Why Are There Proportionately So Many More Brits Than Americans In Thailand?

[StreetCowboy]

Because- if an American takes enough time off for a decent trip to Thailand or anywhere you have to cross an ocean, his employer is pretty likely to decide they don't really need him.

Dangerous in an American career to take long vacations... So we take short jaunts to closer locales.

Besides:

We have Yellowstone, the Grand Tetons, Yosemite, the Grand Canyon, Las Vegas, Southern California, Alaska, The Smokey Mountains and... and... and...

It's pretty easy to live your entire life, vacation somewhere great every year and never go to the same place twice- all without a passport.

Wanna cross a border? We have Canada, Mexico, the Bahamas, Belize, Costa Rica, The Virgin Islands and.. and.. and... all within a few hours by air- no 20 hour flights required.

We should be grateful, really

SC

[Shot]

One reason is that the blue one does not automatically identify you as working for the U.S. government. In the 1980s, people in my unit were advised to get a regular blue passport. This was after the hijacking of TWA 847 by a gang of Pigsbollah vermin. The piglicking vermin singled out Navy Seebee Robert Dean Stethem and killed him.

He was tortured, and then shot in the head, after which his body was dumped on the tarmac.

[ronz28]

Only about 20% of Americans even have a passport.......................

30 percent now.

The percentage is higher for those that have ever had a passport. Historically most Americans get their passport in order to serve overseas in the military and then let it lapse. Currently percentages are indeed higher, but the fact is a much higher percentage of Yanks have been involved in our current/recent conflicts, not only as soldiers but private contractors. And also more places require a passport to get to that didn't used to, Canada for cheaper drugs, little island states in the Caribbean etc. Texas will probably require one soon. . .

If you ask the average American why they don't go overseas - and I'm just talking a short holiday - the answer would be "why would I ever want to do that?"

Out of those that do travel overseas regularly very very few would even want to consider living abroad, and out of that tiny percentage 99% of them would be considering Europe or maybe Australia/NZ, certainly not a third world country like Thailand.

Generally Americans consider their standards and way of life "the way the world should be" to an even greater extent than other nationalities, they're usually not willing to open up their minds to the degree necessary to adapt to living in other circumstances, and therefore very few places "measure up".

thats not true ...historicaly your military id card was your passport ..... it's not until 911 that military passports were issued to military folks .... the brown ones .... and most seem to have the blue one as well im not sure why

Well, 1968-1970 I had to have an Official US passport while stationed with US Army in Thailand.

Do you folks from UK get fed up with and leave your country to avoid paying excess rentals etc.like this report regarding the beneficiary of rentals charged to generate your electricity from wind farms in the ocean surrounding your country? http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-06-21/a-royal-family-energy-windfall

Americans do charge corporations when they set up wind farms and drill for oil etc in our coastal waters up to about 200 miles offshore but the income from these rentals indirectly benefits everyone in the country as the income helps run the government. Additionally, in Texas from our coast to 10 miles out all such rental income is deposited directly into school fund accounts and restricted to only be used to support Texas schools- one of the deals Texas negotiated when it agreed to join the United States.

Is dissatisfaction with the way things are in the UK the reason so many of you relocate to Thailand and avoid paying to support the government and the elites via electric bills, gasoline prices, etc. and taxes? In the US, we pay for such rentals too via our electric bills, fuel bills, etc. but feel like we pay less in taxes since the rental income supports the cost of running the schools etc. Do your elites just keep it all?

[teatree]

In the US you can get anything from arctic to tropics without leaving the country, so many don't travel abroad. Cheap holidays in tropical foreign countries can be had close by in Mexico. Brits don't really have these options.

But Brits have all of what you mentioned available to them much closer than Thailand.

[bonobo]

Why would a young guy go to Thailand for sex instead of spring break where he can bang as many girls for free at Paris island or Florida ?

Paris Island? You go to there to hook up with Marine recruits after their Friday graduation parades?

[kerryk]

Why would a young guy go to Thailand for sex instead of spring break where he can bang as many girls for free at Paris island or Florida ?

Paris Island? You go to there to hook up with Marine recruits after their Friday graduation parades?

Maybe he meant Padre Island?

[bonobo]

Why would a young guy go to Thailand for sex instead of spring break where he can bang as many girls for free at Paris island or Florida ?

Paris Island? You go to there to hook up with Marine recruits after their Friday graduation parades?

Maybe he meant Padre Island?

Most likely.

Just the picture of hoards of men rushing to Paris Island to hook up with the newly graduated female Marines got almost as big a chuckle from me as the Korean English language lesson video.

Hence the smiley.

[meand]

In the US you can get anything from arctic to tropics without leaving the country, so many don't travel abroad. Cheap holidays in tropical foreign countries can be had close by in Mexico. Brits don't really have these options.

But Brits have all of what you mentioned available to them much closer than Thailand.

Yeah, but at what cost?

[Baloo22]

Also, due to the old British empire, the British passport gave you easier and longer entry into many countries. It also allowed Brits to work in many countries, which mean't longer stays. For example, before the handover, Brits could live and work in Hong Kong for 12 months on just a British passport alone, and it was easily extended, so many stayed for much longer.

Good point, there is a common perception among many that the Empire was a bad thing and is still resented, many people I have met in former Commonwealth countries don't think that, in fact they think the opposite. It's strange though how people tend to believe " universal truths ".

I know the Australians are eternally grateful

I have heard that the Irish also enjoyed the experience!

[Shot]

Why would a young guy go to Thailand for sex instead of spring break where he can bang as many girls for free at Paris island or Florida ?

Paris Island? You go to there to hook up with Marine recruits after their Friday graduation parades?

Maybe he meant Paris Hilton?

[BigJohnnyBKK]

In the US, we pay for such rentals too via our electric bills, fuel bills, etc. but feel like we pay less in taxes since the rental income supports the cost of running the schools etc. Do your elites just keep it all?

Both the tax rates and the levels of regulation - not just for businesses but in the daily life of its citizens - is much much more burdensome in nearly every developed country in the world compared to the US, not just the UK.

Some would say that most countries deliver relatively good value to its ordinary citizens in exchange - to be fair some would include American's spending on health care, private schooling, saving for retirement as "taxes" to compare apples to apples.

But I've heard many British state they've got the worst of both worlds that way, and they certainly have more of the Yankish desire for greater personal freedom in that regard than the other Europeans, Aussies etc.

The only Americans I've come across expressing that they've moved to Thailand specifically to escape their homeland are those fleeing the law, whereas that seems to be a very common sentiment among the Brits. Although I've also met my fair share of UK crims as well, especially upcountry. . .

Edited June 24, 2012 by BigJohnnyBKK

[tutsiwarrior]

America may be multicultural but new immigrants are the dumbest right wing POS imagineable...I had a relative who was an immigrant from Bolivia in the late 60s that useta complain about 'the hippies' and I said: 'you came all the way here from Bolivia to complain about that?'

then there was the stupid russian immigrant POS in the engineering department in the 80s that objected to mass protests in the US who said: 'they can't do that here, it shouldn't be allowed!...' tutsi: 'it is precisely because this is America that these protests are allowed...get it straight, you idiot...'

and brits shouldn't be allowed because they are physically ugly and deformed and diseased and don't know how to bodysurf...

tutsi's American xenophobia...put up the fences and get out the dogs...

Edited June 24, 2012 by tutsiwarrior

[MANICMINER]

before the handover, Brits could live and work in Hong Kong for 12 months on just a British passport alone, and it was easily extended, so many stayed for much longer.

Not quite true, a British pp made it easier to work in HK, and stay there for extended periods, but having the passport wasnt the only requirement. just having a British PP did not give you "right of residence" or the "right to work" in HK

Having a British passport did not give you a Full HK id card and right of abode in Hong Kong, but you were given a 12 month stamp in your passport when you entered the region - i still have my old passport which has that stamp - and i worked in Hong Kong without the need of any work permit. But the years prior to the handover, the rights of the British were slowly eradicated. The ability to work in the region was one of the first rights to be removed.

[MrRealDeal]

Yes I meant South Padre island in Texas ...... But probabbly was thinking about Paris when I wrote it !

[Soutpeel]

before the handover, Brits could live and work in Hong Kong for 12 months on just a British passport alone, and it was easily extended, so many stayed for much longer.

Not quite true, a British pp made it easier to work in HK, and stay there for extended periods, but having the passport wasnt the only requirement. just having a British PP did not give you "right of residence" or the "right to work" in HK

Having a British passport did not give you a Full HK id card and right of abode in Hong Kong, but you were given a 12 month stamp in your passport when you entered the region - i still have my old passport which has that stamp - and i worked in Hong Kong without the need of any work permit. But the years prior to the handover, the rights of the British were slowly eradicated. The ability to work in the region was one of the first rights to be removed.

Never said you needed a work permit....I too have my old passport from early 1990's from working in HK and if memory serves there was some other bit of paper you needed as well, but not a WP....yes it was easy to get..

[MANICMINER]

before the handover, Brits could live and work in Hong Kong for 12 months on just a British passport alone, and it was easily extended, so many stayed for much longer.

Not quite true, a British pp made it easier to work in HK, and stay there for extended periods, but having the passport wasnt the only requirement. just having a British PP did not give you "right of residence" or the "right to work" in HK

Having a British passport did not give you a Full HK id card and right of abode in Hong Kong, but you were given a 12 month stamp in your passport when you entered the region - i still have my old passport which has that stamp - and i worked in Hong Kong without the need of any work permit. But the years prior to the handover, the rights of the British were slowly eradicated. The ability to work in the region was one of the first rights to be removed.

Never said you needed a work permit....I too have my old passport from early 1990's from working in HK and if memory serves there was some other bit of paper you needed as well, but not a WP....yes it was easy to get..

I was there in the early 80s and i believe the rules change over time with the handover looming - pressure from the Chinese government.

[endure]

Do you folks from UK get fed up with and leave your country to avoid paying excess rentals etc.like this report regarding the beneficiary of rentals charged to generate your electricity from wind farms in the ocean surrounding your country? http://www.businessw...energy-windfall

It might be an idea if you read that article again. The land belongs to the Crown Estates which owns land on behalf of the UK people - land that was surrendered by the monarch 250 years ago. The income that the government gives to HM the Queen is to finance her position as Head of State in the same way that the US government finances the President as Head of State. The queen actually costs us about 70 pence (about a dollar) a year each which is pretty good value.

I'm sometimes bemused by the way that some Americans regard the UK. They seem to think that we live in the Middle Ages sitting round the village duckpond in our moleskin breeches sining 'Hey Nonny No' and doffing our caps to Liz when she rumbles past in the Carriage of State.

Edited June 24, 2012 by endure

[ronz28]

Do you folks from UK get fed up with and leave your country to avoid paying excess rentals etc.like this report regarding the beneficiary of rentals charged to generate your electricity from wind farms in the ocean surrounding your country? http://www.businessw...energy-windfall

It might be an idea if you read that article again. The land belongs to the Crown Estates which owns land on behalf of the UK people - land that was surrendered by the monarch 250 years ago. The income that the government gives to HM the Queen is to finance her position as Head of State in the same way that the US government finances the President as Head of State. The queen actually costs us about 70 pence (about a dollar) a year each which is pretty good value.

I'm sometimes bemused by the way that some Americans regard the UK. They seem to think that we live in the Middle Ages sitting round the village duckpond in our moleskin breeches sining 'Hey Nonny No' and doffing our caps to Liz when she rumbles past in the Carriage of State.

I just don't get the full picture. We don't have a monarchy to support but it sounds like the UK head of state owns the seabed around UK, etc. and no telling where else and acknowledges to getting over $56 million+ annually from one pot of money called her royal estate and I understand she and her family have other rental income streams/rivers too. I have also heard her income is tax free too. I suspect Europeans would have a better standard of living if they didn't have to support all the elites and the bureaucracies that keep their money flowing.

US President is not an equivalent but heads the Executive Branch of our Government which runs our Government and calls all the shots via his advisers and Cabinet within the laws set by the US Congress as interpreted by our courts. His personal compensation package as President is less than $1 million annually but he is provided with a free home and endless support staff and security at no cost to him. We would have a better standard of living if we didn't have to finance so many wars.

Edited June 24, 2012 by ronz28

[BigJohnnyBKK]

I'm sometimes bemused by the way that some Americans regard the UK. They seem to think that we live in the Middle Ages sitting round the village duckpond in our moleskin breeches sining 'Hey Nonny No' and doffing our caps to Liz when she rumbles past in the Carriage of State.

Pretty much, but they haven't even heard of most of those details; probably

Actually I think most Americans would probably be surprised to find that the UK was even still a real place, probably visualized mostly as one of the less interesting historical exhibits at Euro Disney. . .

But I'm sure they appreciate the exhibit's full support of our so-essential adventures battling the Evil Scourge of Islamic Terrorism, thanks so much for that. . .

So am I getting the hang of this "dry wit" shit yet?

Edited June 24, 2012 by BigJohnnyBKK

[endure]

Do you folks from UK get fed up with and leave your country to avoid paying excess rentals etc.like this report regarding the beneficiary of rentals charged to generate your electricity from wind farms in the ocean surrounding your country? http://www.businessw...energy-windfall

It might be an idea if you read that article again. The land belongs to the Crown Estates which owns land on behalf of the UK people - land that was surrendered by the monarch 250 years ago. The income that the government gives to HM the Queen is to finance her position as Head of State in the same way that the US government finances the President as Head of State. The queen actually costs us about 70 pence (about a dollar) a year each which is pretty good value.

I'm sometimes bemused by the way that some Americans regard the UK. They seem to think that we live in the Middle Ages sitting round the village duckpond in our moleskin breeches sining 'Hey Nonny No' and doffing our caps to Liz when she rumbles past in the Carriage of State.

I just don't get the full picture. We don't have a monarchy to support but it sounds like the UK head of state owns the seabed around UK, etc. and no telling where else and acknowledges to getting over $56 million+ annually from one pot of money called her royal estate and I understand she and her family have other rental income streams/rivers too. I have also heard her income is tax free too. I suspect Europeans would have a better standard of living if they didn't have to support all the elites and the bureaucracies that keep their money flowing.

US President is not an equivalent but heads the Executive Branch of our Government which runs our Government and calls all the shots via his advisers and Cabinet within the laws set by the US Congress as interpreted by our courts. His personal compensation package as President is less than $1 million annually but he is provided with a free home and endless support staff and security at no cost to him. We would have a better standard of living if we didn't have to finance so many wars.

HM the Queen DOESN'T own the seabed around the UK. It's owned by the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate also owns lots of other stuff which it collects rent on. All the rent that it collects is given to the Treasury which is the UK government department responsible for the UK's finances so the people of the UK benefit directly from that rent.

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/

HM the Queen pays tax. As I said she costs each inhabitant of the UK about a dollar a year so if she were to disappear we'd all be a buck better off.

The POTUS is a Head of State. HM the Queen is a Head of State.

[endure]

I'm sometimes bemused by the way that some Americans regard the UK. They seem to think that we live in the Middle Ages sitting round the village duckpond in our moleskin breeches sining 'Hey Nonny No' and doffing our caps to Liz when she rumbles past in the Carriage of State.

Pretty much, but they haven't even heard of most of those details; probably

Actually I think most Americans would probably be surprised to find that the UK was even still a real place, probably visualized mostly as one of the less interesting historical exhibits at Euro Disney. . .

But I'm sure they appreciate the exhibit's full support of our so-essential adventures battling the Evil Scourge of Islamic Terrorism, thanks so much for that. . .

So am I getting the hang of this "dry wit" shit yet?

Here's a recent documentary made about our Gracious Queen

PS - That's dry wit

[ronz28]

Thanks for enduring my questions and for the link. I looked through the portfolio and other parts but didn't see anything about the 6.6 billion acres of land I have read about elsewhere. Does your head of State also run your Government? That's the primary job of our President and his ceremonial duties are minor in comparison and that's why we think of him as the President (limited to 8 years now) rather than a head of state (permanent elite).

Edited June 24, 2012 by ronz28

[endure]

The UK has a total land surface area of around 60 million acres so I'm not sure where the 6.6 billion comes from. We have a constitutional monarchy much like Thailand. HM doesn't run the government but must sign Acts (laws) passed by Parliament before they become law.

[BigJohnnyBKK]

Here's a recent documentary made about our Gracious Queen

(video)

PS - That's dry wit

I'm afraid just goes to show that humour has even greater difficulties crossing cultural boundaries than etiquette.

That Monty Python fellow's got some good bits though. . .

[transam]

I'm sometimes bemused by the way that some Americans regard the UK. They seem to think that we live in the Middle Ages sitting round the village duckpond in our moleskin breeches sining 'Hey Nonny No' and doffing our caps to Liz when she rumbles past in the Carriage of State.

Pretty much, but they haven't even heard of most of those details; probably

Actually I think most Americans would probably be surprised to find that the UK was even still a real place, probably visualized mostly as one of the less interesting historical exhibits at Euro Disney. . .

But I'm sure they appreciate the exhibit's full support of our so-essential adventures battling the Evil Scourge of Islamic Terrorism, thanks so much for that. . .

So am I getting the hang of this "dry wit" shit yet?

Here's a recent documentary made about our Gracious Queen

PS - That's dry wit

Brilliant stuff. Made my day.

[FreedomDude]

Well...gee....I never expected an 11 page response!

Thanks for the opinions!

((the original poster))

[Soutpeel]

Here's a recent documentary made about our Gracious Queen

(video)

PS - That's dry wit

I'm afraid just goes to show that humour has even greater difficulties crossing cultural boundaries than etiquette.

That Monty Python fellow's got some good bits though. . .

Which Monty Python fellow ?

[Soutpeel]

All the rent that it collects is given to the Treasury which is the UK government department responsible for the UK's finances so the people of the UK benefit directly from that rent.

The pigs around the trough politicans benefit mainly... ....anyone need a moat cleaning ?...

[kerryk]

Do you folks from UK get fed up with and leave your country to avoid paying excess rentals etc.like this report regarding the beneficiary of rentals charged to generate your electricity from wind farms in the ocean surrounding your country? http://www.businessw...energy-windfall

It might be an idea if you read that article again. The land belongs to the Crown Estates which owns land on behalf of the UK people - land that was surrendered by the monarch 250 years ago. The income that the government gives to HM the Queen is to finance her position as Head of State in the same way that the US government finances the President as Head of State. The queen actually costs us about 70 pence (about a dollar) a year each which is pretty good value.

I'm sometimes bemused by the way that some Americans regard the UK. They seem to think that we live in the Middle Ages sitting round the village duckpond in our moleskin breeches sining 'Hey Nonny No' and doffing our caps to Liz when she rumbles past in the Carriage of State.

I always think of Morris dancers. I think they are big on Thai Visa. In my small village here we always gather around the communal B&W TV and watch the English men dance and sing "Hey Nonny No.

[yogi100]

Many Americans have never heard of Thailand?

Must explain all the Thai resturants in the US. I even found them in small cities in Oklahoma.

Can they point it out on a map?

A lot of Englsh kids don't even know where France or Scotland are on a map when they leave school let alone Thailand!