Longwood50

Wars have consequences. The USA has regions that include Mexico ceded 55 percent of its territory, including the present-day states California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, most of Arizona and Colorado, and parts of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Wyoming. As to the rightful owners of the land it only depends on what date you arbitrarily choose to define as the rightful owners. The Jews occupied that land 2,500 years before Christ. They did so until "war" changed that with the Romans leveling the country. The country mostly abandoned. In 1517 the Ottomans conquered the region. The British took control in 1917 and that lasted until 1948 when the UN partitioned the area to form the current country of Israel. So who is the "rightful" owner. All of these are world events that changed the map. Hamas started this conflict. It may well be that the loss of territory results. Actions have consequences.

Yes Hamas taking innocent people as hostages and executing them is certainly winning the hearts of the world. Its obvious you suffer the same delusion as the Hamas.

I am not sure I understand your particular level of lunacy but I do admire your dedication to it. The USA killed a huge number of Japanese. THE USA WAS ATTACKED. What would you have Israel do. Just get attacked and then sit on their hands and not repsond. Those killed by Israel are IN RESPONSE to being the victim of an unprovoked attack. If you can't understand the difference it serves as testimony to why you feel it is ok to just send rockets into Israel, take innocent people hostage, and execute civilians. I do not see the civilized world taking people they consider their enemies, and beheading them on social media. That sir is the act of a barbarian.

The video would be a nice touch.

The "oppressed" I guess that depends on the very subjective opinion of who is oppressed. One way or another, the UN sanctioned the partition of Gaza in 1947. Such is history. Irrespective of who can rightfully hold themselves to be the owners of Palestine, the fact remains a civilized people act in a civilized manner. Hurling rockets and taking prisoners in my opinion only hardens the resolve of Israel and clearly loses any sympathy with the world community.

If you don't see the difference betwen an unprovoked attack and a response to it, I can only explain it to you, I can't help you with the understanding part. I do not see Israel sending missles into Gaza unprovoked, I don't Israel entering Palestine capturing civilians and holding them hostage. I don't see Israel caputuring civilians and executing them for ties to Hammas. Now perhaps you don't see the difference in behavior but I can assure you the civilized world does.

As said, the USA has always pressured Israel. You only say that because apparently you side with the Palestinians. There will be those who are pro Israel who will say the USA did not pressure the Arabs to vacate a region that history says they have no claim to.

It is not laughable. It is a fact. As I said EVENTS have reshaped the map of the world for centuries. One event was the Romans kicking the Jews out of Israel. The other significant event is that Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin recreated the state of Israel. The Romans had no more right to kick the Jews out of Israel than the Allies had a right to re-create it. So which event do you wish to recognize. The American Indian was kicked out of their territory. To say they have no legitimate claim is to ignore history. The Jews inhabiting of that region far predates the Arabs. One way or another you can be on the side of Israel, or the side of the Palestinians. What you cant do if you are a sane human being is condone the slaughter of innocent people in the name of your cause and somehow justify it.

Explaining the Carter Administration's Israeli–Palestinian ... JSTOR https://www.jstor.org › stable by J PRESSMAN · 2013 · Cited by 27 — Israel's peace process stance.130 Internally, Edward Sanders drafted a memo to. Carter warning that U.S. pressure on Israel to try to get The USA has always danced a fine line between the Arab nations who they need for OIL and Israel who has traditionally been an ally. Yes in 1948 the territory was occupied. As I said, that was the fallacy assuming that you could take a piece of land that you did not own, cede it to become Israel and not completely rid the area of elements that you knew would never agree to peacefully co-exist. I stand by my comment that the USA has long pressured Israel to make peace with its neighbors. Unfortunately those neighbors include those who harbor such deep seated hatred of Jews that making peace is just plain impossible.

When I saw the headline I thought for sure I would get a story with pictures of Thai policeman lined up next to the bear in the police station and some official pledging tighter enforcement action against bears.

You would have thought the Jews would have learned from their own experience with the Romans centuries ago. Eventually, the Romans got tired of the constant attacks by the Jews and they leveled the country of Israel and forced the evacuation of all the Jews out of the country. You can not have a population of people living within or in close proximity to your borders that want to kill you and think somehow they will change their attitutde and want to live in peacful co-existence.

Yours didn't require that?

Why it was ever allowed in the first place other than huge pressure from the USA to "get along" is something I will never understand. I have been to Israel. Most don't realize exactly how close in proximity certain areas including the Golan Heights are to populated areas of Israel. You do not bring those who want to kill you in close proximity to your home and expect that somehow they will have a change of heart and peacefully co-exist.

So basically it is as I described. If you are a tax resident in Thailand and have income earned in the USA, the USA requires you pay tax in the USA. They will give you a credit for tax paid to another country. Hypothetically if the amount of tax due in Thailand was $30,000 but you paid only $20,000 in USA taxes, you would owe the additional $10,000 tax here in Thailand.

Nobody comes to Thailand, why ? The better question would be why would they. They can afford the luxury resorts around the world. They don't come to Thailand for the same reason they don't dine at the Golden Corral buffet.

A more accurate statement would be have you ever known any conflict around the world that the USA didn't get sucked in to. The world has come to expect that whenever there is a war around the world that the USA will put a dog in the fight and spill its blood and treasure while most of the world does nothing but complain. They complain if the USA doesn't involve itself and complain if the USA does involve itself.

So if I was to say have income in the USA pay taxes in the USA and put the net amount in savings and transfer it to Thailand the following tax year, are you saying that money is not taxed or is Thailand going to run a comparison between the taxes owed to the USA and Thai taxes and charge the difference if the US taxes don't exceed the taxes that would be due if the filing was here in Thailand.

Ok perhaps this is a stupid question but lets say I have income in the USA of $100,000 per year and I pay taxes on that income and don't bring it into Thailand but rather have it remain in the USA. Is it the understanding that the new law would make that amount taxable here in Thailand if I reside over 180 days. Now what if the money in an account in the USA is savings already taxed in the USA and that money is brought into Thailand for living expenses. That money is not "income" What is the situation with Social Security. I read conflicting statements with some saying Thailand could tax the social security and others saying no if you pay your tax in the USA then none will be owed here in Thailand because of the tax treaty.

I am building a home in Pattaya and have purchased a few small items such as faucets from Ali Express and Alibaba. They came through with no problem and with no import fees. I have been contacted by a number of suppliers who can build custom cabinets to match the architect drawings, windows, doors, sinks, etc. All are at prices substantially lower than I can obtain locally. Yes, I know I have to pay for shipping but as one supplier said, they can load a container with purchases from multiple vendors. And shipping from China is not particularly expensive since it is close. My question is has anyone on this forum done this and second is anyone familiar if there are import duties or taxes that have to be paid on imported items from China.

No matter how much money any government takes in, taxes are like a cancer that government wants to expand. I believe the government is being short sighted and not realizing that taxing foreigners is not without some very real negative consequences to Thailand and its citizens. Businesses in Thailand are in part created and exist to support the expatriate population. Remove a portion of the population either entirely or for more than 1/2 the year to escape the taxation and the taxi's, grab, restaurants, supermarkets, whose customers include expatriates will be impacted. That results in fewer jobs and less income for native Thai's. Also, the foreigners who reside in Thailand purchase cars, condominiums, homes, and use services to maintain those purchases. If enacted it will likely result in a significant number of expatriates to sell their homes and possessions here and move elsewhere. That will depress the already depressed real estate market, and hurt the banks who lent money on property that they may well find is now worth less than the loan they have on the property. It most definitely would impact the building of new condos, apartments, and single family homes. Those structures are built by locals. So the local Thai who lays the block, installs the tile, puts on the roof will have a much diminished income. Finally, while the tax derived on income may be a higher amount, it will be partially offset by fewer expatriates and those who now choose to reside in Thailand less than 6 months a year. Those people spend money and pay the 7% VAT on their purchases. The money the local businesses receive and their workers then in turn spend the money they receive from the foreigners and likewise pay 7% VAT. It is called the multiplier effect where money spent, is respent in the economy many times. If the foreigner is not here to spend the money that VAT money is not going to be generated. One way or another Thailand does not operate in a vacuum. Future expatriates considering where to relocate may well find Thailand less attractive and choose to reside elsewhere. Perhaps I view the world differently but I believe whether it is a company or a country's economy everyone benefits when government sets conditions making it attractive. That generates people and people spend money, and money spent is good for everyone in that nations economy.

Yes, thank you. I am familiar with that location. It is right next to the Bangkok Bank I opened my account at.

It is obvious that despite my best attempts to turn this post into a story telling forum my efforts were for naught. Lots of stories and not one reccomendation that is still open.

Insurers in the USA are increasing premiums and with certain models refusing to insure them. Even in minor accidents the dealerships won't certify the repairs without changing the batteries. That makes even a minor accident a major claim. The single biggest expense in a new car is the depreciation. EV's cost more to buy and depreciate faster. I am going to suggest that as the car approaches the life of the battery its value will plummet close to zero when the cost of replacing the value exceeds the remaining value in the car. Why purchase a 10 year old EV that you have to replace the battery on versus using that same money to get a newer model year with new technology. Since depreciation drives the cost of leasing, EV cars despite their high price tag which usually makes for good lease versus buy to avoid the sales tax, they may find that the additional monthly lease payment versus an ICE model just isn't worth it.

While the border wall is an impediment, it is hardly a impenetrable barrier. One only has to look at the tons of illegal drugs that enter the USA to realize that the border is porous and you will never plug all the leaks. The USA should do what Thailand does. As a foreigner, I can't mail a package, open a bank account, buy a car or motorcycle, rent a hotel, send or receive money, get medical care, get a job, without having a valid passport and visa to stay in the country. You can't stop people from entering the USA but you can make it extremely difficult for them to reside there. If illegal entrants could not find a job, open a bank account, rent a place to live, obtain a car, etc they would soon self select to leave the country. This cry that the USA needs immigrants is a hollow phrase. Yes the USA does but not everyone who wishes to enter brings with them equal skills. The typical person in the one of the caravans of millions heading to the USA is not an educated or skilled person. Less than 25% have the equivalent of an 8th grade education. Unskilled jobs in the USA are declining. Automation is rapidly displacing those tasks that dont' require skills and education. Each country around the globe has the right to say who it wishes to "invite" into their home. It is not a right to demand to enter or force your way in. A person who breaks into your home to secure a better life is not an undocumented guest. They are a trespasser and guilty of breaking and entering. This ruse about "assylum" is just that a ruse. One doesn't pass through multiple countries that offer safety to only target the USA due to assylum. They are targeting the welfare benefits in the USA that no matter how subsistence are still vastly superior to what their living standards are in their home country.