cocopops

Let's face it. The greenies are against any type of development anywhere anytime.

Given that folks are only identified as "greenies" when objecting to development, this is a tautology.

This is such a naive way to tax. No person who's struggled to build wealth is going to put up with it. It's really really hard to get wealthy, and some idiot thinks they're then going to be happy to have it disproportionately taken away from them. Wealthy people vote with their feet when governments try this tack on them.

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul.

George Bernard Shaw

There is a lot to what you say as a general principle. But a tax on the unimproved value of land is often good policy. Not only does it discourage hoarding and land banks and encourage efficient use of the available land, the one commodity on which almost all business depends, but it's pretty darn tricky to evade too.

The introduction of such a thing is difficult, to be sure, as it would cause land prices to drop, perhaps dramatically.

Could you also clarify that if you are apprehended with less than 90 days overstay what happens ? 5 year ban or ????

Looks to me the first 90 days only a fine, after 90 days a ban.

But the rules are not official yet and thus still could be altered.

Mario that looks like the rule for not apprehended.

Apprehended is a ban for any amount of overstay. Unless you have seen something different.

But I think there would be a little flexibility for short overstays.

I think we will have to wait until the rules are published to know if there is anything different other what has been announced,

I reckon it's ambiguous too. In the English version, perhaps the "more than 90 days" part in the preamble could be read to constrain the penalties applied even if you are apprehended. Or not.

But the Thai preamble doesn't include the 90 day qualification at all. The Thai version supports Ubonjoe's interpretation - "apprehended" at 1am the day after your stamp expires leads to a 5 year ban.

Wonder what will happen to all those foreigners that are married, have children, but don't have enough money to get a Non-Imm visa based on marriage.

Will Immigration start splitting up families?

I hope so.

Very special. I hope that one day you are free from whatever has caused you to become like this...

Bud right, you are gonna make a lot of enemies if you keep spouting off such vitriol. You have a nasty attitude. Are you Thai by chance?

Clearly the OP is trolling. But what would prompt you to make such a horrid remark about Thai people in general?

I don't know what everybody's worried about. Generals have a fine history of success as democratic leaders in Idi Amin, Assad, Tito, Galtieri.. even Saddam Hussein achieved Lieutenant General. Another great leader who follows the principles of democracy is Robert Mugabe who gets re-elected every year. What can possibly go wrong?

They were not Thai also they had no plans to turn the country into a true democracy. They intended it to remain a dictatorship and would occasionally throw a fixed election to fool people like you. You also for got Eisenhower and George Washington. How convenient.

I'm not clear on your point here. Dwight Eisenhower was a popular military figure elected to the presidency as a civilian. And George Washington resigned his military commission at the end of the war. No less than 6 years before being elected president.

Neither of them came to, or maintained power, by extraordinary means.

From what I gather, it's someone who is just happy in their own little world (As we'd say in English).

Did someone say that about you? or maybe your kids? As I think it's a phrase which would often describe a lot of the farang in Thailand (Well in the countryside anyway), as we often just happy doing our own thing and don't need to be involved with the community/neighbours etc.

Right, said about me in friendly conversation. "Off in your own little world" or similar fits the context well. Thanks!

Edit: Ah heck... Title should have been "Translation of คนที่มีโลกส่วนตัว". But that is apparently too long for a title and then when I was trying to fix it I accidentally posted with the wrong subject... Sorry, all - computers and me never seem to to get on as well as I would like!

"Kon tee mee lohk suan dua soong". Literally something along the lines of "a person with a large private world".

A few people have tried to explain this to me, but I haven't been able to understand exactly what it means. Introvert? Loner? A self-involved person?

Can anyone help me understand this one?

Thanks in advance,

Cocopops.

Property prices will rise further as they have done in the past, but wait...........................

I bought the land on which i built a house 5 years ago at 945.000 Baht for a rai. These days all the surrounding plots want 3 million for a rai, with exception of one guy who asks 2.5 but you need to take 3 rai as a whole.

There hasn't been a single plot sold in the past 5 years, but most probably they will ask 4 million next year.

ask prices are irrelevant, only actual deals count. in the moo baan where i live the price for one wah² was THB 17,500 in 2005, recently a plot was sold for 28,500/wah².

that does not seem too inflationary when comparing Baht prices. but nine years ago one US-Dollar bought THB 42.50 vs. today's 32.25

Even in dollars, assuming we're talking about 9 years, that's "only" 8.5% nominal per annum. A good return, but compared to plenty of places in the world, not much of a bubble at all!

Is CM expecting a big influx of AEC foreigners for some reason?

See that's a tricky question there. Certainly they are expecting one, but whether or not there is much of a reason is less clear. Or if there is a reason, whether or not the expectation is reasonable in magnitude.

Seems like every man and his dog is buying a condo on the grounds it can be sold on to a foreigner after ASEAN. The last guy I heard this from was a local barber. I forget if he had actually bought the thing already or was just saying that he ought to. Either way, he was confident that it was a pretty safe bet and advised me to look for a similar investment for myself.

"The [nullified] February 2 election failed. We have to accept that people obstructed it," he said.

"Whose fault was that? Some said the Election Commission. In my opinion, the EC is not in charge of peace and order. It cannot order the military, police officers or governors.

"The authorities - government officers - should have done their job. They didn't, so that led to defiance. That's why I see the justice system as failing to keep peace and order, except when legal cases are filed."

I don't see what he means. Mr. Abhisit had boycotted the election and Mr. Suthep ordered his followers to physically (but on the whole, not violently) obstruct the polling process. The army were taking the line that this was a political matter, and that they were loyal only to the country as a whole. The constitutional court was all but openly hostile and even the electoral commission seemed conspicuously unenthusiastic towards anything regarding an election. Members of both these august institutions whiled away the hours offering quotes to the media regarding exactly who might be in a position to appoint a new PM.

So, presumably, the job that the "government officers" should have done was to order the police to be heavy-handed with those obstructing the election. Go out and knock some heads together fellas!

The same police Mr. Suthep spent December telling his followers were their enemies? Seriously? Does anyone even want to imagine how that might have ended? Unpredictably, to say the least.

So the "government officers" had a choice. Violence or non-violence. With pretty good odds that neither path would lead to a resolution of the political crisis anyway. They chose non-violence. That's not "the problem", Khun Khanittha , that's an example that more authoritarian governments here and around the world should look to follow.

No matter what you thought of the populist policies, and no matter how aghast you are at Thawil's transfer and other injustices, or even if you really do remain convinced that it was all a big plan to turn Thaksin into president-for-life, it amazes me that people are critical of the non-violent way that the caretaker government handled the crisis itself.

Considering the scale of the corruption that is claimed, everything investigated so far seems completely trivial.

One would expect a member of a billionaire family to own some pretty expensive stuff. That a single luxury wristwatch was forgotten is hardly a suspicious thing. Similarly, one expects the PM to appear on television, particularly in the middle of a crisis.

Perhaps these are technical violations. Certainly they are at least as serious as the Thawil's transfer. But it does seem odd to start with such small stuff. Surely if they mean to investigate someone as corrupt and evil as Yingluck Shinawatra for every small violation they will be there for literally hundreds of years! Unless... No, not possible, right?

The whole idea of intelligent adults arguing over this kind of thing in a modern day courtroom with straight faces is just surreal on so many levels...

It's not clear that their being gay has anything to do with it. Just as likely it's that in the absence of a female parent the male parent(s) take on some of the roles and behaviors usually more predominant in mothers.

Comparing gay and straight single fathers might tell us more.

Well it is the WSJ, what did you expect them to say?

I don't think it's really as easy as they suggest though. If we're talking about replacing a government monopoly or near-monopoly with the same thing in private hands, half the time that ends up being a step backwards. Often the new enterprise either ends up with such an advantage that it effectively just charges a rent on the economy, or else it is so hamstrung by regulations to keep things fair that they end up requiring significant government intervention just to keep things going within a few years.

So while we can probably all agree that competition and market forces deliver the best outcomes in the long run, it's much less clear that privatizing existing state enterprises is the best way to get there.

Ok, 5% a month with compounding over 10 years will provide about 350 times the initial investment. I will assume the op will combine his cash with hers. He must have At least a few million to be contemplating property. She can also borrow a small sum from the bank. The kitty can grow to 10 million, after 10 years they will be worth 3.5 billion baht....65 million pounds.

Let's revisit in 10 years....see if they are then very very very rich.....or broke....

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Actually it would be better if we both visit and revisit our figures using an actual calculator.

The calculation above is pure nonsense. No relationship even to simple mental arithmetic.

Let's do an actual example: 2,000,000 invested over 10 years @ 5% with interest added each month and compounded would total 3294019

so that's 2 million which compounds to about 3.3 million baht.

1.05 ^ 120 ~= 349

He is, I think, correct. Assuming her claims are trustworthy, the OP's squeeze has it within her power to become fantastically rich!

Price fixing leads to shortages. Crackdown on "overcharging" and too few workers will wish to be motorcycle taxi drivers. Or at best too few will wish to take the less profitable trips. See also: regular taxis.

One of the pitfalls might be that you get 3.25% p.a. but it is not sure if the baht will not go lower by 20% or more. Otherwise, nothing special considering the long maturity.

Not an issue if your base currency is THB.

I would not say so. If you exchange to something else now and in 3 years time the Baht would be 20% lower, you win, otherwise you still lose (since all would be about 20% more expensive because of the devaluation of THB, and regardless of the fact that your base currency is THB you will loose in real terms.

And if you exchange to something else, in 3 years time the Baht could be 20% higher. Given that most of my expenditure is in Baht I wouldn't want to take on any foreign exchange risk. After all, exchange rates can be extremely volatile and impossible to predict.

And even if the Baht fell by 20%, I would not lose 20% since goods produced from resources sourced from Thailand would not change in price. Similarly, services would not increase in price. (OK, this is a bit simplistic, but the principle is there.)

It seems intuitive, but if I were a retiree, I'd be investigating the assumption there - is the cost of living in Thailand really more closely correlated with THB fixed income than other instruments?

How any father could stone his own daughter to death is beyond my comprehension. Unless you have the mind set that since she wasn't a son, she's inconsequential.

By believing the creator of the universe ordered him to, and that by doing so he is helping to bring paradise to Earth.

If we, for whatever reason, choose to believe a different set of facts about the universe, then our actions will seem incomprehensible to others. That's why, despite our reluctance to do so, it is time to admit that this is a religious problem. Because this murderous father probably did this out of piety - an honest attempt to do what he felt was right. He is incorrect, of course, but that's what his religion told him and he believed it.

The key point is that it is the beliefs that matter. Believe what these people believe, and stoning ones daughter to death becomes acceptable under some circumstances. Believe what they believe, and flying an airplane into a building becomes a wise and heroic act. What would you do if you thought you could earn yourself and your family a free ticket to heaven? Perhaps a better question is what would you not do?

It's not easy, but spare a thought for the father as well. Who among us would choose to be born into a world where the best ethical guidance available advises us to murder family members to save face?

Apologists will point to the many, many, Islamic people who don't do things like this. And who, occasionally, if asked directly, will even condemn such actions up to a point. "Well, no! *I* wouldn't kill an apostate. Not these days...". But they will loudly proclaim the Koran and Hadith to be perfect in all senses and even pay to have this message spread around the world. Then, when some young fellow picks the books up and actually takes them seriously as they are written - well, then we're back to honor killings and terrorism.

At some point common sense and a real system of morality aimed at maximizing happiness must replace religious faith. It's the only way.

I reckon "Visa Awn" is short for "Visa on arrival".

Or perhaps she meant a visa for "kon kii awn"

http://www.thai-language.com/id/133212

Sorry - just being an idiot. Hope it all works out for you!

"accepted by the common people". That is why we have election. This idiot invent words and made plans on a daily basis. Imagine how the country if Suthep has his way.

Here you see only bought and coerced elections; hence the anti-gov't protest. Why are posters so daft to notice or deny that?

Because it's not true. No respectable journalist, organization, foreign government or even opposition politician has ever said that the 2011 election was won by anyone other than the party that received the most votes. If that's not the case, please post a link. Just one will do!

A determined search of the 'net will reveal isolated incidents of shenanigans, but this is true anywhere in the world. Whatever else it also has, Thailand has "free and fair" elections.

The consequences of working illegally or rather working without a work permit can vary to blind eye tactics (for a period anyway) to being thrown out the country with no return, a hefty fine or even jail. In some cases all three. How important is your piece of mind?

Out of interest, does anybody know if this has actually happened? A custodial sentence in Thailand for teaching without a work permit?

I'm sure there are probably provisions for it, but has it ever actually happened?

Nevertheless I am interested in what would happen to me (since I am the driver) or to the person responsible for the young boy if we had an accident

Legally, who knows. But it would likely be the first thing you think of every day after waking up in the morning for the rest of your life. "Why on earth did I not insist..."

I'm a stubborn bastard about seat-belts, helmets, driving while pissed and other road safety matters. Because they are not matters of culture or taste - they're questions of physics and probability. Be reasonable, but don't give in.

When seeing the tittle "How Yingluck and her 2011 cabinet were found guilty of abuse of power" I thought there was going to read an article with a rational and clear legal explanation of the ruling. However it turned out to be the opposite. Makes no cents when elected leaders cannot move civil servants, especially when it is only one.

I believe Obama has retired more military Generals than any other President and it hardly gets a mention in the press.

It depends on why they are moved. Just because you want a relative [brother in law is a relative of sorts, though I'm led to believe he's and ex BIL now, lets just call him someone from the inner circle, shall we] in place of a critical civil servant doesn't mean it's right to do it. That is abuse of power. I doubt President Obama had the same ulterior motives in his actions.

Not sure about the Generals, but I am supremely confident that Barack Obama, along with every other democratically elected leader in the world, installs loyalists in key positions within the civil service for political reasons. And removes potential adversaries from the same. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise? Or, considering what we now know, that they had no reason to believe that Thawil might work against them down the road?

That the loyalist they happened to install was also a relative is just a technicality. A major <swearword>-up on behalf of the PT lawyers, but nothing more than that. Thisreally is a repeat of the cooking-show debacle.

Even if you (and clearly most of you do) believe that Ms. Yingluck is the most corrupt administator that has ever lived the idea that the Shin family works on such a levelis risible. Rewarding loyalists? Of course. When they probably shouldn't? Almost certainly. In order to capture an extra civil service salary for the family? For Pete's sake....

Does anyone really think this was anything other than a political move? That it really had anything to do with the guy being "family"?