Jingthing

Why not? Personally I don't really care. It turns out that the government CAN change the name. But that doesn't mean that the U.S. can compel people outside the U.S. to change the maps and use a new name as the Gulf of Mexico has stood for 400 years. Perhaps a compromise? Golfo de Estados Unidos? Also to say Gulf of America is not really specific enough. The Americas span two continents. There is only one Mexico. The old quote -- Poor Mexico. So far from God and close to the United States comes to mind.

Again you make a serious point worth consideration. I do think both dates are very historically significant but I can't rate the importance of one vs. the other. Consider this. If Trump had lost in 2000, conceded the loss, and participated in the normal peaceful transfer of power, without the leadup and events of January 6th, his reelection to a second term would be notable as great political comeback for sure, but nothing like the severity of his significantly successful washing away of January 6th.

More maga conspiracy theory garbage.

Very much so. We'll see what he does. As we know by now "promises" by Mr. Trump are quite fluid when it comes to what he actually does.

I didn't say one word indicating there was any excuse for violence by BLM protesters. The maga fascists actually are the ones trying to act like January 6th was not significant because of the BLM protests, when they had NOTHING to do with each other.

Talk absurdly and carry a big stick. Not a parody figure. The president elect. Leader of the (brain) free world?

No. He dodged thst by winning.

No wonder he loves Putin. Birds of a feather.

VP Harris upheld the constitution. Nothing to be mocked about that.

Under 50 percent actually. But close.

My understanding is that you're just wrong. That income from such retirement accounts are classed the same as non excluded PENSIONS when remitted. In the case of the U.S. that would include IRAs and 401ks. I reckon some other countries may have similar very specialized very rules based retirement programs, which same as the US would not be excluded unless specified in DTAs.

He won't get it back.

I'm sure that she still believes he is a fascist but there is nothing in the constitution about a way for a VP to avoid the peaceful transfer of power if the voters happen to elect a fascist.

Perhaps. But I wouldn't bet the house on the interpretation.

You have a point. Both dates would qualify.

Lame whataboutism. Those riots had NOTHING to do with a concerted attempt by Mr. Trump which had been planned for several months to overthrow the results of a presidential election if he lost, which he did lose and still to this day insists that he won.

Not sure what you mean by crystalized. But any amount that you withdrew from a retirement investment account (or all of it) and put into a bank account before December 31, 2024 would be exempt if remitted. But I was obviously not talking about that.

Never forget. Never forgive. Incoming soon to be convicted felon demagogue president elect Mr. Trump is actively trying to rewrite history. That's what authoritarian leaders always do. Don't let him get away with it.

Yes prior savings as of December 31. 2023. In that case the source of those savings is irrelevant and can be remitted at any time in the future. Generally talking about bank account funds. Some members here have asserted that the value of retirement accounts (such as U.S. IRA accounts) on that date is also excluded. I find that extremely hard to believe.

Clinton was impeached in the house. Clinton was not convicted in the senate. So he's a president that was impeached one time. Trump is a president who has been impeached two times.

Update and some clues. In the last few days BOTH Panda and Grab are refusing my Bangkok Bank debit card which works elsewhere for scan payments, transfers on Lazada, etc. Grab is saying contact the bank which I haven't bothered with as yet. I tried entering the card again on Panda and with the second set of four digits got a problem with my card message so no point in proceeding. Quite weird. Surely this must be a widespread thing by now. I'll eventually call them, paying cash for now, maybe I'll try another card, but if you have called Bangkok Bank on this issue, what's up?

Rules are rules.

The key is that the Thai recipient could decide one day not pay for stuff and all of it would still legally be all her money.

My understanding is that would be irrelevant IF the wife is actually paying for living expenses for both. If she wants to pay the rent, make car payments, pay for dinner, why not.

But what do you think about the Wise angle? If it's true that funds are hitting the forienger's Wise account "in" Thailand before going to the wife, isn't that the same as getting the remittance himself first?