Owen`

I'm some calendar distance from Medicare and given that distance I suspect knowing the intricate details of how it works may not have value (in that they'll change by then). Meaning, I may not understand some of what was posted above. The concept of paying out of pocket for treatment in Thailand sounded like you were facing about 350K baht out of pocket at Bumrungrad. That's $10,000 USD. Your alternative was $1500 for the procedure in the US, that did NOT require the stents and angioplasty that would have boosted the price up well above $1500 (given that you still had to pay 20% in the 80/20 Medicare arrangement, yes?). So . . . I can't be sure but it looks to me like the comparison should not have been Bumrungrad's $10,000 worst case number vs what actually happened (which was not worst case). Also, many BMs might not have free rent available in the US while awaiting a procedure. I may not have understood what you laid out, but from what I see it does not appear that out-of-pocket in Thailand was the inferior choice.

Given the avalanche of posts about currency over the past several months, attributing it all to the evil of GW Bush and the US government's policies -- and how the trend was relentless, unstoppable, inevitable, crushing and would leave all Americans poverty stricken and begging for food handouts soon . . . well, GW Bush is presumably no less evil today than yesterday and the government's policies didn't change today vs yesterday. Conclusion: None of it has anything to do with anything else. Currency fluctuations occur of their own accord. Speculators try to make money anywhere they can and don't care about GW Bush. A few measures like today's from the BoT and they will be scared away to find easier pickings elsewhere. Oh, and you can rest assured those speculators funded and were the source of many news stories you may have read about the coming collapse of America and all things American. It's all about them making money, and it's not about anything else.

A pretty damn good link. You have to wade through it, and maybe your interest isn't covered, but a lot is. http://ajarnforum.net/vb/showthread.php?t=8047

Thumbs up on Acer so far.

Just bumping Paul and Jan's thread up. It's a good service. It's worth the extra money, to me anyway. I'm very much safety focused and after several trips now, I know Jan not only drives safe, but adheres to their security procedures, which are extra safe.

I know nothing of this in detail, but in the context of a big picture . . . guy, this has GET A LAWYER and get onsite written all over it. Some things can't be sorted out unless you're there. Too much money at stake here to be screwing around.

This is another matter that is early retirement focused even more than Pattaya, though certainly the Pattaya aspects of it are unique. There is a subtle and devious reality associated with "pre-existing conditions", namely that if you expect to change your work/retirement configuration and seek new insurance then there is a very real issue of choosing not to go to the doctor for a checkup or some pre-existing condition may be found and documented that would prevent getting insurance later. Obviously this risks not finding something serious, but the point is going to a doc is about more than the trade off of finding something serious vs the expense of going to the doc on that particular day. It also involves your future insurability. This blood pressure issue specifically -- it is so common and "normal" that a policy that does not try to extrapolate it to everything else should be out there . . . somewhere. Also, in the US for non group policies (individual health insurance) a standard is excluding pre-existing conditions for only a period of time. Meaning, if you have a bp problem documented, take their insurance, and do not have a heart attack for 5 years, then they WILL cover it if 5 yrs is beyond the specified period of time.

Here's the deal on annuities. An annuity, folks, is a product. It's a product sold by . . . usually insurance companies. What they do is say, we will pay you $X per month for The Rest Of Your Life if you give us $Y now. And they guarantee it. That's the appeal for most folks who are interested in this -- the guarantee. Well, here's the downside: 1) You can buy inflation adjusted annuities that pay $X per month in 2006 equivalent dollars, but they will cost you a lot more than $Y from above. 2) The guarantee is secured only by the survival of the insurance company. It might not survive. There are some government vehicles that some insurance companies try to point at as further protection, but generally speaking those are not valid and if they are -- that product costs more than $Y. 3) The insurance company makes a lot of money on annuities. Their $Y calculation has a healthy profit margin built in. They aren't taking much risk at all in promising you $X/month for the rest of your life because they are going to invest half your money in stocks and half in bonds and pay you $X/month out of the proceeds, and given the profit margin they build in it would take 10 solid years of market collapse before they have to dip into their own coffers to pay you out of money that didn't come from your initial $Y. Bottom line, I don't like them. Doesn't mean you shouldn't.

Spot On!! This is huge. I think a lot of guys who take the plunge were semi forced into it. They were offered some retirement buy out or they lost their job or some health event told them they have to get away from stress or maybe a divorce or whatever. But if you're making big money and have a solid net worth, but you know that if you're gone for a year your skillset will be too old to resume where you were . . . then it's hard to walk away. But in the end, in the final analysis, your last sentence tells the tale. It is a matter of when, not if. If you wait longer, you have fewer years to enjoy. If you move too soon, well, you're screwed, but it's pretty easy to determine what is "too soon" mathematically. Regardless, it's a tough call. But the toughness is not about Pattaya. It's about the concept of early retirement.

Little place across from Residence Garden: Had breakfast there a few times. Price is reasonable, portions are not skimped. Polite service. The eggs are scrambled with some subtle addition, probably a bit of pepper or something, and are very good. Eggs, + ham, + sausage, + toast, + tea or coffee, + juice. Pretty standard stuff but done rather well with no price surprises. I think 110 baht. Something like that. Reflects just a bit extra in service and portions. I tried the 50 and 60 baht places and they usually tack on 60 baht for a drink. I also think it's better than the RG breakfast list, and no more than a few steps across the street, just to the left of the Family Mart and laundry. If you're in the neighborhood, give it a whirl. If you're staying at the RG, definitely get out of the hotel a few days during the stay and give it a whirl.

A lot of this is getting past the psychological barrier of thinking that a price tag of living expenses of just $1500 or $2000 per month is some kind of downgrade in lifestyle. The number intimidates guys until they have spent enough time travelling -- not just to Pattaya -- to see that the rest of the world does not pay what the US and UK citizenry pay to live. Well dressed Thai office girls make what, 15,000 baht per month? They fund those nice clothes and demeanor with that paltry income. A big, subtle effect on budgets is travel. A lot of guys have no interest in extensive travel. So they don't need a budget for it. They may be living a very nice lifestyle in Pattaya but their budget could be almost half someone living the same lifestyle, but who wants to do 2-3 trips per year to the US or UK. As best I can tell, a mid scale 2 bedroom apt, motorbike for transport (or none at all), maybe 2 bar crawls per week and 2 major trips with maybe another 3 local trips (Singapore or Vietnam) per year will get funded just fine, with a cushion, on 100K baht per month. Newbies, pay heed. It's very inexpensive in Pattaya for a great life, But It Is Not Free. Know what you're doing.

Can't blame guys for this. I've seen it a lot of late as more and more people reach that age group where it becomes clear that work is not in their future. It's such a new concept to them that they instinctively presume it is new for everyone. Well, it is for everyone, at some point. And there is an aspect of the issue that is different from any time in the past -- in that pensions are going away and retiring on something other than a pension, in Southeast Asia rather than Florida or Yorkshire, is not what our parents did. So, the questions can be repetitive, but understandably so.

A quick comment here to encourage the OP to use Search at the top of the page. There are some very helpful people around and individual costs for individual categories have already been covered in almost all cases. If your early retirement is coming from pension sources, you have US tax issues to address. You also need to look very carefully at it, be sure it is inflation indexed, and be sure the odds of it being attacked in the future by the distributing source are low. If it is coming from a nestegg, you have many maneuvers available to you that can reduce tax to almost zero. If you are using a nestegg, think in terms of 4.5% extracted in year 1 for living expenses (assuming you will collect Soc Sec at age 62). If you get no SS, then use 4%. If you extract no more than 4-4.5%, position your nestegg in 50% stocks and 50% bonds, and allow yourself a 3% inflation "pay raise" each year, you will likely not run out of money before you die. If you take out more, you likely will run out of money and your last few years will be miserable.

Paul, I just posted the text below to the Members Only area of this board. I was told in the replies that you might not see it there, so I am cross posting here. Be aware that in response to this post several other BMs spoke up in praise of Jan: ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Folks, Just posting a note of praise for Paul and Jan's taxi service, which I used today. I think their thread in the cost sharing section is called "New Driver Available". Jan is Paul's wife and she does a good job. Some special security things are done via email before your arrival to ensure you are going to be safe. She is skilled in the hectic Thai traffic and she does not drive overly fast by my tastes (which are stodgy). They have a new pickup truck that is used for the service and she brings drinks and a CD selection for music you might like. Or you can have a nice chat with Jan about life in Pattaya. She speaks adequate English. I am aware of Mr Toom and I think other services that compete with Paul and Jan. Paul and Jan's service is more expensive. I have never used the other services and will not make any comparisons. I have read the favorable reports of Mr. Toom's service. I have nothing bad to say about anyone -- I'm just typing here to express my pleasure with Jan's driving and pre arrival approach to things and I think I get good value for the few extra hundred baht Paul and Jan charge. They are aware they have competition, but they have not changed their price. Interpret that as you will. Full disclaimer. . . none. I have no financial interest in Paul and Jan's service -- beyond a hope that they stay in business (Jan said this is year 2 for them and it's well underway) so that I can continue to avail myself of her work. I have never met Paul other than via email and know Jan only through her taxi service. I got no agenda axe to grind. Just passing along a report of good service.

Hey ginseng. A few thoughts about US real estate. First of all, the article you read could be old, but if not then the writer (no doubt trying to hit a deadline and get paid) is about a year out of date. The primary mechanism for the anticipated drop in RE prices was increasing mortgage interest rates. For more than a year, the Fed has been raising rates on the short term end of the maturity spectrum and though the Fed has no control of the long term end (on which real estate mortgages are based), it is generally accepted that unless enormous yield curve inversions are to be accepted, long term rates will follow short term rates higher. Well, there has been inversion of the yield curve, but only mildly -- and mortgage rates have indeed followed those short term rates higher. It's important to realize that at their low, mortgage rates were effectively offering real estate investors entirely free money. Those rates got down to 4ish%. Home mortgages are tax deductible, so that 4% is subsidized by the deduction and has an after tax value of perhaps 3%. Well, inflation was 3.5% for a while -- and yes, that means real interest rates were zero or negative. Negative means . . . the universe was paying people to buy houses. But that's ended now. Mortgage rates have gone up. And real estate prices have been dropping -- with the drop concentrated in the top end geographic areas. This is about a year under way now. The point of this is . . . it's already happened. It may be done with. Anticipation of further declines, as always, may or may not be correct. No one knows. No one ever knows. The Fed has more or less ended its raising of short term rates. They raise rates when they emerge from what is called the FOMC (Fed Open Market Committee) meeting. The last two meetings have had no increase in rates, after more than a year of such periodic meetings yielding such increases. So it is generally presumed now that the Fed is either done or almost done this cycle of increases. But no one ever knows what's going to happen in that area either. As for waiting for recession for years, the Great Crash of 2000 that began March of 2000 and sliced over 50% off the NASDAQ and was then followed by 20+% hits on the Dow and S&P got aggravated by 9/11. A fairly short and sharp recession took place in 2002 as a result. The economy then reversed and 2003 was a booming year, with further solid years in 2004 and 2005 -- both with excellent real GDP growth in excess of 3%. Katrina couldn't stop the US economy. It was just too strong. GDP growth will probably finish this year at about 2.8-3.4% for the year -- down just a tiny amount from last year despite $70/barrel oil. A recession is, by definition, 2 or more fiscal quarters in which GDP decreases. Growth last quarter was almost 2% and it was 3+% in quarters before that. I think 1st quarter was 4+%. Those numbers have to go completely negative for 2 or more quarters for a recession to be declared. A recession mid to late next year is . . . some might say due, but there is no visible mechanism for it being sharp or devastating. The Democrat Congress won't be the cause of this, just as Bush's tax cuts were not the cause of the booming economy he's had for most of his presidency. Nor was anything Clinton did responsible for the Great Crash of 2000 and its tech bubble burst. The government generally doesn't have much impact on economic cycles.

Thanks, Bob. This looks like money we will probably collect someday, if we live long enough.

From what I've seen there, you can probably save yourself some time and money if you just take a hammer and smash both your legs, then go to the hospital and get fixed.

Here's an exciting 2 cents worth. Government has very little impact on the US economy. Booms and declines happen largely of their own accord. No one knows what currencies will fluctuate in what direction. No one. Repeat, no one. One more time. No one. If you hear an opinion that sounds good and you decide it is right, you have a 33/33/33 chance of being right. It's not 50/50 because there are 3 directions for currencies to fluctuate. Up, down and sideways (unchanged). If an event occurs that clearly and definitively points at what direction a currency should move, then that currency will move in that direction within minutes of that event being known to today's electronics markets. There is nothing you can do about it. It's a fast move. When there is a slow move, then there is no clear and definitive reality that points in what direction the currency should move -- because if there was something clear and definitive it would move to a new level faster. Therefore, any slow drift that you see is taking place because the market as a whole has decided for no reason in particular that it should drift that way. The operative words there are "no reason in particular". This has to be so because if there was a particular reason, the movement would be very fast. So, don't focus on this, guys. You can't predict it. You might try, and your answer may prove to be correct, but that doesn't mean you knew anything. It just means you guessed correctly.

Pre-existing condition exclusion in the US has a time limit. Perhaps this is the same everywhere. This means if you had blood pressure problems and they went away and stayed away for 5 years, the exclusion stops. Drugs used to keep bp down may not qualify for this, however. If this is the problem, I think you're best bet is to draft a letter and shotgun email it out to everyone that asks just what ailments are excluded by bp. That may vary from company to company.

US employees contribute some portion of the health plan insurance premium, too. Varies from company to company, but all companies are in the process of shifting more and more of the premium burden to the employees. Mild difference here with the UK on this. I can see how, with the NHS, you can offer private insurance for senior staff because you can tell the shareholders that the NHS queues are too long and your senior staff are too valuable to be waiting in them. The US can't do that. Everyone waits in the same queue (which isn't very long compared to many countries). And given equal queue length you could never create a "premium health plan" that provides "better" health care for senior staff. That story would be banner headlines in newspapers everywhere and that company would be sued out of existence for whatever reason greedy lawyers could imagine. About the closest thing that comes to this is a program I've heard a few companies do of sending senior executives for some hyper thorough physical exam each year. The exam does tests not typically done (unless other tests suggest they should be) for the casual patient in a hospital. But that's tests only. No superior treatment. Lawyers can destroy companies faster than a recession. This is why US folks grab their reduced SS at 62 vs waiting to 65 for the full amount. People are now getting more clever and using web calculators to do longevity predictions based on their parent's age at death and other risk factors. The SS system is getting hit by this. The people waiting are those who are going to live longest. The system wasn't designed to address smart decision making. It was designed around average life expectancy. You did good taking the lump sum. I don't think anyone knows for sure they'll do great in the market, but odds are your company will change the rules on pensions sometime in the next 10-15 yrs and you would have gotten less. By taking the money now, they lose control over you.

Thanks, Alan. At first glance months ago I thought there was no need for US guys to know what UK guys are talking about -- terminology wise -- and vice versa. But as discussions have continued it has become clear (to me at least ) that some underlying ideas get covered up in the terms used and they can be be useful to know. Works pension vs state pension. I presume the "state pension" is something from the UK govt that shows up at age 65 or something like that? The "works pension" would be pension paid by the company you worked for long enough to qualify to receive it? Equiv US terminology would be . . . state pension = Social Security. "Works pension" would be company pension (if I am understanding it). Some weird variations in the US, too. People who worked for the US (or regional/local) govt as civil servants get a civil service pension that is a combination of "works and state". They never get Soc. Sec. Their pension can start about age 55. The usual Soc Sec age is 65 (there is a provision for taking a reduced pension at 62, and most do take it), though those ages are now sliding upwards. US "works" pensions are either disappearing or being deCOLAed. Citigroup/Citibank announced something like that just today to reduce their future pension expense. A lot of guys take "early out", meaning they leave their company at age 50 and get the company pension then to live on (plus access to company group health plan) and then it is augmented by SS at age 65. A thought occurs here relevant to the thread topic . . . there are some BMs who have mentioned getting medical expense reimbursement by whatever pension plan they are on. I recall reading of US military benefits funding medical and I think there was talk of somehow UK NHS being involved. In the context of this thread's subject, I believe those guys need not worry about Thailand taxes on that money. It will come into Thailand, true, but it would not seem to fall into any taxable income category in their list.

Good emphasis. I can't see any problem mechanizing this. A cash, non-interest bearing account can be fed with the interest from some other account the previous year and then only sent to Thailand next year. Or you can simply declare that the money you are bringing in is purely principal and not interest. I cannot see any way any Thai investigation could penetrate this. If they want to nail you, they will, regardless of truth or reality or documentation -- but if they are pretending to some semblance of legitimate adherence to their own law I do not think anyone can be touched by taxes on money brought in. Hmmm, being American I'm not up to speed on this, but it was my impression from comments by other BMs that the concern is their UK pensions are indexed to UK inflation -- which is lower than Thai inflation. Therefore, they must be getting some sort of . . . in the US it is called a COLA (Cost Of Living Adjustment). Maybe they retain a UK address? No, if that was taking place then they would be taxed on interest. Okay, I'll shut up and let UK guys talk about UK issues. As a general heads up and focus of awareness -- this comment goes to the heart of the reality that will steadily unfold over the next 10 years. Guys retiring on pensions have different advantages and disadvantages than guys retiring on a nest egg. Pensions in the US are getting very rare, and those that exist are being de-COLAed. Pensions are also subject to taxation to at least some extent, just as if they were salary income. Nestegg income can be positioned to get tax advantages. It can also provide some other subtle advantages -- for example -- if you're on a pension and you want to buy a car you will likely make a down payment and then make monthly payments on the loan that paid the rest of the car. That means interest on that loan is a new cost in your monthly budget (beyond the monthly depreciation of the car). A nestegg guy would pay cash for the car and just divide depreciation by 12 to determine the monthly cost -- and has no interest expense in his budget. Anyway, so it goes.

Excellent data, Bob, and thanks for being kind enough to provide it. It appears that all folks on retirement visas are not liable for Thai income tax on pension income or interest income brought into Thailand derived from a nestegg invested external to Thailand. I am intrigued by talk of "the preceding year". It would be pretty easy, even in a Thai crackdown of some kind, to show that money brought into Thailand was from income earned external to Thailand perhaps 2 or 3 yrs ago. But no matter. No point in muddying the waters. Your text is clear and is good news for the BMs on site in Thailand.

In general, folks, no one knows what any currency fluctuation is going to do. If they did know, they would be worth billions and would not be on this board. Explaining what happened and why is how people get dubbed expert. Explaining what happened and why has more or less no value. If you accept that no one knows which direction various currencies will fluctuate, you will not spend time trying to analyze it. The real problem with this issue is that there are guys who will spend a few hours on it, make a prediction, and be right. Then they'll do it again, and be right again. Then they think they really do know what they're doing. They don't. No one does. Sample size < 10 is inconclusive.

No shortcuts, guy. I don't think any of us are Thai tax lawyers. Here's the link again from above. It's in English and it seems to make sense, but interpret it as you will. http://www.rd.go.th/publish/6045.0.html