Jump to content

Fat is a type of crazy

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    3,771
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Fat is a type of crazy

  1. 7 hours ago, Lacessit said:

    You are wrong too. The $10,000 limit applies not only to passengers and crew, but all cash sent by air, courier or by sea.

    You may be right on the electronic reporting, permit me to doubt AUSTRAC will get their knickers in a twist over one or two thousand AUD. After all, it took them years to catch up with Westpac.

    Austrac is normally cash payments over $10000 and all payments or transfers to and from overseas. 

  2. 1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

    Only reason I even know she exists is that she did a duet with a Brazilian songstress that is actually "smoking hot" ( sorry, forget her name ).

    Possibly you mean Shakira who is Colombian. Rihanna always seems like someone who doesn't take herself too seriously. Not my cup of tea but I am not the intended audience. 

  3. 44 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

    How many of these people make their way to an Australian Embassy to vote at election time?  I have never voted at the Australian Embassy in Bangkok. 

     

    So, whilst not being a popular policy with expats, how many votes do they lose?  Close to zero. 

     

    This is another incentive for them to no exempt pensions from non resident taxation.  Think of the billions of dollars returning back into the Australian economy, and the jobs it creates. 

     

    You see it as a negative, but it's actually a financial plus for the government to indirectly force pensioners home.  They want to see the Australian tax payer's money circulating in the Australian economy, not circulating around another country's economy.  

     

    They give you a pension, and they get some of it back in GST, excise, council rates etc etc, and also income tax from the jobs created.  They give you that pension and you are overseas, they get back zero.

     

    Yes, they are unclear, but will become very clear if the new changes come in.  183 days inside Australia, you are a resident.  183 days outside of Australia, you are a non resident for taxation purposes.  It doesn't get any clearer than that.

     

    Once again, you are using words like "pension cut."  I have said, these changes do not target pensioners.  They target everyone outside of Australia for 183 days who derive an income from Australia.  They may exempt pensions, they may not, but people living outside of Australia will be deemed non residents for taxation purposes and there will be no way to get around that. 

     

    The question simply is, will pensions be exempt?  There is nothing in the proposed changes saying they will be, so I would put it a little higher than "remote." 

    Feel like I'm repeating myself a bit but one last post. Takes 3 steps to apply to current expats.

    1.  183 day rule is possible but at this time far from probable as neither party is taking or proposing such action. The Liberals had a long time to bring it in but did not. Labour is even less likely. Big difference between policy options and policy. After the 2019 election, which Labour lost likely due to interesting but controversial policies, parties are less likely than ever to have such policies. 

    2 If it became law it is not likely to apply to age pensioners who are living off mainly the age pension in my opinion. Commenting on your comment, it is not about expats voting overseas only but the community of people born overseas in Australia who have relatives or friends who are expats, whom they may have to help and support, or those who look forward to the option of retiring overseas in the future. As such, and on the basis of a perception of fairness, I don't think it would happen.

    3  If it did it would not likely apply to current expats as clearly not fair. Beyond fairness consider the lack of available housing at reasonable rates as one example, and the possible effect on the health system as a second, and for a range of other reasons, it would not be practical or politically sensible to tax those pensions at non resident rates, and have a potential mass return to our shores. Save a bit on the extras expats don't get too. 

    So by the time you get to current expats the statistical likelihood of this happening, and it applying to them, is in my opinion remote. But if you disagree that's fine. 

    • Like 2
  4. 15 minutes ago, scorecard said:

    All agreed. Seems to me there's less than a 1 in a million chance a labour or a liberal government will make cuts to the OAP and similar allowances and same chance they will ever impose any new taxes of Pensions except perhaps changed to limits on income / assets etc., (right now of course pension payments are exempt from taxation).

    I concur on the residency thing and effect on age pensions. 

    The Age Pension and other pension payments are taxable now though, but for most who receive it it is within the limits, so that no tax is paid. 

    • Like 1
  5. 1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

    I, and a few other members, posted links to the proposed changes on how the government may be deeming who is a resident, and who is a non resident for taxation purposes in the future.  The main part of the proposed changes was being inside, or outside of Australia for 183 days a year.  Indeed, they called this the "bright line test" meaning to me it will hold significant weight upon how an individual will be classified.

     

    The effect of these changes, if they come in, will not differentiate between a billionaire, millionaire, and a pensioner.  All three have a name, date of birth, and a passport number, and have been outside of Australia for more than 183 days, as shown in immigration records.  Everything will be handled by a computer data base. 

     

    Will they make an exemption for pensioners, maybe, maybe not?  Let's hope they do. 

     

    The proposed changes were put forward by the Liberals, does it really matter if the changes come in when they are next in power?  Relying on Labor for the next few years is only a buying some time to come up with a plan.  

     

    As I have said in previous posts, don't expect pensioners back in Australia to care, because it doesn't effect them one bit, and don't expect the government to be worried about losing votes, because how many expats make their way to an Australian Embassy at election time, so no votes lost on this policy. 

     

    Non resident taxation, and their high rates, have been around for years.  Nothing new about this taxation policy.  What is new, if these changes come in, is the grey area that many, including myself, have been able to skirt around and still claim to be a resident for taxation purposes will be replaced by the 183 day law, and there's no getting around that, because you are either in, or out of the country for 183 day, and this is recorded by immigration. 

     

    Once again, these proposed changes do not target pensioners, they are clearly designed to scoop up everyone.  Expat pensioners may just be collateral  damage.

     

    Yes, but as I said in another post, who really cares whether the government administers the new changes, or a private company. 

     

    If it becomes law, there will be no difference between the two.  It's not like the government will show any mercy.  The law is the law.

     

    This goes to the heart of the matter.

     

    Say you retire and take your super as a monthly payment.  You leave Australia and live in Thailand.  Is that monthly payment an "income" under the law?  If so, and you are outside of Australia for 183 days, how to you propose to argue that your monthly payment should not be taxed at non resident rates?

     

    It's money "earned" in Australia, and you live overseas. 

    I think I posted this once before but I think there are broader political implications of taxing the pension for those relying on it e.g. upsetting the lebanese, chinese, greek, italian, etc community if such a policy became law. Not politically popular. Imagine 1000's of Australians living off the age pension having to come home - if it became a thing there would surely be an exemption for existing expats. For fairness. No reason for concern in my opinion. 

    The broader non-resident rules are a bit unclear sometimes. Talking to actual staff in that area the focus seems to be on the opposite - making sure say some earning income overseas are treated as residents if appropriate.

    See what happens but can we concur that pensions cuts for those living off the age pension in Thailand is a remote possibility. 

    • Thumbs Up 1
  6. 1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

    Here ya go ............

    Like every other totalitarian movement, what some call liberalism and others more recently often describe as Cultural Marxism has developed an ideology which its adherents use to justify the imposition of tyranny on the society they seek to overtake. The ideology of America’s contemporary totalitarian left can be called wokeism.

     

    The four intellectual pillars of wokeism are:

    1) Anti-white racism disguised under the euphemism social justice.

    2) Rejection of traditional morality, which is primarily carried out by the promotion of sexually deviant lifestyles such as homosexuality and transgender. In a truly surreal inversion of reality, they paint traditional morality as immoral by charging it with being homophobic, transphobic, and similar terms.

    3) Environmentalism based on the notion that it is desirable and possible to arrest climate change.

    4) Intense hostility toward Christian religion, which they negatively paint as patriarchal, intolerant, and oppressive.

    It seems to me in an attempt not to deal with difficult or thorny topics you are throwing it all under the woke blanket.

    To look at no 2, your extreme position allows you to call the gay lifestyle deviant, while you yourself take pride in a self confessed loveless transactional open lifestyle.

    Your lifestyle works for you and hopefully you don't hurt anybody and do some good. Can't you give others the same respect. That's not to say the arguments around say the science of being trans should not be open to debate but debate the issue and don't automatically condemn. 

    It's about balance. Being open to the possibility that the past was not perfect while not throwing out the baby with the bathwater and changing things that work or rewriting history. As I have said it is often young people at the extremes. Same as it ever was. 

    In a minor way I feel Bill Maher is doing the same thing. He has always stood up for logic and common sense, and hopefully I am wrong that he is becoming a bit too black and white, in a possibly subconscious attempt to seem relevant. His covid stuff for example. Not wrong to debate but too one sided in my opinion. His latest special Adulting was a dud too.

    Left comedy can of course be a dud. I find his HBO stablemate John Oliver has got boring.  He sometimes hits the mark but is a bit too far to the left.  Had a show on black women's hair and related discrimination. No thanks. 

     

    • Thumbs Up 2
  7. 29 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

    Why do you say that?  Do you have a link to any legal precedent, or test case?

     

    You may wish to read these links.  Just two of many articles about it.

     

    https://www.thesenior.com.au/story/5573886/centrelink-privatisation-warning-as-private-firms-win-more-call-centre-jobs/

     

    https://thesocialist.org.au/centrelink-being-privatised-by-stealth/

     

    Everything has gone up by a considerable percentage, but wages and pensions etc have not gone up by the same percentage, thus, people are falling behind.

     

    In order to survive, people take a cut in their lifestyle. 

    Tax on pensions for overseas residents

    I am a current public servant in a large department who keeps up with a fair bit of what's happening. In the current environment I see no likelihood of such a move. Especially under labour. It would not be likely to be politically palatable based on the fairness factor - can you imagine all the different ethnic groups pushing back. There may be the odd paper looking at options and you are correct that I have no knowledge to say it definitively won't happen. 

    Privatisation

    Your articles are a bit old from five years ago. Some jobs may have been contracted out here and there but total control is of course with the government. When it does happen it is bad for workers as they don't get the same conditions as other public servants but generally not a big issue I should think for pensioners. Labour's policy is to reverse what the Coalition is doing e.g. more full time APS staff and reversing labour hire and contractors. Can provide links if required.

    Cost increase

    Agreed. Tell me about it. My wage went up 2 and 3 per cent over the past 2 years. Inflation totals about 15 per cent. Before that Tony Abbott was hardcore on low pay rises leading to disputes and terrible deals for workers. Labour is supposed to give us a better deal but not so far. Once I retire I'll be on a defined benefit that will rise with inflation. Haven't timed it particularly well.

    At least age pensions are linked to inflation so better than my situation. 

     

     

     

     

     

    • Like 1
  8. 28 minutes ago, MRToMRT said:

    I always thought you could drive in Thailand on a foreign license for up to 3 months without an IDP. I may be wrong but I have a strong memory of this (many of my memories are questionable due to my age though).

    I though the same but the Thailand embassy page in Australia says this:

     
     
    If you do not hold a Thai driver's licence and wish to drive in Thailand, you need an international driving permit (IDP), as well as your Australian licence. If you drive without the correct licence you could be arrested or jailed. An IDP is a document sanctioned by the United Nations.

     

    Been a long time since I drove in Thailand so maybe the rules were different back then. 

    • Like 1
  9. For what it's worth

    The chance of taxing age pensions for people overseas as a non resident close to nil.

    Services Australia is an Australian government agency and has not been privatised.

    You can by four Magnum's at Coles every few weeks for 30 baht each. Probably better Magnum's too.

    Steak is expensive and I am guessing similar quality in Thailand same or more expensive.

    Never seen toasted ham and cheese for anywhere near $28 but eating out is definitely expensive. 

    Food at supermarkets in Australia a bit expensive but if you are careful not too bad and less chemicals to worry about.

     

     

  10. Been a fan for some time and can see why his juxtaposition of talking points and examples can seem attractive. I am finding him lately though a bit too smug and convenient.

    The first example isn't bad but like to hear the full story of what the University Professor did. A brief search indicates there is more to it.  Universities do not, and have not for many years, represented in a political sense the wider community. Maybe that is a problem. 

    The Mumford example relates to his praise of a book Unmasked: Inside Antifa's Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy that according to the LA Times 'wildly and dishonestly' inflates the role of Antifa. His fanbase pushed back. I accept his right to read what he likes but you have to cop what comes at you if you support such a controversial tome. Especially if your supporters tend to be young progressives. 

    The Atlantic article is an opinion piece that suggests separating sports by gender doesn't make sense. It is the opinion of the one author. Many disagreed. Bill disagreed. The Atlantic is a respected magazine that has all sorts of opinions. Not sure how one person expressing an opinion is on par or similar to the horrors of the cultural revolution where people could not express their opinion. 

    These are the best examples he has? Trite. A bit boring.

    He is tending to compare the flaws of the right with the left which may seem sensible. I think it has limited worth. A reason is that the right he criticises and lampoons is far more mainstream amongst Republicans while the left is mainly the young and in Universities and not nearly as mainstream or powerful. 

    I still watch him though as his past work, and some of his current work, can be worthwhile.

    • Like 2
  11. Can depend how good a friend he is. How much common sense you think he has. I had a good friend in my late teens and twenties who went from relationship to relationship, became too needy and indulgent and a drama queen. I had enough got bored and left him to do his thing. Sometimes friendships are best let to die. If he is a good friend talk straight and honest and if he doesn't like it then let him do his thing. Two words .. pre nup .. though I am not sure if they are that effective in Thailand and the horse may have bolted based on what he has spent so far. 

    • Like 2
  12. 34 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

    I think using the term prostitutes is loading the issue. There are many women who become prostitutes out of economic necessity. They are not bad or "immoral", they are normal women. Not feeling the need to have a fixed relationship is not a negative thing either. Many people are trapped in unhappy relationships. Sometimes those relationships turn sour to the point that they inflict great damage to each other. Ego is irrelevant as well, I don't believe that ego has any relationship to sex at all. Sex is simply about pleasure. People go to pubs to interact socially. Having sex with different women is the exactly the same. It is no more or less than social interaction. Sex doesn't have to have any deeper psychological meaning. I think those who claim it does are misleading themselves or seeking to pander to their ego in the same way as you criticize those having casual sex. Finally, sex addiction can pertain just as easily to a monogamous relationship as to casual sex. The nature of the relationship is meaningless in this context. Casual sex can also mean sex with the same woman on a regular or irregular basis, either over a period of days, weeks or years. I can't see where the harm arises quite frankly.

     

    If you accept that humans are biologically no different from animals from a fundamental point of view, there a strong philosophical argument that our only purpose in life is to procreate and that arguments such as yours are mere social or religious constructions which contravene the laws of nature.

    There's a bit to unpack there but I agree with most of what you are saying as one side of the story. There will be many who simply have sex for fun, like there are people who have a few drinks, and there's nothing much to say. I agree with the argument too that living alone or living a certain lifestyle is not by it's nature wrong or inappropriate and certainly not immoral. 

    On the topic of prostitution my instincts tell me it is not as simple as you say but the problem is not because the women are bad but that we are complicated beings, and for some, and maybe all, to some degree, the action of paying directly for such an intimate thing could potentially be damaging.  Maybe it is like drugs or gambling. Some can handle marijuana or stronger drugs and others can't. I have opinions on the merits of prostitution in my own life but I accept it is a personal thing. 

    I don't accept we are exactly like animals because we have a much broader range of emotions and awareness and freedom of choice. Being aware of our limitations can be a religious concept but I think it can be useful for non religious people too as a way of being careful sometimes about how we live our life. Support and discussion can help I suppose. 

    • Like 1
    • Thumbs Up 1
  13. 8 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

    Sex addiction has harmed nobody. Sex itself maybe, if they contracted a disease. Otherwise no. Spending themselves broke on sex is nothing to do with the sex itself. A multimillionaire could have twice as much sex and not be harmed.

    It might not be about physical harm as such. More about the inability to maintain and develop relationships and friendships, or focus on a sensible and fulfilling life, as your constant motivation is doing it one more time and getting a further fix.  For some it might simply be a high libido but for many it may be psychological e.g.  the need to constantly have to satisfy your ego, or due to inadequate feelings about oneself, pessimism about the future. Could be something you deep down feel you lost from being with a certain type of woman, that you are trying to get back etc.  Constantly being with prostitutes for example I imagine could be damaging to you in ways that are not obviously physical in nature.  

    • Like 1
  14. 10 minutes ago, toofarnorth said:

    I remember Kenny Everett playing I want my baby back and Transfusion years ago. I think it was part of his radio prog. The world's worst records. I suggested to him Jack the ripper which he played.

    I had a record that had 'I want my baby back' called 'The Rhino Brothers Present the World's Worst Records'. Fun record. Not the sort of thing for choirs to sing at the footy. Same as this song. May seem politically correct if used to it but from afar it is not hard to see their point. 

    • Like 1
  15. 12 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

    Poor but intelligent enough to know that having sex is probably the only way to make a lot of money. I knew many wonderful women that became bargirls for a limited time. Certainly nicer than most non bargirls I've known.

    Western people have this strange hang up about sex, which is just a normal human activity. Seems western people got brainwashed that it's some sort of prize only to be allowed if the guy makes the woman a treasure for allowing him to do it with her.

    I certainly had the brainwashing, and it took Thailand to learn the truth.

    Some feel that we are all vulnerable and things we do in life can have lasting effects. Sex is a strong stimulant in life and has emotional and physical impacts and doing it with people you don't like or that are even offensive to you is likely to leave a strong mark on that person. Different for different people. Doesn't mean they are bad but needs to be taken into account in your dealings with them. 

×
×
  • Create New...