added to cereal it's unpleasant.  

Just now, MalcolmB said:

Ok, what time are you going to pick me up?

 

or do you want me to stay at home wasting my short life away staring out my faux French doors while watching re-runs of MASH in a dark and lonely room while the Chinese made grandfather clock slowly ticks away like sand through the hour glass.

Only read page 1 so not sure where you are but taxis are pretty cheap in most places. Don't look for excuses. 2 tonne of metal with you behind it after a gut full of beers isn't a pretty thought. 

6 hours ago, MalcolmB said:

Do you want me to be PC or do you want the truth?

 

I drink drive, as millions of other people do, I have done for 30 years, and I have never had an incident.

Sounds worse. Now you're driving drunk and probably have much worse reflexes than 30 years ago. Give it up man. Have some respect for yourself and people on the road. 

8 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

No error. 

 

I've set it out for you.  It becomes a simple physical presence and time based model. 

 

I have said I could do 46 days inside Australia a year and meeting the factor tests is no problem for me.  I wouldn't be happy about it, but I could do it.  However, Labor are looking at increasing the days possibly to 60 days, but probably 90 days.  (link previously posted)  90 days would change the game for me. 

 

In any case, how is this relevant to your typical Aussie expat retiree that hasn't been back to Australia in some years?  How can they possibly argue they are still a resident of Australia for tax purposes? 

My point is that the way you have worded it is over 183 days out of Australia is a non-resident full stop but then you say between 45 and 183 days in Australia can still be a resident. That's a contradiction. But I get the gist of what you are saying and if one day it happens..

4 hours ago, Pattaya57 said:

 

 

Does this give an excuse to not declare non-resident?

 

I don't know about this - and this might be obvious - but my only comment would be that the bank and government would have their separate criteria to be classified as non-resident and one may not influence the other . So it sounds a bit rough though if the bank says you can't be treated as a non-resident and get the lower tax on interest while the government says you are a non-resident meaning higher tax on all income as no withholding on the interest. 

14 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

No, the proposed changes really are that simple. 

 

Under 45 days inside Australia, non resident.

 

Over 45 days but under 183 days inside Australia, one must meet two out of the four factor tests.  

 

Over 183 days outside Australia, non resident.   

 

When you say "other factors" do you mean the "factor tests?"  If so, here they are:

 

"Under the Commencing Residency Test, if you were present in Australia for 45 days or more in the current income year, then you will apply the ‘factor test’ looking at whether you would be a tax resident. This includes:

 

Rights to reside permanently in Australia: Whether you have a permanent right to reside in Australia for immigration purposes.

 

Australian Accommodation: Whether there is a legal right or arrangement to access accommodation at any time during the income year (including rental properties, own home, living with parents or other relatives).

 

Australian Family: Whether you have family in Australia.

 

Australian economic Interests: Whether you have an employment contract to work in Australia or carry out a business in Australia or have direct/indirect interests in Australian assets.

If you satisfy two or more factors from the above, you will be considered an Australian tax resident."

 

The above was quoted from a random large accounting firm from a Google search.. 

 

https://www.grantthornton.com.au/insights/client-alerts/the-atos-individual-tax-residency-changes-open-for-consultation/

 

Just about every Aussie expat can meet the requirements of the first factor test.  Many may be able to meet one or more of the other three factor tests.  So, no problem for an expat who is prepared to do 46 days in Australia every year.

 

However, if you are out of Australia for 183 days, that's the end of the story.  You will be a non resident for tax purposes, and I would suggest that applies to the majority of Aussie expats in Thailand. 

 

 

 

I don't want to get into this too much but in the post I responded to you said 'After the proposed changes are passed, basically, 183 days inside Australia, resident, 183 days outside Australia, non resident.' That is totally different to the more nuanced view you are expressing in this post which notes the 45 days and tests.  

In this post too you say over 183 days outside makes you a non resident but then talk about that between 45 and 183 days inside Australia depends on the tests. Maybe you made an error. See what happens.

Don't know what to make of you sometimes.

One post it's like a fun guy. Life of the party. Bit irresponsible.

Next post like an old lady scared of her shadow. 

3 minutes ago, bob smith said:

it's getting worse every year.

 

No light at the end of the tunnel can be seen from where I'm sitting!

 

bob.

Has anything changed or got worse in your actual life except the odd surly waiter or something. Maybe don't read the news. 

12 minutes ago, bob smith said:

They are both as bad as each other.

 

bob.

Laos or Cambodia would be much worse. 

Where I live surrounded by gum trees on hot windy summer days best to have a bag with documents and photos. Big risk of bushfire. 

Just now, susanlea said:

What score would you give Jomtiem out of 10 so far?

 

I would give Hua Hin 7 and Chiang Mai 7. I have never found an 8 anywhere.

I am not convinced still about staying long term here but as a potential place to spend a few months over winter I give it a 6 or 7. 

24 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Or alternatively, it could be you who lack experience and a certain aspect or type of intelligence that might make you realize that Fox and Trump are setting forth policies that are in tune with the US electorate and that the attacks on Trump, and Fox, and their voters are based on lies and hoaxes and abuse of the system, and that further, that Biden and the Dems do not have the interests of the American people at heart.

The point I was making was not about being Republican or Democrat. I have no issue with low government low taxes and other traditional Republican policies. Or with noting failings of Democrats on issues like immigration and on some far left issues that normally don't represent mainstream democrat beliefs in any case.

The issue was that Fox News presented things  in such an embarrassingly spoon fed manipulative manner. I wonder why the audience is willing  to be communicated to in such a condescending and patronising and embarrassingly manipulative way. Same with Trump. I watch his speeches for 5 minutes and you ask yourself who can sit there and listen to this bull<deleted> - the tedious lies - the greatest hits of nonsense.

I am not saying there are any media or politicians who don't have a bias or aren't manipulative in some way  but it comes down to picking those that at least treat you as though you have some intelligence. 

10 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Highest rated network.  Are you insulting their audience?

It's the melodramatic music and graphics too that go with it. I can only say how I perceive it. I mean Fox were looking to drop Trump like a hot spud after the last election but their ratings plummeted. 

I don't say Fox watchers or Trump supporters are dumb. Most of 'em can probably do stuff I can't do in other areas.  I think a lot of them see the world differently to me and maybe are lacking in experience or maybe a certain aspect or type of intelligence that might make them realise Fox and Trump are a fraud and don't have their best interests at heart. But I get that Biden ain't seeming like a viable candidate too as we speak. 

19 minutes ago, susanlea said:

Actually made little sense at all. Calling someone "totally sick" well that applies to murderers and rapists not different opinions.

 

Well done on using a stupid old cliche. You just confirmed your own status.

He didn't get you were making a comment bout Biden and thought you were being mean to people with dementia. 

8 minutes ago, susanlea said:

Sangsom and local beers are rather cheap in shops. A beer costs the same as a bowl of noodles and Sangsom 2.5 bowls of noodles. How do you think Thais can afford to drink on their 8,000 baht a month budget?

But you said you DON'T drink the cheap stuff