puchooay

Thank you for your explanation. So nice to see some are able to explain themselves fully. So much more understandable.

You are talking on a different scale if these are monthly salaries too. My mistake. I was talking annual salaries.

Your suggestions were the same. You both suggested the same outcome. You both made the same contradictions. That applied to both of your comments. Care to answer any of the questions I posed or counter suggestions I made? Thought not.

Neither of you are making any sense at all. First, who earns two thousand pounds a year? Second, you are still not addressing your disdain for high earners getting more benefit from the current tax system. In fact, you have totally turned your stance by saying £100 is worth more to lower earners than to high earners. Thus not worrying about the fact that high earners get the same. It is still a benefit to high earners. By the way, you still have not given a figure of salary for high earner although you have mentioned 100k and 200k. If a low earner is happy with £100 why would they worry about what others are getting? I have no concern about what others earn or pay. It has no bearing on my own financial situation. So, in short. If the budget had raised tax allowance, rather than lowered the rate, you would not have been bothered that a 50k earner pays the same rate of tax and has the same allowance as a 13k earner. That is laughable. 13 pages of drivel from you because of a 1% tax reduction that benefits ALL tax payers but at the end of the day at 20% its rosy for all.

The wealthy? To what figure would you raise the allowance to reach your goal of the wealthy not being the main winners?

They don't need it. They are already on tax credits/universal credit. Paid for with the borrowed money you keep saying benefits the wealthy.

I asked a question. I did not "say" anything. That's another question you've failed to answer.

So those on 100k are "wealthy"? Looks like we are getting somewhere.

The government are not handing money. Borrowing money to fund tax cuts does not involve giving money to individuals. The government are using the borrowed money to make up the shortfall to pay for services. Therefore, everyone benefits from the borrowed money.

Exactly. Yet you said " tax breaks benefit mainly the wealthy". However, you are yet to say who the "wealthy" are. At least we now know it is not under 30k earners as you said you are not attacking them. How about wealthy people who have never earned over 50k?

Oh dear. Resorting to insults. How sad. Having looked back at all the posts, it is not I nor the poster you quoted who have been banging on about how the wealthy benefit more by the recent tax cuts. The poster that did surely would be able to answer the question put to him. If he cannot he should not be attacking such a group. For me, an income bracket alone does not define wealth. That is why I too am interested in the posters answer. I, personally, feel he should be using a phrase such as "high earners" rather than "the wealthy". With good investment, property purchases, saving and spending wisely it is possible to be wealthy whilst never having had a salary over 30k a year. Trust me, I know. I'm sure 30k earners is not the group that is being attacked yet very possibly could be wealthier than those in higher salary brackets. I await his answer with interest.

That's a good question. How can someone say the tax cuts favour the wealthy when he can't confirm his definition of wealth, when he's been asked several times to do so.

The OP wasn't asking about immigration.

Those two districts are in Surin. Not Buriram.

Schools should be open for teaching or activities, such as sports day or scout camps for 200 days a year.

There is no link between pink ID card and social security, that is what you need to get cheaper (usually free) hospital stays. There used to be free medical cover with pink ID but that project stopped.

Surely if someone quotes a post, it's on topic.

No. It wasn't. It was a comment suggesting the EU have a new issue to address. It was you who insinuated.

I've never mentioned sanctions on Hungary. I merely pointed out that the EU have something else to think about. My comment about right wing politics was in relation to the recent election results in Italy. You have distorted what I said.

Not in my case.

No-one had ever heard of such things 22 years ago. I was only aware of it probably about 11 years ago. Didn't need one then, don't need one now. If there is hidden agenda from the Thai authorities and every expat will need one they will need to streamline the system. Maybe align it with immigration.

I think you are missing the point. EU don't like far right politics.

The heat is off Hungary now. Time for the EU to concentrate on Italy.

Indeed. I misread "from" as "to".

Very clear IMO. He is in Thailand. Can stay no problems. His family member is coming to Thailand with no visa. Will they be denied entry? Not if the flight back ge mentions is the second leg of a return flight. Can they stay 33 days? Yes.