way2muchcoffee

$22k before taxes is ridiculous for 24 yrs of service. Would that be E6, E7, or E8? Which branch? At least you get some medical benefits too, but it is shameful how low that pension amount is....

I have never worked for a company that gives me a pension. Only 401Ks, where I contribute. And no one is going to give me any money when I retire, probably wont even have Social Security by that time. Why should a company be responsible for me after I quit working for them. I work, they pay me. We both get something. Why should they pay me even when I have stopped working? Planning and saving for my retirement is my responsibility, not the company I work for. That is why many large corporations in the US are in financial trouble because they have too many responsibilities for people that no longer work for the company.

I have two Uncles that both retired from the Marines. They joined when they were 18, finished when they were around my age. At my age, they were collecting a pension and a paycheck from their new jobs.

1) Military personnel work in jobs that serve their country directly

2) Military personnel may be asked to go to war and die for their country

3) Military personnel work for wages well below what private companies pay

4) Military personnel work much longer hours than private employees - for no overtime

5) Military personnel often have troubled family lives as they are often away for extended periods

6) Military personnel do all these things out of a sense of duty, while the rest of the country sits on their butts watching events unfold on Fox News.

$22k before taxes is ridiculous for 24 yrs of service. Would that be E6, E7, or E8? Which branch? At least you get some medical benefits too, but it is shameful how low that pension amount is....

Not much more to the story really.

1) No signs of resistance or struggle (bruising, cuts, etc) = No Rape

2) Young handsome man with Old deformed woman = No Rape

3) No Monetary Incentive for police = No Rape

The villagers don't usually go to the police for anything in that area as the police are despised for their corruption and abuse. Usually they will take disputes to the village headman. In this case, the man who raped my wife's aunt was a cousin of the village headman, so there was no assistance forthcoming.

Here's a story about the police that might be somewhat illuminating.

My wife has a 40-year old aunt who is physically and mentally disabled. She has the cognitive ability of a 4-year old child and gross physical deformities. About six months ago she was 'raped' by a drunken villager who was invited to sleep in the family house after a night of drinking. The woman didn't put up much of a fight, but didn't understand what was happening to her either. The male perpetrator was about 28 y/o and fairly good looking.

The next morning, when the family found out what happened, the police were brought in. They told the family to go to the hospital for a vaginal inspection and a search for semen. The hospital provided written confirmation the the rape did in fact take place. Evidently she was raped multiple times as there was a large volume of semen present. The family then took the paper to the local police who refused to do anything, but sent them to police headquarters in town.

The inspectors at the main headquarters interviewed the aunt, but the aunt has very limited language skills and could not answer the questions in any kind of sensible way. They refused to allow another family member to answer for her. At the end of the interview they indicated that since she never screamed or fought, the sex was consensual. They furthermore indicated that it could not possibly have been rape because the perpetrator was a young and handsome man and could have any woman he wanted, but the woman was old, stupid, and physically deformed. They refused to press charges.

After more discussion, the police indicated that if the family insisted on pressing charges the police would do so, but the family would have to pay 20,000 BT up front to cover police and court costs. The family didn't have that kind of money, so they went home disappointed, disgusted, infuriated, and completely demoralized.

True story. Happened about 6 months ago.

Addendum to the story. I forgot to mention that the perpetrator is HIV positive and obviously didn't use a condom during the multiple rapes he committed against the aunt that evening. Doctors at the hospital provided her with morning after pill to ward against pregnancy and I believe some other kind of medicine to reduce the chances of her acquiring HIV.

About a month ago the guy was hanging around the house and acting as if nothing had ever happened. Village justice was swift and sure as my wife's entire clan pummeled this guy heavily - not to the point where he needed hospitalization, but it was definitely a beating he won't soon forget.

Here's a story about the police that might be somewhat illuminating.

My wife has a 40-year old aunt who is physically and mentally disabled. She has the cognitive ability of a 4-year old child and gross physical deformities. About six months ago she was 'raped' by a drunken villager who was invited to sleep in the family house after a night of drinking. The woman didn't put up much of a fight, but didn't understand what was happening to her either. The male perpetrator was about 28 y/o and fairly good looking.

The next morning, when the family found out what happened, the police were brought in. They told the family to go to the hospital for a vaginal inspection and a search for semen. The hospital provided written confirmation the the rape did in fact take place. Evidently she was raped multiple times as there was a large volume of semen present. The family then took the paper to the local police who refused to do anything, but sent them to police headquarters in town.

The inspectors at the main headquarters interviewed the aunt, but the aunt has very limited language skills and could not answer the questions in any kind of sensible way. They refused to allow another family member to answer for her. At the end of the interview they indicated that since she never screamed or fought, the sex was consensual. They furthermore indicated that it could not possibly have been rape because the perpetrator was a young and handsome man and could have any woman he wanted, but the woman was old, stupid, and physically deformed. They refused to press charges.

After more discussion, the police indicated that if the family insisted on pressing charges the police would do so, but the family would have to pay 20,000 BT up front to cover police and court costs. The family didn't have that kind of money, so they went home disappointed, disgusted, infuriated, and completely demoralized.

True story. Happened about 6 months ago.

Indeed they do.

A few yeas ago I had a friend translate a sign on the door of Ekamai Major Cineplex. The advertisement was for a ticket-taker/cashier/concessions worker.

Wanted:

Thai Woman

Age: 18-30

Education: M3

Height: Between X cm and Y cm

Weight: Between A kg and B kg

Other: Must be attractive, personable, and have light-skin tone

sounded like an attack to me....

Here come the personal insults - the lowest form of debate.

Why would anyone suggest that I don't live in reality? Where and how do you think I live?

I made three primary assertions.

1) The current system is unfair and leads to unnecessary suffering

2) Better, more egalitarian systems are possible

3) Man is currently incapable of living by a better system, but this could change

Jeez. What's with the personal slurs?

Socialism gives some people the warm fuzzies. In a completely fare world it would work. We are all born with different skill sets, but if we all understood we were going to be equally compensated for our efforts the world would be a lovely place. The problem is that some aren’t capable of grasping the fact that they have to work as hard as the next person ( moochers/ looters ). Also, there are those that are willing to work harder than the rest and expect to be compensated. The socialistic model ultimately breaks down because it goes against human nature.

This was precisely my point when I stated that humans lacked the requisite morality at present. Human nature is an interesting notion. Is it fixed? Does it change or evolve? If it does evolve, how and why? Can it evolve to a point where people don't feel the need to hoard wealth and exploit their fellow man? What are our fundamental traits? Are we cooperative? Are we competitive? Both? Are we fundamentally decent, or is self-serving a better description? Is the capacity to love broadly a part of our makeup, or can we only love those close to us? The answers to these questions will bear heavily on the fate of our species.

Spee - All I can say to your comments is that no person more 'valuable' than any other. The existing system of economics is mean-spirited and inherently unfair. The experiment hasn't yet reached it's conclusion but I believe the end result will be the undoing of civilization and possibly the extinction or near-extinction of our species. I hold a small sliver of hope that our better natures will ultimately prevail, but it certainly won't be anytime soon, if ever.

I believe that there should be no tax on low incomes and high tax on high incomes so that all people have roughly the same take home pay, or at least fall within a fairly narrow window.

Some say that this would stifle development. I disagree. Scientists, for example, generally aren't in the wealthy classes, but they are responsible for almost all of the technological advances. Educators aren't usually wealthy, but their contribution to society is enormous. Police, Fireman, and most public servants (with the exception of politicians) are generally in the same position. Artists, musicians, and athletes do what they do because they have a natural gift, and a strong personal drive for excellence. They are not motivated by money (at least not initially). I think development would continue because humans are intelligent, creative, imaginative, and motivated.

It is the business and political classes, those who make their fortunes off the labor of others while keeping the lion's share for themselves, who have trouble seeing this. They somehow feel they are entitled to more, and are unwilling to share equitably. I don't believe any business owner should make a 'personal' profit of more than twice the salary of their lowest paid employee. That is called exploitation, and it is morally indefensible.

Fair points SA.

1) The only way for me to not be hypocritical with respect to my views is to live off the land. Sadly, I'd probably die trying. It is a technological, community-based world we live in, and living off the land is no longer feasible. All that a person can reasonably do is to minimize the harm they cause and maximize the help they give.

2) Regarding my vehicle. I put about 6,000 km per year on my truck, maybe a little more. I never use it around town, but only to visit my wife's family and to take the odd vacation. Invariably we bring the extended family (working in BKK) back to the village with us whenever we go. The truck holds about 10 people and it is usually full. I get about 13 km/L, but am considering switching to LPG in the near future in order to further minimize the harm this 'luxury item' causes. In short, I try to limit my contribution to pollution by restricting the operation of my vehicle.

3) Regarding 'excessive' taxes. I don't think they are excessive. This is a matter of opinion and belief. Excess monies should be used to increase the standard of living for the world population as a whole, including infrastructure, and not for purchasing the second house, car, 50 inch plasma TV, or jetsetting around the world.

You suggest that when a person makes large amounts of money from business or trade, it is their money. Following your train of thought that means the wealthy classes are shouldering the burden of infrastructure requirements and social services. And under your belief system these are valid conclusions.

Under my belief system, however, that is wrong thinking. I believe excess monies beyond what is required for a comfortable life should not be private but public, and should be used for the greater good. In short, the money should never have been theirs to begin with, which means they are shouldering no burden. Of course there is the problem with governments and how they choose to spend the tax money, but that is another issue altogether.

4) I use A/C when it's hot because I was born and raised in a cold climate (Seattle). In the same way, a person from SE Asia living in Seattle would use the heater in Spring, Fall, and Winter whereas a person from Seattle would be more conditioned to the local weather and would really only need to use the heater in Winter.

Please don't misunderstand me here. I fully understand the majority views. And I really do appreciate the contribution that the wealthy classes make to society. I simply believe they should be doing much much more. Why? Because they are the ones who are in a position to do so.

Hypocritically yours,

coffeeman

I work 60-80 hours a week teaching mathematics and physics to high school students. All of my work, every last hour, directly benefits society.

Do I pay taxes? Of course, to the Thai government. Between 15-20% of my salary. Also I help the Thai government by paying additional costs at National Parks. I give plenty to the Ministry of Immigration and Ministry of Labor for the privilege of living and working here. It could be argued that I can do more. In addition I support my wife. I also help the 14 members of her extended family get by when the need a bit of assistance. I recently offered to bring one of the young cousins to BKK and provide a proper education for the lad.

that all sounds very reasonable but bears no relevance to your first post.

Agreed. It wasn't meant to support my earlier post. It was addressed to comments in posts #37 and #49.

LOL

Bit if a trollish comment I agree, but nevertheless the underlying sentiments are my true beliefs. Utopian? Sure. Communist? Not really, more like socialist. Realistic? No, because people are self-serving, greedy, and power hungry, and will always choose to trample on their fellow man to get ahead. In my opinion it is the wealthy classes, in general, who have always caused the greatest suffering in the world. Feudalism, physical slavery, and now economic slavery and the police state.

Csn I work harder? I work 60-80 hours a week teaching mathematics and physics to high school students. All of my work, every last hour, directly benefits society.

Do I pay taxes? Of course, to the Thai government. Between 15-20% of my salary. Also I help the Thai government by paying additional costs at National Parks. I give plenty to the Ministry of Immigration and Ministry of Labor for the privilege of living and working here. It could be argued that I can do more. In addition I support my wife. I also help the 14 members of her extended family get by when the need a bit of assistance. I recently offered to bring one of the young cousins to BKK and provide a proper education for the lad.

Do you think I gain from social programs while living in Thailand? No. Not one bit. So your arguments about me not supporting myself are incorrect. So don't worry, your tax dollars aren't going into my pocket. I am glad that they are helping others though - I guess that is an indirect benefit.

Do you think I am poor? I don't think so. I live in a decent shophouse. I am married. I own a car which I have been paying off for two years with never a late payment. I support my wife, and her family (to a lesser extent). I save money. I travel. I use the A/C when it's hot. I'm about to enroll in weekend classes for teacher development to improve my skills, paid for with my savings. We have all we NEED and then some.

Naam - I agree your money should not be used for smart bombs to destroy other countries. It should be used for food and development aid instead.

Spee - I agree that the scheme I propose won't work. The human species hasn't developed the morality and conscience required, and probably never will. Much more likely is that we'll continue to produce our SUV's, convince the rest of the world to aspire to the riches of the US, destroy the planet through our avarice and consumerism, and perhaps extinct ourselves, along with millions of other species.

I disagree with your analysis siamamerican.

I believe taxes on any income over $100,000 should be something like 90% or higher. A person doesn't need more than this to live very comfortably. It is the moral duty of the wealthy to pay for the less fortunate in any civilized society. This should include universal medical care, housing and food subsidies for the poor, education through university at reasonable cost, and the ability to live with relative comfort and dignity in old age for all citizens. At the moment the wealthy class is not meeting these responsibilities.

It strikes me that if each member of the wealthy class was paying their fair share for the maintenance of the country then it may be the case that the 90% figure would create a surplus. This surplus should go toward aiding other less fortunate nations.

Anyway, thanks for your tax dollars....

6 years - a relative newbie with respect to some folks on this thread....

How is it that you are responsible for a girl playing with a snake Dakhar? It's not like your dog bit her or something.

I guess it would be wise to check rates before making international calls in the future.

The problem with wealth is the limited resources of the planet. The acquisition of wealth requires a highly skewed distribution of these resources. For every 'wealthy' person there is a requirement of many many 'poor' people. Even with my limited means and wealth, I am partially responsible for the poverty of several others. I try not to think of this too often, but when I do I feel unhappy about it.

In my own country i paid for at least 10 people to be able to have a roof over their head and have some food.

1 me, 2 my wife, 3 my son, 4 my daughter, 5 some unknown individual who is not willing to work, 6 the wife/girlfriend/husband/boyfriend of some unknown individual who is not willing to work, 7 some unknown individual who can not work and his family is to lazy to take care of, 8 the wife/girlfriend/husband/boyfriend of some unknown individual who can not work and his family is to lazy to tace care of, 9 & 10 some kids of some unknown individual that either can't or won't work for taking care of his/her own and has to much free time on his/her hand to make kids because they are bored.

On top of that i paid dearly for health insurance that when needed is not there or very long waiting list, paid large amounts of tax for something like education which is a complete disaster, paid road tax and tax on fuel to see this NOT being used to improve the infrastructure, pay tax on my house and tax for energy and tax for waste treatment only to see the price of electricity rise more, the garbage collected only once every 14 days etc..

So the get to the point, i made decent money but it was spent on things i saw nothing in return for.

Cumulative the tax was around 85%. So for each 100 euro i made i saw 85 euro disappear to something i had absolutely no control over.

That is what made me unhappy.

Now i moved away from my own country i take care of only 4 people, and help out some others when i think they deserve it.

I paa little taxes and i take care of my own insurances. I set the goals and risks i take. Result is that i am much more happy because i can at least control what i do with the money i make.

If i buy and own something here at least there is no recurring bill every month or every year to 'punish' me for owning something.

To me happiness and money is measured in how much control i have over the money.

I'm not sure I understand. If you lived in a country that had an 85% tax then those non-working individuals surely would have been under some kind of government assistance social program and wouldn't need you to support them.

I understand your frustration however. Over the last few years I have provided limited support to over 14 people, not including myself or my wife. On the other hand, these people are much less fortunate than I am financially, and they truly needed the assistance at the times it was given.

The problem with wealth is the limited resources of the planet. The acquisition of wealth requires a highly skewed distribution of these resources. For every 'wealthy' person there is a requirement of many many 'poor' people. Even with my limited means and wealth, I am partially responsible for the poverty of several others. I try not to think of this too often, but when I do I feel unhappy about it.

It really depends on the hospital. That service could run as much as 8,000 bt at some hospitals and as little as 1000 at others (possibly less).

Sometimes I am ashamed to be human.

Why are people on this forum so rude to one another?

Your assertion is flawed. Simple numbers of immigrants has little bearing on the fairness of the immigration process. A more accurate way of determining immigration fairness would be done in either one of two ways.

1) Number of Immigrants divided by the the population of the country. This would account for the fact that larger more populous countries can 'carry' more immigrants.

Sounds good but that would be saying that if Estonia with a population of 1.4 million took in 1000 immigrants (0.071%) they would be more "immigrant friendly" than the US if the US with a population of 300 million took in 200,000 immigrants (0.067%). It's a nice statistic but rates don't always tell the story.

2) Number of Visa Applications accepted divided by number of Visa Applications denied. This would point directly to the fairness question.

Not necessarily. Some countries with more benefits etc are more attractive to "less desirable" immigrants than others. It has nothing to do with how fair the procedure is.

Agreed. It would be difficult to find a true measure of the fairness of immigration policy. Some measures are better than others and speak to different aspects of the issue.

How about a massive campaign to rebuild the infrastructure (including all private homes and buildings it destroyed), provide medical care, food, and oil to all who want it. Do these things with no strings attached.

That would be a start.

Uncensored is better in my opinion.

Images make a stronger and more truthful impact on people's understanding of the reality of situations. To know that someone died is not the same as seeing someone dying.

We see these types of images on TV and at the cinemas already, so why not show them on the news? The viewers will at least be closer to understanding the true human cost of various policies, actions, and events.

Again, just my opinion.