A recent Sin Sod story

[chilli42]

29 minutes ago, jeab1980 said:

To counter story tbis one (soory for going off topic). My MIL lives in a small house we had built on our land which was given by her to us as a wedding present. She sold her house and land when her Husband died just over a year ago. Got a good price for house and land enough to see her living comfortably for tbe rest of her life. She was over tbe moon when we told her about the house plan but she insisted on paying for it (whole thing with materiel was just shy of 50k not much lots of people gave there time for free in tbe build. Nothing fancy a seperate bedroom and the rest open normal thai type house apart from we insisted she had an inside toilet and shower room so we made it onsuite. She has her own cooking area to the rear so very much self contained. She did and still does sell thai BBQ to keep her active and beacuse of tbat i have just finished building a little wooden structered shop come waitling area for her to prepare cook and sell it. Again she insisted she pay. She pays every month 500 bht to cover electric and water. She refuses any money offered to her from us saying she has enough. So not all as you described

A gem.  I guess you appreciate how lucky you are.

[steven100]

there are people all over the world that if they have 100 million dollars, they will still squirm at giving someone $200 for free ....   

[jeab1980]

2 minutes ago, chilli42 said:

A gem.  I guess you appreciate how lucky you are.

Well yes and. O i know a good few old ladies round here who are exactly the same. Yes i do appreciate her honesty and determination to self help whilst she can.

[Rc2702]

I think I understand the secrecy of giving the wife the cash behind the back of the man but it does not seem to have happened here. I'm guessing it's the same reason why child benefit in the UK was invented to ensure the mothers had food for there family as a lot of men gambled away their wages or drank it before they got home. 

 

 

[billd766]

5 hours ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

sin sod stories make good reading. most westerners are lucky that they dont have to pay a sinsod if their girls are single mums. i do know of one foreigner in pattaya who paid a million thb to marry a middle aged single mother of 2 but i guess he does not understand thainess. 

 

Perhaps he could afford it and perhaps he loved the lady.

 

Perhaps you do not understand Thainess either.

 

It was his money and his choice.

[williamgeorgeallen]

8 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Perhaps he could afford it and perhaps he loved the lady.

 

Perhaps you do not understand Thainess either.

 

It was his money and his choice.

i doubt any westerner understands thainess. you are correct it was his money, but with the state he is in now he would have been better off having kept it.

[billd766]

1 hour ago, jeab1980 said:

To counter story tbis one (soory for going off topic). My MIL lives in a small house we had built on our land which was given by her to us as a wedding present. She sold her house and land when her Husband died just over a year ago. Got a good price for house and land enough to see her living comfortably for tbe rest of her life. She was over tbe moon when we told her about the house plan but she insisted on paying for it (whole thing with materiel was just shy of 50k not much lots of people gave there time for free in tbe build. Nothing fancy a seperate bedroom and the rest open normal thai type house apart from we insisted she had an inside toilet and shower room so we made it onsuite. She has her own cooking area to the rear so very much self contained. She did and still does sell thai BBQ to keep her active and beacuse of tbat i have just finished building a little wooden structered shop come waitling area for her to prepare cook and sell it. Again she insisted she pay. She pays every month 500 bht to cover electric and water. She refuses any money offered to her from us saying she has enough. So not all as you described

 

This thread was going down the tubes nicely until you posted your experiences and many people were having a good old fashioned Thai bash.

 

My Thai MIL lived with us for a few years before she died in a small house we built with her in mind. She was no trouble at all and helped us out where, when and how she could. We looked out for here and took her to hospital when she had to go to the  diabetes clinic.

 

She has been gone 18 months now and I still miss her and talk to her often. No answer from her yet but she isn't  far away.

[jeab1980]

1 hour ago, Rc2702 said:

I think I understand the secrecy of giving the wife the cash behind the back of the man but it does not seem to have happened here. I'm guessing it's the same reason why child benefit in the UK was invented to ensure the mothers had food for there family as a lot of men gambled away their wages or drank it before they got home. 

 

 

I as a  man got tbe child benifit in the UK.be carefull not to generalise. 

Edited May 11, 2017 by jeab1980

[Rc2702]

3 hours ago, jeab1980 said:

I as a  man got tbe child benifit in the UK.be carefull not to generalise. 

 Please read more carefully. I was referring to the reason behind its introduction. 

[jeab1980]

8 minutes ago, Rc2702 said:

 Please read more carefully. I was referring to the reason behind its introduction. 

It was introduced i belive to help parents on low wages to feed and clothe there kids man or woman. Your pidgeon holing of men pissing there wages and gambling them away is not the reason.

Edited May 11, 2017 by jeab1980

[Rc2702]

1 hour ago, jeab1980 said:

It was introduced i belive to help parents on low wages to feed and clothe there kids man or woman. Your pidgeon holing of men pissing there wages and gambling them away is not the reason.

I apologise I was referring to family allowance and that was the purpose of it creation btw. To provide females who were largely based at home with access to funds for the family essentials as a large portion of men were gambling and drinking there wages away.

[JGV]

A complete charade

[jeab1980]

28 minutes ago, Rc2702 said:

I apologise I was referring to family allowance and that was the purpose of it creation btw. To provide females who were largely based at home with access to funds for the family essentials as a large portion of men were gambling and drinking there wages away.

Here is aread for you nothing to do with the reason you quote 

• ↓

 

 

•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  

Child Benefit and Guardian's Allowance: Where it all started

Child benefit was phased in from 1977 to 1979 by Labour, replacing family allowances and child tax allowances.

Child tax allowances

Child tax allowances were first introduced in 1798, though they were abolished again in 1805. They were reintroduced in 1909.

The amounts related to the age of the child. They were limited to taxpayers (working people) and were worth even more to higher rate taxpayers.

Family allowances

Family allowances were the subject of a White Paper in 1942, but there was disagreement among Labour and Conservative politicians about the way they should be implemented.

The Beveridge Report, written by the civil servant William Beveridge, proposed an allowance of eight shillings per week for all children, which graduated according to age. It was to be non-contributory and funded by general taxation. After some debate, the Family Allowances Bill was enacted in June 1945. The act provided for a flat rate payment funded directly from taxation. The recommended eight shillings a week was reduced to five shillings, and family allowance became a subsidy, rather than a subsistence payment as Beveridge had envisaged. You can find further details on the Beveridge Report on the national archiveswebsite.

Family allowances were introduced in 1946, with the first payments being made on 6 August. At that time, they were only paid for the second child onwards, a further watering down of Beveridge’s scheme. In 1952, the Conservative government reduced food subsidy, which had been in place since the war. From October 1952, family allowance was increased by three shillings per week in order to advance the potential effect on nutrition. As a means of encouraging families to keep children in education, the Family Allowances Act of 1956 extended the family allowance to all school children, although the bread subsidy was abolished. In 1961, Cabinet agreed that the majority of apprentices be excluded from the family allowance provisions, but dismissed proposals that family allowance for the second child be abolished. Family allowance provisions therefore remained intact in the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act of 1962.

Believing family allowance was not widely supported among its constituency, the Labour government of 1964 was unenthusiastic about the issue. However, in 1966, pressure groups (especially the Child Poverty Action Group) forced it to address family allowance. Cabinet debated the respective merits of an increase in the existing family allowance, or a new means-tested family supplement that was supported by the Chancellor, James Callaghan.

Following the Conservative electoral victory in 1970, Sir Keith Joseph introduced Family Income Supplement (FIS). It was designed to replace further increases in family allowance with a means-tested supplement for the poorest families, and was in some ways similar to the scheme devised by Callaghan under Labour. There was a low take-up rate of FIS, which proved unpopular, especially as it was accompanied by the withdrawal of subsidised milk for children.

Child benefit

Back in power, Labour had originally intended to merge family allowances and child tax allowances in the new benefit called child benefit in the mid 1970s, but under financial pressure decided to abandon these plans. Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) was instrumental in ‘changing their minds’ and in 1975 the child benefit bill was enacted. The bill replaced family allowance with a benefit for each child, which was paid to the mothers. The act was not implemented immediately because of the economic crisis of the mid-1970s. Eventually, child benefit was phased in from 1977 to 1979.

In 1984, there was a major social security review, announced by the Conservative government and leading to a Social Security Act in 1986, with a new system being introduced in 1988. Many supporters of child benefit believed that it might be abolished, means-tested, or taxed. CPAG was the catalyst behind the formation in 1985 of Save Child Benefit, a grouping of originally about sixty organisations, ranging from women’s organisations to trades unions and from churches to children’s charities. In the event, as a result of campaigns by Save Child Benefit and others, child benefit was retained.

Many proposals were put forward to restructure, reduce or radically change child benefit. But in 1990 the Prime Minister, John Major, declared that child benefit ‘is and will remain a strong element in our policies for family support’. He restructured child benefit, to introduce a higher rate for the first or eldest eligible child.

In July 1998, the Labour government abolished one parent benefit (the addition to child benefit for lone parents, originally introduced in 1976). They did this by incorporating one parent benefit into the main child benefit rates. It was abolished for new claimants and existing claims were frozen. Between April 1997 and April 2003, the rate of child benefit for the first child increased by 25.3 per cent and the rate for subsequent children by 3.1 per cent in real terms. Most of this increase took place in 1999 for the first/eldest eligible child and coincided with the administration of child benefit moving from Social Security to the Inland Revenue, which has now become HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC).

In 2004, the Government introduced new immigration rules, which now mean that someone has to have a ‘right to reside’ in the UK in order to be able to claim child benefit, therefore excluding many migrants from entitlement.

Under the Child Benefit Act 2005, child benefit is now available for young people completing a course which they started before their nineteenth birthday (up to age 20). Those in specific unwaged training programmes are also eligible. These reforms rectified long-standing anomalies.

 

 

 

[Rc2702]

38 minutes ago, jeab1980 said:

Here is aread for you nothing to do with the reason you quote 

• ↓

 

 

•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  

Child Benefit and Guardian's Allowance: Where it all started

Child benefit was phased in from 1977 to 1979 by Labour, replacing family allowances and child tax allowances.

Child tax allowances

Child tax allowances were first introduced in 1798, though they were abolished again in 1805. They were reintroduced in 1909.

The amounts related to the age of the child. They were limited to taxpayers (working people) and were worth even more to higher rate taxpayers.

Family allowances

Family allowances were the subject of a White Paper in 1942, but there was disagreement among Labour and Conservative politicians about the way they should be implemented.

The Beveridge Report, written by the civil servant William Beveridge, proposed an allowance of eight shillings per week for all children, which graduated according to age. It was to be non-contributory and funded by general taxation. After some debate, the Family Allowances Bill was enacted in June 1945. The act provided for a flat rate payment funded directly from taxation. The recommended eight shillings a week was reduced to five shillings, and family allowance became a subsidy, rather than a subsistence payment as Beveridge had envisaged. You can find further details on the Beveridge Report on the national archiveswebsite.

Family allowances were introduced in 1946, with the first payments being made on 6 August. At that time, they were only paid for the second child onwards, a further watering down of Beveridge’s scheme. In 1952, the Conservative government reduced food subsidy, which had been in place since the war. From October 1952, family allowance was increased by three shillings per week in order to advance the potential effect on nutrition. As a means of encouraging families to keep children in education, the Family Allowances Act of 1956 extended the family allowance to all school children, although the bread subsidy was abolished. In 1961, Cabinet agreed that the majority of apprentices be excluded from the family allowance provisions, but dismissed proposals that family allowance for the second child be abolished. Family allowance provisions therefore remained intact in the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act of 1962.

Believing family allowance was not widely supported among its constituency, the Labour government of 1964 was unenthusiastic about the issue. However, in 1966, pressure groups (especially the Child Poverty Action Group) forced it to address family allowance. Cabinet debated the respective merits of an increase in the existing family allowance, or a new means-tested family supplement that was supported by the Chancellor, James Callaghan.

Following the Conservative electoral victory in 1970, Sir Keith Joseph introduced Family Income Supplement (FIS). It was designed to replace further increases in family allowance with a means-tested supplement for the poorest families, and was in some ways similar to the scheme devised by Callaghan under Labour. There was a low take-up rate of FIS, which proved unpopular, especially as it was accompanied by the withdrawal of subsidised milk for children.

Child benefit

Back in power, Labour had originally intended to merge family allowances and child tax allowances in the new benefit called child benefit in the mid 1970s, but under financial pressure decided to abandon these plans. Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) was instrumental in ‘changing their minds’ and in 1975 the child benefit bill was enacted. The bill replaced family allowance with a benefit for each child, which was paid to the mothers. The act was not implemented immediately because of the economic crisis of the mid-1970s. Eventually, child benefit was phased in from 1977 to 1979.

In 1984, there was a major social security review, announced by the Conservative government and leading to a Social Security Act in 1986, with a new system being introduced in 1988. Many supporters of child benefit believed that it might be abolished, means-tested, or taxed. CPAG was the catalyst behind the formation in 1985 of Save Child Benefit, a grouping of originally about sixty organisations, ranging from women’s organisations to trades unions and from churches to children’s charities. In the event, as a result of campaigns by Save Child Benefit and others, child benefit was retained.

Many proposals were put forward to restructure, reduce or radically change child benefit. But in 1990 the Prime Minister, John Major, declared that child benefit ‘is and will remain a strong element in our policies for family support’. He restructured child benefit, to introduce a higher rate for the first or eldest eligible child.

In July 1998, the Labour government abolished one parent benefit (the addition to child benefit for lone parents, originally introduced in 1976). They did this by incorporating one parent benefit into the main child benefit rates. It was abolished for new claimants and existing claims were frozen. Between April 1997 and April 2003, the rate of child benefit for the first child increased by 25.3 per cent and the rate for subsequent children by 3.1 per cent in real terms. Most of this increase took place in 1999 for the first/eldest eligible child and coincided with the administration of child benefit moving from Social Security to the Inland Revenue, which has now become HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC).

In 2004, the Government introduced new immigration rules, which now mean that someone has to have a ‘right to reside’ in the UK in order to be able to claim child benefit, therefore excluding many migrants from entitlement.

Under the Child Benefit Act 2005, child benefit is now available for young people completing a course which they started before their nineteenth birthday (up to age 20). Those in specific unwaged training programmes are also eligible. These reforms rectified long-standing anomalies.

 

 

 

If you read beyond page 1 you may learn something.  Here's a hint CPAG. Anyway cheerio I knew I was correct.

[fordguy61mi]

When my girl's mother was asked about Sin Sod she said she didn't need it. I was shocked but happy. She was 36 at the time and never married with no kids. But I think 36 is a little old to be asking for a lot of Sin Sod anyway from what I've read. Kind of an "old maid" in Thailand. Her mom is 82 and in failing health and her Dad is deceased. Now my girl is almost 38. Definitely getting to be over the hill in Thai girl terms. We'll be getting married this fall. Of course sending a little unsolicited money to the mom every month. Sin Sod isn't always required.

[Wake Up]

Sin sod no way but I have been bitten once twice shy. If her parents need sin sod then I understand but someone else will have to pay it not me. I did not work my life to support a girl and her family. If that is the Thai way then ok but I choose the rent a girl Thai way instead of the support the Thai wife and her family way. Peace. 

[ncc1701d]

There's nfw I'm paying sinsod. 

[jeab1980]

8 hours ago, Rc2702 said:

If you read beyond page 1 you may learn something.  Here's a hint CPAG. Anyway cheerio I knew I was correct.

Some people are never wrong are they your wrong good bye

[jeab1980]

30 minutes ago, jeab1980 said:

Some people are never wrong are they  child poverty acyion group indeed.

Cpag has its own adenda for obvious reasons they would say anything if it helps children cant blame them for that. But it is not the case men where pissing wages against tbe wall why its paid to women. A lot of it is to do with Tax as it was and most women then did not work so it made sense to pay it to women who were home then all the time bringing up children. Quite diffrent now of course. You get other people to being up your kids then moan Bout how much it costs but thats another subject.

[Blue bruce]

i guess i was lucky. my Thai wife is a young widow,  her husband died,  her son died,  her parents died. I married her and my responsibility is to her and not and extended family. I am a very lucky farang and enjoy every moment of her company. . lucky me

[theguyfromanotherforum]

On 5/11/2017 at 10:11 PM, fordguy61mi said:

When my girl's mother was asked about Sin Sod she said she didn't need it. I was shocked but happy. She was 36 at the time and never married with no kids. But I think 36 is a little old to be asking for a lot of Sin Sod anyway from what I've read. Kind of an "old maid" in Thailand. Her mom is 82 and in failing health and her Dad is deceased. Now my girl is almost 38. Definitely getting to be over the hill in Thai girl terms. We'll be getting married this fall. Of course sending a little unsolicited money to the mom every month. Sin Sod isn't always required.

 

Neither is sending money to the family every month.

[Rc2702]

On 2017-5-12 at 8:52 AM, Blue bruce said:

i guess i was lucky. my Thai wife is a young widow,  her husband died,  her son died,  her parents died. I married her and my responsibility is to her and not and extended family. I am a very lucky farang and enjoy every moment of her company. . lucky me

I am sure she feels just as lucky 

[boomerangutang]

On 5/10/2017 at 9:21 PM, Rc2702 said:

I am just disappointed, it seems the flow is only going 1 way and there has not been a great deal of support for my Mrs and her two hard working sisters even during the younger years. If they knew what to do with money I'd be more understanding but I just seen them waste it. With the best intentions but sadly wasted. I have cancelled my own quarterly contribution today as I do not think they need it for the foreseeable future. 

If you cancelled your 'quarterly contribution' you may find you've cancelled your marriage.  Sending money to wife's mom and dad is usually top priority for the wife.  Love and dedication to husband take a back seat.

[samsensam]

On 11/05/2017 at 1:35 AM, williamgeorgeallen said:

sin sod stories make good reading. most westerners are lucky that they dont have to pay a sinsod if their girls are single mums. i do know of one foreigner in pattaya who paid a million thb to marry a middle aged single mother of 2 but i guess he does not understand thainess. 

 

most westerners are lucky that they dont have to pay a sinsod

 

...or have more sense...

[Rc2702]

Just now, boomerangutang said:

If you cancelled your 'quarterly contribution' you may find you've cancelled your marriage.  Sending money to wife's mom and dad is usually top priority for the wife.  Love and dedication to husband take a back seat.

I have indeed cancelled it, reinvested it into our sons well being. No complaints so far but thanks for your concern and yes it is still early days but I'll take my chances as and when the smart move appears.

[Dipterocarp]

I have found that many people who start out with nothing and become wealthy are extremely generous. The one who grow up rich and never accomplish anything the cheapest tight wads.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎5‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 7:35 AM, williamgeorgeallen said:

sin sod stories make good reading. most westerners are lucky that they dont have to pay a sinsod if their girls are single mums. i do know of one foreigner in pattaya who paid a million thb to marry a middle aged single mother of 2 but i guess he does not understand thainess. 

There are always those that believe the BS about the "culture". My wife told me I had to give money to the family because it's "culture". Then she was without a husband to even help her. Trouble is most Thais know someone that has a stupid farang relation that does give loads of money to the family. Mt ex's cousin is married to one, so they thought I'd be the same.

[JohnLick]

Thai - Farang "must understand our culture" is the same like "Women - Men same rights" feminism dream

 

... only one way, you must understand

... only one way, you must understand

[swissie]

As far as any Sin Sod story is concerned, only one thing is of relevance. Just for the record:

 
- A divorced Thai female with kids, will never expect any Sin Sod. Nor would any Thai groom be willing to pay it. (Why pay for a "used-article"). It's just not customary. Few 65 year old Farangs will have the opportunity to marry a Thai Lady free of "baggage", accumulated in her former life.

If, under these circumstances, a Farang still paying Sin Sod, it's probably because he doesn't know any better.

If he does, he is sending a strong signal to the "family" from the very beginning: "My middle name is ATM".
Cheers.