Jump to content

new2here

Members
  • Content count

    293
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

214 Excellent

About new2here

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2,831 profile views
  1. Speaking to this story only.... But if one person had in their possession more than what is allowed - and the law does not provide for “grouping” of goods for Customs clearance purposes, is that still a “shakedown”?.... or would that be better defined as the correct application of law? i don’t disagree that there are shakedowns here... but... in THIS case as I read it, I’m not so sure that there was any shakedown going on, but perhaps was a misunderstanding if you will, over the process of carrying, vis-a-vis declaring goods when more than one person is traveling but goods have been centralized for carriage purposes (like baggage allowance) prior to presentation at the customs inspection channel.
  2. That’s the part of the law that to me at least is a bit less-than-clear... that being how does limits apply when the passenger is a part of a larger group. While limits are always expressed on a per person basis, what I’m not clear on is what does the law say, or not, as to the issue of actual possession while in clearance... is it that while passing through customs each person must carry or have direct and independent control his/her own limits? If “pooling” is allowed, how does that work then? IF it says that the quantity one person has in their individual possession is deemed to be the sole property of that one person, regardless if he/she is carrying the legal limits for two or more persons, then that’s pretty clear — everyone carries their own... I think this may need better clarity.
  3. As I know it and have first-hand seen it, the intercept for Excise inspection commonly takes place just after passing the Customs inspection area, but before you physically pass through and exit the restricted area (just after and adjacent to the frosted glass barrier where non-traveling passengers may not pass. IF so, then I’d argue that you were in fact still in the inspection area and as such would still be subject to official actions. I am not aware that the law explicitly defines or limits the physical place where an Excise inspection may or may not take place with respect to an incoming passenger... Now IF you in the general population area, I’d argue differently - and largely because a case could be made that the items in question could not longer be assured to be only that of the incoming passenger and not intermixed with property of a non-traveling person who was/is on the public areas and came into contact with the passenger prior to an Excise inspection. In THIS story, as I read it, it’s not absolutely clear on the actual place where the contact was made... and to that end, I do think place matters — again to insure that only goods imported at that time and by that specific passenger are the only things assessed during the inspection and there isn’t any “contamination” of goods.
  4. While I personally don’t cheer so-to-speak over the loss of life - notably at that young age - I do agree that the upside (and in cases of death I use the term lightly) here per se, is that there were no apparent death or injuries to “innocent” parties and only those that were willing (assuming there no one ways forced to participate) participants to the racing. I was that age once - so I get doing “stupid” things.. but I guess I was lucky in that none of my stupidness cost me my life or the life of others... but I have to recognize that in life, actions have both benefits and consequces - sadly here the consequences were substantial and permanent... it’s just too bad that at that age, one usually does not have the wisdom to know this... I can say that I didn’t.
  5. I agree on that I think these kinds of cases have to be looked at through the lens of defendant liability (to what percentage does any one party bear liability) and compensatory. On the compensatory side, I think this part really should be via an actuarial table given the deceased age, occupation and other forward-looking economic variables. From here I think a fair compensatory figure can be made.. I don’t know what the deceased did for work, but as ugly as it perhaps is, to me, there is an economic difference between the death of a high-salaried professional versus a low-salaried laborer... this isn’t a morals based issue as it see, but quite simply placing a best-estimate assessment about the economic value of the deceased. On the liability side, here is where I think punitive figures can come into play— but I think it first needs to be determined who had fault/liability and to what percentage of the whole. If it turns out that the deceased was partially at fault, then I see nothing wrong with a corresponding reduction in payment, to acknowledge the share of liability the deceased had in the events.
  6. I think it’s true that as the pre-VAT proce rises, there will be a proportional rise in the assessed and collected VAT.... but.... if the government also uses the State Oil Fund as an (artificial) consumer-level price stabilizer, then I suspect any increase in net VAT collection will either be drastically offset by Oil Fund expenditures or even turn nett negative if Fund expenditures outpace increased VAT collections. So, in the surface if it, I’m not so sure that from a VAT collection perspective that the government really wants higher crude prices going forward.
  7. new2here

    Higher Grab rates

    I suspect it’s not a linear as that. Given that from a global basis, the notion of a ride-sharing/ride-hailing platform is still well within its infancy, I think the issue really is more to do with expansion - and all the issues/problems and regulatory matters - that come with it... and to that end, I think we’re seeing Uber make the decision that at present, some markets are less attractive when compared on others - be that from an “ease-of-business” perspective, market growth potential or otherwise. i don’t think this is a case of intentially ceeding one market to an affiliated business explicitly to increase revenues through reduced competitive pressures. I might agree if the market were more fully developed, where the “fight” was over existing share of a largely static market size, but as I see it, the market for Grab/Uber type services are still well in growth mode- so I suspect it’s more to do with how/where/when does one business choose to use their development assets over another.
  8. While I see how a consumer might see this is being “in the dark”, i do think that advance announcements of pending price hikes is a bad market policy from a competitve marketplace perspective.... only because it does, IMHO, open the door to easier market pricing and/or market supply acts of collusion between independent players.
  9. A popular viewpoint, however, when one views the CEOs actual salary expense, as a percentage of either category-specific total payroll expanses or the larger operating expenses, it does represent a very, very small percentage ... in most cases, not enough to materially alter the carrier CASM outcome. If we’re talking salary expenses and it’s associated impact on bottom line if you will, then figures like total headcount, CBA wage increases, benefits, etc.... these all tend to have much larger impacts on carriers finances than not paying one single CEO his/her salary- but I do get the optics and populist attraction to the idea. Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
  10. new2here

    Moved from Thailand to Big Island of Hawaii

    I think it all depends on the individual and to a large degree, do they take full advantage of where they happen to be. I come from Hawai’i, and IMHO, it’s far from boring... but I do think that given the small general geographic size, you’ve got to be willing to go outside of your comfort zone and find and explore... Also I think if you’re not a honest “water” and/or “outdoor nature” person (beach, swimming, fishing, etc) then a pretty big part of the attraction to living in Hawai’i will be lost on you. As for the food, I agree that some can be rather unhealthy - but like most all cuisines, there are also healthy and quite tasty options as well... you’ve just got to get out and find them... sure, I love a Rainbow mix plate as much as the next guy, but my diet isn’t based on it, rather more on fresh grilled, steamed or even broiled fresh fish, chicken and lean pork and to that end, I can’t say that from a cuisine perspective, I feel I’m lacking to any degree.
  11. Agreed... I also noticed (having personally accompanied a colleague) that you have to go to the immigration office that issued the stamps in the first place. my colleague lives in Bangkok.. so he uses CW for his 90-day reports and re-entry permits... but.. because he works just across the provincial border in Nonthaburi, he has to go to the Nonthaburi immigration office to get his yearly extension of stay done.. So when he got his new passport, we mistakenly went to CW (not really a wasted trip as he also needed a re-entry so we did that at that time) to do it all... and were told that they (CW) didn’t have the “Nonthaburi” office stamp and that he’d have to go out to Nonthaburi to do the stamp switch.. which Nonthaburi did; exactly the same as CW would have done and with the same documents require and also no-fee. CW didn’t have or show us anything in writing that said they can’t/won’t transfer stamps from other immigration offices (nor did we ask to see such), but we did ask two more independent officials on the way out and were told the same thing.
  12. To me I still think moving to al all e-sales channel is the NWT way moving forward... for me the key to a lottery is the belief that it’s done transparently. So, by moving to an e-sales platform, the whole issue of physical paper ticket distribution goes away... like many foreign lotteries, you can set up programmatically such that a player can choose their own numbers - and it can be set up such that a number set can’t be chosen if it’s already been issued previously (all sales would naturally be done on a live “online” system and not an off-line download system) However, I also see that the GLO ticket sales does have a social part as well, providing income opportunities to a population segment. For me, I think by moving to an e-sales platform, the sales revenue will still be there, albeit without the work/labor component... but again, I think given the key to a lottery is players belief in it’s legitimacy, I’d move to an e-platform and even use an outside, independent (non-government) entity to oversee and certify the games mechanisms.
  13. Wow, that’s a massive cabin factor/load factor north of 90% and while their stage length I’ll bet is quite short and with a lack of long-haul flying, their utilization rate of 10+hrs is also quite good... they’re getting quite a lot out of their current fleet. Id be interested to see how their headcount came in- both operational as well as non-op/administrative and management.
  14. I have... what my experience has been is that IF you have: 1) a valid work permit (they commonly look that that’s been issued for at least 6 months prior to application date) and has between 3 to 6 months validity left.. 2) are here on a form of long-term stay status (like a Non-B extended for work) 3) can show a history (usually 6 months consecutively) of salary *from the job listed in your work permit* being deposited into any Thai bank. 4) have some form of verifiable salary statement from your employer (all 3 banks have either called to check or faxed something that required a company rep to certify) . KBank accepted a stamped copy of my Thai tax form PD91from the past year as it shows declared income and the name and tax ID of your employer. My experience is that for a non-Thai, the *minimum* to get approved is right around B50,000 gross per month. Anything less is harder to get approved and B100,000+ tends to be where most premium level cards become options. But each bank sets their own minimums and can change with their lending policy and risk appetite. ... so, yes... it IS possible, but does require (in my experience with BBL, KBank, Krungsri and Krungsri/First Choice) that you have this paperwork. i know others have done it via depositing X funds in a “pledged” account; from which some measure of credit is then granted, others have done so on retirement basis and without any funds pledged required or Thai work/income and lastly some use a Thai national (like a spouse) apply, then get a secondary user card (but in that case, the account isn’t actually yours) so yes, it IS possible but can be hit-or-miss and vary from bank to bank and even branch to branch. So just having X income here (be that Thai-originated or not) isn’t a guarantee to approval.
  15. So long as 1) the time limit was disclosed before purchase and 2) the event or claim falls after the time limit, then I can’t see that being any kind of scam at all. Scam to me would need some kind of fraud or unjust enrichment.. and so long as points 1 and 2 are correct, then no, I don’t think it is. I do get it that from a court of public perception position or even “optics” this looks bad... and no one is really going to “feel” for an faceless insurance company, over that of a photographable victim in the hospital.. but.l so long as the policy was rightly disclosed and the claim does in fact fall outside of coverage, then to me that’s fair and right. Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
×