Bob

Under US estate law, assets in a mutual fund, IRA, or the like that carry a direct beneficiary are still included within your federal estate for estate tax purposes. Same with the joint accounts (excepting for that portion of the joint accounts that the beneficiaries can demonstrate were their assets in the first place). Here in the US, 95%+ of estates now are not taxed under the federal estate tax....the first 5 million (US dollar value) is excluded or exempt (which, of course, means my heirs have no friggin' worries). Out of curiosity, is any portion of an English estate excluded/exempt and what's the tax rate after that?

What you're asking, I believe, is strictly a question of English law so it's an English lawyer/solicitor that you need to question about that. But (using US law logic and not knowing a whit about English law.....however, we get a lot of our notions from our old colonial masters), the Thai assets will be have to be probated here in Thailand. While that'll cost some money (my Thai lawyer said about 50,000 baht), then it's difficult for me to believe that the distributions from the Thai assets will be taxed as a gift in your home country (a gift being what you give while you're alive, a bequest being a distribution (or, sorta, gift) from somebody taking a dirt nap (a legal phrase...). So the only question I'd be asking is whether assets probated from a country other than England are subject to whatever estate/inheritance tax that England applies to it's dead citizens. My guess is, yes, the Thai bequests will be part of your English estate for estate/inheritance tax purposes. I also would guess there would be no "gift" tax at all. Anyway, that's my 2 baht (and it might be worth what you paid for it!).

I totally sympathize with the frustration implied by your statement. The same thing, year after year (with mainly people without a whole lot of power being affected) and nothing seems to get done about it. Chiangmai's recent floods were not caused by sudden or heavy rainfalls around here but because sluice gates were quickly removed from a dam north of here. Nothing has been stated in any of the papers as to why that occurred (maybe they had more rain northeast of here but I haven't read that anywhere). Given they know (or ought to know) they're having this problem year after year - almost always starting in August - I simply don't understand why they don't start lowering all the dams beginning in the early part of the rainy season (early May)? And, while we're at it, why don't they build a water pipeline from the Chao Phraya to other locations (e.g., Pattaya) to kill two birds with one stone (lower the water level a little and take care of the ever-developing water shortage issue)? But, while reading the paper edition of the Bangkok Post yesterday regarding the flooding around the central plains (and the expected further problems farther south), I had one of the best laughs in quite a while (equal perhaps to the laugh generated from the notion spouted in the Post 2-3 years back that Thailand wouldn't be affected by the melting of the artic poles as Thailand was "too far" from the poles). In any event - this is an absolutely true story - there was a statement from some government group that asked boat captains in the lower Chao Phraya to help the situation by using their propellors to help blow the water out into the sea! And it was stated that the government would reimburse the ship owners for the extra fuel used in performing this Einstein maneuver! Talk about blowing smoke up somebody's ass.....

In my view, you're making this into something it isn't. I've walked by the Sacred Heart school many times and, in my view, none of this (the wearing of the Nazi uniforms by some of the students) was for any heady or symbolic reason. It's much simpler and more benign than what others are trying to paint it. The kids recently took a WWII history lesson (which likely was very incompletely taught by the same teachers that didn't notice diddley about the uniforms until after the fact), some 16-17 year old girls likely thought the outfits were cool/trendy/weird (or something that Lady Gaga might wear), and that's probably all the brainpower that was used to come up with this stunt. They weren't emulating anybody, they were just being teenage silly. And they probably still don't appreciate what all the newspaper fuss was about. Invoking darker motives to explain this minor event, in my view, involves baseless speculation.

I was trying to think of that word or term which relates to a compulsive and repetitive preoccupation with something. Oh, yes, now I remember - obsession.

Just checked the tracking map and it looks like the typhoon will peter out over northern Laos. Unless it takes some weird southern turn, likely won't impact even northern Thailand (or at least I hope).

Perhaps the gods/buddhas here in Chiangmai are trying to tell you where not to eat for a while?

You don't want to go anywhere near the Ping River here in Chiangmai unless you're traveling in a boat. I'm told that the flooding problem here wasn't the rain here locally but that they removed some sluice gates from a dam north/northeast of Chiangmai (probably due to too much rain there).

As I'm lazy, I'll just paste and repeat what I said about the topic elsewhere: I'm absolutely certain that the students meant no harm and had no clue how the Nazi display might affect others (there most certainly wasn't any intended anti-semitism sentiment by these Thai students). But what I don't believe at all is the claims by the school administration and teachers that the students were in charge of this event and that they, the faculty, had no idea what the students were going to do. One of those adult faculty members should have stepped in and explained why this was inappropriate. And, given the students indicate that this partial theme was chosen because of recent studies involving the history of World War II, I very doubtful that the teacher(s) involved did a very good job of adequately explaining the horrors of the Nazi regime and how those thugs put to death millions of people because of their ethnic and religious backgrounds. Had the students a real clue about those concepts, it's unfathomable to me that these kids would have selected these costumes for display. I'm extremely doubtful that there's any fascination by the Sacred Heart kids with either Germany or Nazism. Just doesn't compute in my mind.

Now that's funny.

Lol. I think I need to get my waders on before it gets too deep in here.....

I'm not voting but I'm not surprised, as you said in the other thread, that it's "beyond" you as to why Michael isn't choosing your recommended course of action. Some people are litigious and sue at the drop of a hat and other people never or rarely consider that option unless severe injury or intentional conduct was involved. I earned a living for 35 years from the first category and I generally found the second category more likable and reasonable. While I can understand Michael sending a letter - in an attempt to recoup his losses and/or for the purpose of advising the airline of the dangers of certain food preparations - whatever he does depends on his particular circumstances and his particular choices. It's not for me (or you) to say what he should do but, if he asked (he hasn't) I certainly wouldn't recommend that he pay a lot of his money to a lawyer and spend a lot of his time pursuing the claim noted. It just might not be a winnable case in the first place (i.e., how many other people on that plane had the same reaction from eating the same thing?). All in all, I have a fair amount of faith that what Michael does or doesn't do won't be influenced by your poll.

Whether it's true across the board or not, that's been my general impression from most of the Russians I've come across (which only has been in Pattaya and, to a much lesser extent, Phuket). But I have very little experience with them. Part of the apparent gruffness, I think, is their language....it sounds gruff and nasty when you hear it (or it does to me). I remember on my first or second trip to Pattaya strolling down Walking Street and passing by a rather petite and beautiful russian girl (about 20 years old, I'd guess) and I was absolutely floored when she opened her mouth and spoke a few russian words. Although she looked like a little angel, she sounded like a Mack truck!

Lol. You're probably right about that....but, alas, my bridge inventory is a bit slack these days. And, thank god/buddha, my bar inventory shall remain forever slack (I'd rather beat myself over the head with a hammer because it feels so good when I stop). Yes, it's obvious what the OP is singularly promoting. The only issue to me is where it ought to be within the forum and I think the moderator/owner made the right choice when he moved it to the other forum. My only irritation, mild though it be, is the time it takes for some of those long photo-heavy threads take to load and also I need to take the effort (I'm lazy?) to open a thread I have no desire to peruse just so I can click on the "mark this forum read" button.

Repectfully - baloney! As you know, I wasn't one of those reflecting any "anger" before (and, besides, I'd consider it rather unfair to characterize some of the other guys' valid objections as "anger" anyway); however, if you really think the reason the poster started this thread or plastered these ladyboy photos in this thread was to promote soccer, I've got a bridge to sell you.

While I know there are some good bankers out there, these banking and investment people have in general been given far more credit in the respect and intelligence departments than they've ever deserved. As I've noted before, I legally need some education and a a governmental license (after some minimum testing) in the States before I can legally cut your hair, tinker with your car engine, repair your bathroom, etc.. I don't need diddley to be a banker. Yet, for whatever reason, if somebody works at a bank and wears a 3-piece suit, people historically have presumed that person is worthy of respect, smart (financially), and can be trusted to act in the best interests of the given customer. Yea, sure.

In the insane modern world of corporate management, senior management is basically free from any intelligent oversight by anybody including their own boards of directors (those allegedly intelligent folks who, along with senior management, have a legal fiduciary duty to safeguard the company's and shareholders' assets). It almost seems that the more you screw up, the more money they'll pay you to go away. I absolutely disagree that some of these morons ought not to be constantly worried about somebody going after them for a horrendously stupid decision (as they are being paid gobs of money not to make those kinds of decisions). In my hometown area in the US, they built a resort with a 20-story tower hotel (tallest building probably within 150 miles or so), spa, golf courses, etc. In the process of the expansion of the resort, funds were borrowed from the Detroit Pension Fund (a huge, multibillion-dollar fund handling the retirement funds for all City of Detroit employees, past and present). It got to the point that the Fund had loaned the resort a little over 72 million dollars and then the resort filed bankruptcy. The assets were appraised by the bankruptcy court and those appraisals (very thorough appraisals done by the best in the business) concluded that all assets together were worth 24.5 million dollars. Only an absolute moron would ever lend any business any more than about 50% of asset value. Lending 3 times asset value was incredible stupidity. And, of course, nobody even suggested that the senior management or Board Members of the Pension Fund ought to be fined, fired, sued, charged with breach of fiduciary duty, or horse-whipped. A crying shame in my view. We need to return to a time that senior management (including every one of the members of the Boards of Directors) is held to some standard of care. And, in the appropriate situation, I see no reason why criminal responsibility shouldn't apply (although I agree with Fountainhill that we don't go that route unless the standard of care breached exceeds the ordinary prudence level). Maybe some of these "brilliant investment" people just might be a bit more "brilliant" if they actually thought there might be a possibility that somebody was looking over their shoulder.

I'm all for people exercising whatever freedoms they want as long as what they do doesn't infringe on others' rights (e.g., a protester in public, in my view, has no right to block access to a public area nor come and scream whatever 3 inches from else's face) and as long as it doesn't cost others money. The motor cycle helmet laws relate to that last notion and, presuming all those who want to not wear a helmet have excellent insurance to handle their head traumas and long-term disability care, then I'm all for it; otherwise, why should the public taxpayers or other people who buy medical insurance have to subsidize injuries to helmet-less motorcycle drivers. A month or two ago, there was a protest against wearing helmets by some motorcyclists somewhere in the state of New York. One of the organizers - a long-time motorcycle driver - elected not to wear a helmet (illegally to show contempt for the law). During the protest ride, he had to stop quickly, went over the handlebars (at a rather low speed), and died of the head injury he received. The doctors said likely would have had no significant injury at all had he been wearing a helmet. The whole incident evoked the reason the one group gives out what they call the Darwin Awards (awards sarcastically given to show that evolution doesn't necessarily imply we're getting smarter).

I can understand the frustration and we do tend to blame the President for whatever happens with the economy (whether or not he is significantly to blame for it). But what's the alternative? Vote for Perry or Bachmann or Romney? I can't stoop that low.

No, I didn't mean a house or in most cases a car although it's somewhat axiomatic that you don't buy one of those you can't afford either (people in the US buying homes they couldn't afford is the main reason that the US economy is currently in the dumpster). And what some people call "extreme" might be called "prudent" by others. Prior to 5-10 years ago, 98% of the people I knew (mostly via work) who had $15,000 or more of credit card debt never got out of the hole and many of them ended up in bankruptcy. In the last many years, I've known a few who've had $50,000 or more on credit cards (some using new credit cards to make the payments on the "old" credit cards!). While I can understand using credit cards for emergency items, I've never understood that you go into debt (often at horrendous interest rates) just to finance a nice stereo, a pretty dress, or a lifestyle.

Given the question is somewhat broad - and you haven't indicated what your friend meant by that - somewhat difficult to answer. But I think your friend likely meant that there was no integrated or cohesive gay community in Thailand (or Timbuktu or anywhere) and I'd agree with that. Then again, I don't see an integrated or cohesive straight community anywhere either. Or perhaps I'm missing the significance of your friend's statement.

Because of the way I was raised, I have luckily only viewed a credit card as an item of convenience (and way to grab some free airline miles) and not as a method to borrow money. I use the cards all the time but the credit card companies hate me as I've never paid them any interest. And never will. But, then again, largely due to how my folks raised me, I had the silly notion that you didn't buy something you couldn't afford to pay for (like right then or before the end of the month). Again, credit card companies don't like me much. As to the how my long-term bf uses his credit cards, we've never had a pleasant discussion about it. Even when we make a deal that he'll start reducing the balances by "X" baht a month, he's never done it and I've finally gotten into the "give me a break and don't even tell me about it" mode.

You've got that right. While I'm sure flying Air France is generally safe, their crash record in the last 20 years is far worse than some of the other airlines listed. Maybe the author of the study was French....