Fat is a type of crazy

Assume you have a reason to go by Singapore - bought Melbourne Bangkok return direct recently on Jetstar for AUD $700 including meals, luggage, and free change of ticket. Cattle class but for shorter flights no big deal as far as I am concerned - happy to spend on good accommodation. 

She wants you to feel like a hero, the best man ever, and hopes that you won't want that feeling to go away. Tell her she knows she's been on a good gig and that you hope she enjoyed it but now it's 20000 a month or whatever. She'll not be happy but likely adapt fast. 

That's assuming you are still getting something you want and want to pay at all. 

I think as we get closer to the election people will remember the chaos and silliness of Trump - comments like today on NATO kind of stuff - and people will pick an elderly not 100 per cent but stable Biden. 

41 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Trumps message was to NATO members states , telling them to pay their way .

He wasn't messaging Putin at all .

The USA doesn't control NATO and no rules have ben changed .

Anti Trumpers just using it as ammunition to attack him 

The premise of NATO isn't like an electricity bill  that you all pay the full amount or lose your access. It is fair to ask that people pay but Trump's cavalier comments put the whole stability of NATO on shaky ground and of course gives Putin a good further reason to want a Trump win in 2024. 

5 hours ago, Ralf001 said:

Years ago most of the fruit and veg in Aus supermarkets was from Australia now all from China !.

 Most fresh fruit and vegetables in Australian supermarkets is from Australia. Over 90 per cent for Coles and Woolworths. 

5 hours ago, retarius said:

A great job by Tucker and Mr Putin. I do hope that viewers were comforted by Putin's grasp of history, by his calm demeanour, and that they believed his lack of desire to invade the whole of Europe. The event seemed to be meant to present Mr Putin as the calm and reasonable humanitarian man that I believe he is. 

Th e communications strategy for the Kremlin seem to be that Medvedev delivers the strength warnings of nuclear Armageddon and Putin is more restrained in his pronouncements.....bad cop/good cop if you like. 

4 hours ago, Woof999 said:

 

The reasonable humanitarian man that has dictated the results of his own elections for around 2 decades? The good cop that does not allow ANY kind of free speech from his underlings that doesn't exactly match his vision? The man of the people that poisons or imprisons anyone even remotely popular as a political opponent?

 

Yeah, what a man. What an idol. Surely someone to look up to.

Can you please expand on Putin being a calm and reasonable humanitarian. A reply to Woof999's comments would be nice. 

5 minutes ago, Prubangboy said:

I already live is a supposedly dystopian tourist hell (Nimman, Chiang Mai) -and I really, really love it.

 

So if it got so-called worse (more sushi, more hat stores for Chinese people, more 200 baht Durian Ice Cream stands), I guess I'd like it even more. It's great to live in a place where everyone has some money and is blissed out while spending it. I used to live near Times Square NYC and liked that too. If I lived in Bangkok, I'd be by some heavily used BTS stop along Sukhamvit, Phrong Phong, maybe. Tourist buzz means good restaurants.

 

Def. heaving here for Chinese New Year. We had to reserve at Sushi Umai. For lunch, no less. For Omakase, it's two days in advance. How do we get our Asian theme park life back? Just wait a week, I guess.

 

This thread has successfully killed a planned Phuket outing for me, so thanks.

 

Just did Koh Samui and found it a bit packed out, so if Phuket is double-that, I'll wait a couple of years for the Russians to thin out. 'Love them in Chiang Mai, but apparently they're a bit overbearing down at the beach.

 

How do you go with the pollution. You do make that part of Chiang Mai sound pretty good.

Spending 2 and a half months in Thailand in a few months including a month in Jomtiem with and without my girlfriend to see if I love it or hate it. 

Went to Phuket 6 months ago and enjoyed Phuket town and Patong hadn't changed that much in 10 years though more development. Maybe the trick is to go in low season when it is not so busy. 

I didn't think this bit was one of his better bits - the usual America is better and freer than you think bit. Boring other interview  about racism in 2023 etc . The discussion of Joe Biden on the panel and the intro jokes was good. I could wax lyrical about why I think Bill has gone a bit downhill in the last 12 months but I'll leave it there. 

On the issue of NOT accessing super the topic below is different but it seems if you keep your super in accumulation phase it won't be treated as an asset or income for the Disability Support Pension till 67. 

https://www.superguide.com.au/in-retirement/qas-super-affect-disability-support-pension#:~:text=For Centrelink benefits including the,until you reach age 67.

• Q: I’d like to know if the Centrelink Disability Support Pension (DSP) is affected by a super lump sum payment or income stream once the DSP recipient reaches preservation age?

  A: Let’s take the first half of your question first. For the Disability Support Pension means test:

• Super lump sum withdrawals won’t be counted as income under the Centrelink Income test. Super in the accumulation phase (not a pension account) will remain a Centrelink exempt asset until you reach age 67, the Age Pension age.

6 minutes ago, Negita43 said:

I am a little confused - if Phuket is no longer a good place to live for them why return to their home country?

After all Thailand has many other places they could move to.

Maybe it's not just about Phuket?

Where though. Where is not in the middle of nowhere, has a thai feel but has access to some western comforts, not polluted so you have to worry about breathing for 6 months out of the year, not horribly busy, nice beaches or other natural beauty nearby. Options seem limited. 

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.