58 minutes ago, Adumbration said:

Very true.  I honestly don't know why the young in most western countries dont engage in mass civil disobedience.

Because things are not as bad as people like to make out.

 

14 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Because things are not as bad as people like to make out.

 

Perhaps not for you they’re not.

 

 

1 hour ago, Isaan sailor said:

The retirement I have now in Thailand is the same or better than the retirement I would have had in America.  The same until my American ex-wife divorced me.  That pushed my retirement to Thailand.  No regrets.

My retirement here is about the same as it would be in the USA ... BUT ... probably a bit less pocket change, and healthcare if needed would use up my oops fund a lot faster, even though having Medicare A & B.  As what that cost, I doubt if I can get that sick here/TH.

 

Plan B ... $2000 / ฿70k a year.

Not counting the deductibles, that cost more than the meds here ????

Along with the Q to see the doc, for the referral to see the specialist, to Q for that, and if hospital stay, Q up for that, with huge deductibles all the way.

 

All total, more than instant, accessible treatment here/TH.  At the same price, without the need for monthly B premiums.

 

3 years here, and about ฿300k less spent, since no premiums, to have Medicare & see a doc, and I haven't spent that much here yet, with the couple med oops that I've had.  Including check up to monitor things, which wouldn't happen in USA.

 

Posted earlier, EKG here <$6, USA, start of $525 / 10 or 20% deductible, $50-$100, beside the 2 doc visits w/deductibles, maybe $40,   So, cheapest 100-150 dollars, plus wait time, for a < $7 visit for the test here, all in ????

 

Actually, todays $$$, I've been here 23 yrs, so say 20 X 2000 = $40k USD, Plan B would have cost me already if I retired in USA, all things being equal.   I can't get that sick here.  So I'm ฿1.3M ahead already, by living in TH, and not have Plan be for past 23+ years.

 

USA ... NO THANKS

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Perhaps not for you they’re not.

 

 

And the vast majority of people who don't believe everything they see in the media and actually go and look for themselves.

 

Those that are OK with working for a living, saving for things and taking care of themselves without expecting the government to catch them when they fall.

Just now, youreavinalaff said:

And the vast majority of people who don't believe everything they see in the media and actually go and look for themselves.

 

Those that are OK with working for a living, saving for things and taking care of themselves without expecting the government to catch them when they fall.

Financial circumstances are not determined by what people believe in the media.

1 hour ago, Isaan sailor said:

The retirement I have now in Thailand is the same or better than the retirement I would have had in America.  The same until my American ex-wife divorced me.  That pushed my retirement to Thailand.  No regrets.

Same!

Glad I sucked it up and stayed with fed employment. Was able to keep my BC/BS overseas Ins. 

16 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Financial circumstances are not determined by what people believe in the media.

You are quite right. 

 

They are defined by the part of my post you chose to ignore.

10 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

So, history shows that increasing the taxes on the rich generates a more prosperous economy. You are simply trying to rationalize why the history is meaningless.

 

As for Clinton borrowing money from the Social Security trust fund, Ronald Reagan was the first to do that, in 1983. Because he lowered taxes on the rich, and the deficit blew up.

 

 

I remember Reagan’s voodoo economics what a load of b@!as for myself what worked for me was (after my misspent youth lol ????)was getting married and just putting my head down nose to the grindstone!trying not to make mistakes frugal use of credit when vacation time came around do some home projects remodel the kitchen or drywall the garage driving used cars (Toyota) then with excellent credit bought more properties doing the maintenance myself.Union membership helped a great deal as well.it’s doable but one MUST avoid temptation work your fanney off unions help above all be really really careful with credit it will turn you into a slave and ruin your future 

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

You are quite right. 

 

They are defined by the part of my post you chose to ignore.

No they are not,

 

They are determined by the gap between income and expenditure.

 

Millions don’t earn enough to cover basic and essential needs.

 

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

They are determined by the gap between income and expenditure.

I'm glad you agree.

 

 

On 9/1/2023 at 7:12 PM, ballpoint said:

The country itself is living beyond its means.  Something's got to give.

True. Seems to me uncontrolled capitalism is partly to blame. 

 

I believe price controls, price limits / maximum prices on specific product / service areas (e.g. food, education, health. medicines, energy) will be needed in the near future. 

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No they are not,

 

They are determined by the gap between income and expenditure.

 

Millions don’t earn enough to cover basic and essential needs.

 

Not sure if our American cousins ever came across (Charles) Dickens at school but I always remember the quote…

 

“Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness”.

“Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery”

5 minutes ago, Mike Teavee said:

Not sure if our American cousins ever came across (Charles) Dickens at school but I always remember the quote…

 

“Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness”.

“Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery”

inshort : its better to live within your means 

5 minutes ago, Mike Teavee said:

Not sure if our American cousins ever came across (Charles) Dickens at school but I always remember the quote…

 

“Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness”.

“Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery”

inshort : its better to live within your means 

10 hours ago, Scott Tracy said:

Ooooh, socialism, controversial.

Not in many countries.

Strongly endorsed in many countries. 

5 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

I'm glad you agree.

 

 

We don’t, that’s why you selectively edited my post in your response.

3 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

inshort : its better to live within your means 

All well and Dandy until one’s means do not meet one’s basic needs.

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

We don’t, that’s why you selectively edited my post in your response.

I agree. That's why you ignore parts of my posts you don't like.

 

Anyway, I agree with what you say. Income and outgoings defines one's financial status. Overspending creates issues in life.

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

I agree. That's why you ignore parts of my posts you don't like.

 

Anyway, I agree with what you say. Income and outgoings defines one's financial status. Overspending creates issues in life.

Do you have evidence that people on low incomes unable to meet their basic needs are ‘overspending’.

 

15 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Do you have evidence that people on low incomes unable to meet their basic needs are ‘overspending’.

 

Thankfully under this administration wages are rising.now it’s housing and energy costs are the biggest culprits then education social pressures and personal discipline contributing greatly you can succeed here but you have to work and be disciplined + it doesn’t happen overnight 

25 minutes ago, Tug said:

Thankfully under this administration wages are rising.now it’s housing and energy costs are the biggest culprits then education social pressures and personal discipline contributing greatly you can succeed here but you have to work and be disciplined + it doesn’t happen overnight 

When a person's wages rise at a slower rate than inflation then they are by default becoming poorer... that is what bidenomics is doing to America

15 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

I'm in favor of a flat tax. Everyone pays, say 15%. Everyone from the poorest to the richest pays the same %, no loopholes.

You're pretty consistent in trying to defend big tax cuts for the rich.

 

Eliminating business deductions would have a severe negative impact on the economy.

 

Same with eliminating the long term capital gains tax, it woukd stifle investment.

30 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

When a person's wages rise at a slower rate than inflation then they are by default becoming poorer... that is what bidenomics is doing to America

Inflation in the US is slowing down.

 

 

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Do you have evidence that people on low incomes unable to meet their basic needs are ‘overspending’.

 

It depends on what one defines as needs. I have little sympathy for people on low incomes who smoke, drink, or do drugs.

14 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

You're pretty consistent in trying to defend big tax cuts for the rich.

 

Eliminating business deductions would have a severe negative impact on the economy.

 

Same with eliminating the long term capital gains tax, it woukd stifle investment.

The tax rate is higher for the rich after they woddle through all the loop holes. But, if you allow only the basic deductions and charge 15%. Folks complain about the rich not paying taxes, or very little. This would solve that.

1 minute ago, EVENKEEL said:

The tax rate is higher for the rich after they woddle through all the loop holes. But, if you allow only the basic deductions and charge 15%. Folks complain about the rich not paying taxes, or very little. This would solve that.

Or, some sort of minimum payment for the rich could be enacted.

 

Oh, wait, Biden already did that.

19 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Or, some sort of minimum payment for the rich could be enacted.

 

Oh, wait, Biden already did that.

I'd put a 100% asset tax on anyone having more than a home + holiday home + $2M.

I'm being generous with the holiday home!

Time to stop all the greed and to redistribute land/housing to the poor.

15 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I'd put a 100% asset tax on anyone having more than a home + holiday home + $2M.

I'm being generous with the holiday home!

Time to stop all the greed and to redistribute land/housing to the poor.

Sorry, I am against any tax on savings and assets.

44 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I'd put a 100% asset tax on anyone having more than a home + holiday home + $2M.

I'm being generous with the holiday home!

Time to stop all the greed and to redistribute land/housing to the poor.

That would be about the worst thing you could impose on the rich.

 

I got mine, enough for me, so I stopped earning.  Doesn't affect anyone.

 

Now Gates, Bezos or Musk, get their homes & 2M savings.

Why bother continuing, close down MS, Amazon, Tesla, Space X.

 

Getty got his, why bother drilling more oil.  Rothchilds got theirs, close the banks & mortgages end.

 

Ford ... I think you get the idea.  Industry & commerce would come to a screeching halt.

 

Along with farming and food distribution.

 

Along with apparently 79-97% of your income tax base in the USA.

 

Not to mention, loss of all the income, to the not so rich, that are employed by the companies the rich have built up.  And their income tax base, all loss, since no jobs to work.

 

Talk about a negative butterfly effect ????