Fat is a type of crazy

1 hour ago, sirineou said:

Do you have a quote or a link that he ever said such thing? 

 

Don't think he said it overtly though he did say stuff in 2020 like I am a bridge to a new generation of leaders which inferred it. For what it's worth Bill Maher has a good segment in todays show where he discusses that comment and this issue. 

1 hour ago, sirineou said:

I believe the same could be said of you  for buying the narrative put forth by the west.  

I have watched the proposition made by Mearsheimer in front of a room full of political science postdocs, not one did  dispute the claims, concerning the reasons and event  that forced Russia to invade Ukraine. 

Having studied the issue extensively I am absolutely convinced that Russia had not choice but to invade. No Choice. 

And those who support the narrative developed by the west and think they are supporting Ukraine and the Ukrainian people are doing the direct opposite, much like they did in the invasion of Iraq. 

Not only history will tell, It is already starting to tell. 

OK . It's your claim. What would have happened imminently  if Russia did not invade Ukraine with all the death and destruction it caused. What would have been worse. I ask because many of your opinions seem to me reasonable except this topic. 

Do lots of interviews Joe. Show that despite a few issues and the odd gaffe you've still got it. Or go down in flames and find a new replacement.

This could help him as the expectations may be so low that he actually comes across better than expected.

Was interested too for an upcoming trip. Saw a thing about a guy called Paul Richmond in Soi Welcome and it seems good. Seems to be part of the Richmond Sports Bar Guesthouse at 102 Welcome Jomtiem road. 

It said 100 baht a day. Better deals for longer. 1000 baht deposit. Can't personally recommend though. 

There is a political element to this, in the language used by the Republican author,  but the fact is what Biden did was not good and warranted investigation. Saw his press conference and it mostly wasn't terrible, except for confusing Mexico with Egypt, but will certainly not help address peoples valid concerns about his age now let alone over the next 4 years. Pass the baton Joe. It's time.  

Bottom line is if you take your super at 60 and spend it nothing can stop you then applying for the pension at 67. If you, say, gifted the funds to people there are rules around that. As far as Centrelink I know that you can make an appointment with a FIS officer who is somewhat independent and can give you tips on how you can maybe still get a pension or at least a health care card possibly depending on your circumstances. 

Can depend on whether you think you want to have fun now and whether you feel you'll be the same at 67 or you may want to take it easy with a cheaper lifestyle. 

One point I'd make is it is worth the cost of financial advice if you can find someone worthwhile. I have a defined benefit super scheme as a long time public servant which works a bit differently to normal funds but two things I didn't know till literally today are:

- you can keep putting money in super up to $27,500 and claim is as a tax deduction even after you stop work up to I think 67.

- you can put your funds in an allocated pension where your funds are still accessible but there is no tax on the gains on your funds.

I am still learning the details but things like that can make a significant difference to tax.

12 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

@norbra  @Lancessit  @scorecard @LosLobo @ 4MyEgo @Artisi @HighPriority

 

and any other interested members. 

 

Ok, so I see we have some interesting links worthy of some research and further discussion. 

 

I will make this general forum post addressing the links, but will then reply to some individual posts more briefly.  

 

As usual, I will talk members through how I came to my conclusions, which are debatable, and post some links.  

 

In relation to nobra's links, I would like to say I am concerned at the conflicting information from the tax office. 

 

It appears "Jim Quinn" states something completely different to "Blake" and "Caro" from the ATO Community website. 

 

I am not disregarding Jim Quinn's reply and your post.  I give it some weight.  The question to you is, why do you believe Jim Quinn over Blake and Caro?  Either Jim is correct and Blake and Caro are wrong, or Blake and Caro are correct, and Jim is wrong.   

 

Can you post why you think Jim is correct and Blake and Caro's information should be disregarded?  

 

In relation to Lacessit's post and link.  

 

It caused me to Google "Australia tax treaty with Thailand."  I then found the below link on the first page.  It's from the Treasury department, so I doubt even my most avid haters can doubt its credibility. 

 

https://treasury.gov.au/tax-treaties/income-tax-treaties

 

I then scrolled down to Thailand and then clicked on the section "Income Tax (International Agreements) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1989**.)  This lead me to the below link.

 

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/2156925/upload_binary/2156925.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search="R62"

 

What caught my eye was this part:

 

"The agreements work be giving the country of residence the exclusive right to tax certain catagories of income and allowing the remaining income to be taxed by the country where it was sourced. If the income is then taxed by the country of residence, it is to allow a credit for tax paid in the country of origin. Examples of catagories reserved for tax by the country of residence include: "Industrial or commercial profits where the taxpayer has no permanent establishment in the country where the profits are earned; -Most pensions and purchased annuities"

 

Now, for the record, Australia's tax treaty with Thailand is new ground for me.  I was always going to check it out once Thailand announced they were going to tax foreigners, but I hadn't got around to it until Lacessit's link.  I have only had a quick look.  

 

Many of my posts were dealing with members who refused to accept, despite links being provided constantly, that the pension was deemed an income, the pension was taxable, and there was no non resident tax free threshold, and then to explain the proposed changes.  It appears we may finally have moved on from the ridiculous to some actual legal argument. 

 

So, the way the above reads to me is, Thailand get first bite of the cherry for whatever percent tax they want, then Australia takes what they want, but Thailand's percent is credited to the total 32.5%, thus, the individual is not paying 32.5% AFTER Thailand has taken their tax, which would effectively be double taxation, which is what the treaty is designed to stop.     

 

The words that stand out for me are: "giving the country of residence (Thailand) the exclusive right to tax certain categories of income and allowing the remaining income to be taxed by the country where it was sourced. (Australia)  This basically reads to me like Thailand gets gets to tax an Aussie expat first, and then Australia gets the rest, being the 32.5% non resident tax rate.

 

Of course this is open to debate, and I would be interested in what members think of the link.  I noted the "warning" at the top.  Once again, I will have to research how double tax treaty work. 

 

It appears the above conflicts with Lacessit's link leading to the treaty which says pensions are only taxed in the resident state, but I did see it stated, "Subject to the provisions of Article 19 etc etc"  and then under Article 19 it states "as a citizen or national of that other state."  As we all know, very few foreigners can be a Thai citizen, and we are certainly not Thai nationals."  

 

I will have to do more research, but I don't think it's as cut and some on here would like it to be. 

 

So, as you said to me Lacessit, "enjoy." 

 

 

Now, for those relying heavily on the current tax treaty Australia has with Thailand, this may also come into the mix, particularly as Thailand has announced the taxing of foreigners, and Australia has announced its proposed changes to non resident taxation laws.  

 

https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/australia/individual/foreign-tax-relief-and-tax-treaties

 

Two things stood out for me on this page.

 

"The Australian government plans to enter into new and updated tax treaties in the coming years. The relatively recently signed treaty with Iceland has entered into force to apply from as early as 1 January 2024. A new treaty with Portugal was signed on 30 November 2023 (yet to enter into force)."

 

Who knows when Australia's current tax treaty with Thailand will be changed, but as the link says, the government is planning it, and I would suggest, due to Thailand's new tax, Thailand's treaty might be at the top of the list. 

 

The other thing that stood out for me was.

 

"* Limited to allocation of taxing rights in respect of certain income derived by specified individuals, such as retirees, government employees, and students."

 

I note there is no asterisk next to Thailand.  Does this mean the limitation of taxing right does not exist for Thailand and the tax can be shared between the two countries, as mentioned in the link;/s above?  I have no idea. 

 

I will research more, but I have to say, despite the sly negative comments, it's refreshing to see we have finally moved on from the ridiculous reasons put forward in the list I posted as to why certain member believe none of it will happen, and if it doesn't happen, none of it will apply to them. 

 

As LosLobo says, it's about the exchange of information, and to that point, I finally think we have finally started to get somewhere. 

 

That said, I welcome all the personal attacks and trolling about how one link is right, and another link is wrong, despite no reasons being given, just because I, KhunHeinhen, posted the link. 

 

Bloody Nora. So many posts. I haven't fully read them all but I'll put in my 2 cents. A reason Jim Quinn's opinion carries wait over Blake and Caro is that that advice is specific to the Double Tax Agreement with Thailand. The other is in general for non-residents. It is noted too that special care will be taken for a ministerial opinion.

I take umbridge at your attempts to say past discussions about the politics of the situation would have carried no weight on the issue of treatment of tax and residency. You may disagree with opinions as to what effect the politics might have but that doesn't mean the previous discussion points were not valid. The fact they have a Consultation paper indicates they are looking for input on how people may be appropriately or unfairly affected. 

I note too in some posts you are now noting the 45 days and other factors that can affect residency in certain situations in the Consultation paper whereas before you made a number of posts saying it will be 180 days end of. 

5 hours ago, georgegeorgia said:

Those were the days of 

 

Mary Tyler Moore show

THAT Girl 

What's that show with the Diner ...Mel's Diner? At the airport

Taxi 

Cheers 

Welcome back kotter

 

Show with Mel's Diner is Alice. Kiss my grits was a catch phrase. Not at an airport though. That might be Wings. 

She's not there before I was born but good song. There's a good thing on Youtube where they take the 60's UK music month by month and look at new releases and reviews and goings on - sounds boring but not. Name of Yesterday's Papers. 

CNN poll reported today has Trump a little ahead of Biden while Hayley would beat Biden easily.

CNN Poll: Trump narrowly leads Biden in general election rematch | CNN Politics

12 minutes ago, charleskerins said:

There is Fascism

I don't mean Trump... some way to get Biden to find a way with dignity, and having had a successful presidency, to pass the baton. 

6 hours ago, Jingthing said:

The Magas are shooting themselves in the foot with this insanity.

Swift will continue to encourage her Swifties to register to vote and when the time comes she will actively endorse Biden over the adjudicated rapist maga fascist buffoon. 

That was going to happen anyway but now they've magnified the impact.

What new support do they get by dissing Swift and the Swifties? Zero. They just massage their bizarro cult. That will not lead to a happy ending for them. 

 

 

Saw Biden on the news today. Geez he's looking old. There's got to be a different way. 

Nice story and pictures. But don't give up on the real world Timmy... removing the weight of reality may feel good and the elation of putting reality to one side for a while might make you  see things like a staircase but stay focused Timmy on what's real ..if the staircase is real then it is a fact you can add to the other facts.  Your attitude to reality and facts may be too serious and make you heavy but reality is all we have.

On the topic of stereograms that it is a good analogy ..stay focused and sensible and you see what's there .. squint and distort your outlook and you start to see things differently but it's of no use in the real world and makes you tired and confused. 

There.  

Hope the op doesn't mind if I throw in a question - If I am staying at a combination of hotels and say monthly rents at a condo over the ninety days what is required at the 60 day mark to extend  -

• showing where I stayed for the whole 60 days - and or now only - and or the last 30 days. Wouldn't have the latter yet so I suppose it's not that.
• is it required for both condos with a landlord and normal hotels ie  if I stay at multiple hotels do I have to ask for a TM30 at each one as I leave. 

Thanks for help. 

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Ayn Rand was another crackpot.

Her core message was that altruism was bad and unfettered self-interest was good.

Total bs.

 

I like the fact that she went there - for good and for bad. Keep in mind her communist past where she saw a lot of justifications for helping her fellow man which turned out not to work in terms of practical human nature.

What if self interest is everything that feels good for you and doing things for people feels good. Then doing things for selfish reasons might include helping people. Starting with the premise that you are doing things to help people because it's somehow objectively good is almost religious - doing what you want, which may include helping others, is doing something based on your human nature. Possibly the same outcome but how you get there in your mind is more logical and clear. 

54 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

I haven't read any of Rand's works.  I've come across some of her most well known quotes and if they smack of truth then they're worth quoting.

 

 

To be honest, I already know the answer.  She would react no different than anyone on this thread would react.  The Seth material either fits into ones current world view, their belief system, or it does not.

 

". . . by your own admission the evidence is subjective at best."

 

I admit I laughed as I read that.  I laughed because subjective reality, though it's existence is undeniable, is given scant credibility.  It's not r-e-a-l like objective reality is.  And that is the fallacy which most have adopted as their "truth."  Subjective evidence cannot be accepted as r-e-a-l evidence because only objective evidence can be real.  The truth is, and this is a truth I understand full well that you may never accept, Fat, that the objective world that you know is dependent upon and a result of subjective reality.  Science is attempting to take that truth and reverse it by saying that the subjective world that you know is dependent upon and a result of objective reality.  Which is only a natural consequence when holding the erroneous belief that objective reality is all the exists.

 

I understand full well, therefore, that the implications of what I claim would then force unimaginably massive changes in ones thinking.  So many currently held beliefs, belief being an idea considered to be "true," would have to be discarded whilst new ones take their place.  In the interim people would literally be lost as to how to act and what to think as their current beliefs which comprise their world views are in the most practical terms the modus operandi by which people act and interpret the data of life.  There are few, very few, who are willing to do that work of massively changing their ideas to conform to actual reality rather than a fictitious one.  As illustrated in the movie series, The Matrix, the character Cypher would rather return to the matrix than know the truth of the matrix.  So it is for most.  I ain't gonna change that. 

 

Thanks. I think that is where it does hit a bit of a dead end because of the subjective objective issue. I tried to fix that by noting that, if it is observable only subjectively, then maybe the results rather than the phenomenon itself, could be observed objectively, but if that's not possible, then hard to take it further unless one commits to some super deep dive. It seems that you should be able to take some bit of the findings into the objective world as evidence but if not then fair enough. 

A brief comment on the covid stuff that had been provided separately: 

I don't think Fauci noted you'll be safe with the vaccine is the same as saying it will prevent it - it made sennse to say safe when the unvaccinated were dying in such large no's at the time and the vaccinated were not. He didn't appear to use the word prevent. 

The Biden comment you provided, which I recall, is a perfect example of what I was saying - that some politicians misspoke - the reaction to his comment that the vaccine prevented covid was immediate and scathing - from social media and a range of medical sources including the CDC - saying his comment was not correct. It shows that the statement that the vaccine prevented covid had clearly not been treated as a scientific truth at that time. Broadly or otherwise.

49 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

When I said that I validate to the extent that I can I'm obviously making that statement in reference to my below quote.

 

 

I've certainly validated much for myself.  And of course, as with anything in science, there's always something that remains to be validated and some things which are almost impossible to validate.

 

 

Because it has massive practical applications in the real world.  But you have no way of knowing about that.  If you did then you wouldn't ask the question.  The proof is always in the pudding, isn't it?

 

 

The way you framed each and every point you made then each and every point was a blatant lie.  Remember what I said about honesty being an indispensable prerequisite for uncovering the real truth of ourselves and the world?  You're dispensing with it.  It is true to say that the only one anyone really fools is themselves.  You, sir, are fooling yourself as all of the evidence needed to prove your assertions to be wrong are readily available if only you were willing to look.

 

But just as you are unwilling to look for any contrary evidence to your beliefs about Covid so you are unwilling to look for any contrary evidence to your beliefs regarding this subject matter.  You may not like the truth but there it is.

 

“You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.”

— Ayn Rand

 

I think you are getting a bit excited about the covid stuff. Your point was specifically the following:

 The mRNA shots will prevent you from catching Covid.  That was billed and heavily promoted as a scientific "truth." 

I don't recall ever being told in Australia that getting the vaccine would mean I would not get covid. I was always told, and had known from previous vaccines, that it means if you catch it, and have had the vaccine, it is a lot less worse. It may have been also said that there is LESS likelihood of catching it but I do not recall hearing it would actually prevent you getting it. As I said maybe it was said in the early period. 

I do recall the controversial issue being around whether a person should have to get vaccinated as it made it safer for others but that is a separate issue. 

If you can show me that all the major medical bodies made your claim throughout the covid epidemic, and not just early on as I stated where errors were made, then I will accept what you are saying. Please do and I can learn something. 

Fun fact: I was a big fan of Ayn Rand at one time. Her direct and somewhat extreme right wing economic views and opinions on personal freedoms and approach to life were refreshing in The Fountainhead. Atlas Shrugged got a bit much and I saw that you need a heart and being so hardcore is in the end not a good way to treat fellow humans. Ask yourself : if you showed her the Seth stuff what would have she said. Doesn't mean it's wrong but see how it appears to others when by your own admission the evidence is subjective at best. 

On 1/24/2024 at 4:50 PM, JonnyF said:

It would appear that Trump is very popular amongst Republican voters.

 

 

He's not popular with the Smiths - if I recall you are a big fan. Fun fact they've told him to stop playing 'Please please please let me get what I want' at his rallies without permission.