Thaiquila

I like to drink a large cup of black brewed coffee. No lattes or mocha-zesta-wackaccinos for me.

I also like it filled to the top, as I like my coffee strong, black, and not modified by cow secretions.

In the US, I say "no room for milk please" and I get what I want every time.

However, in Thailand, at places like Starbucks, even when the barristas speak Thaiglish or even decent English, I can assure you saying "no room for milk" will NEVER work.

I have tried to say "please fill it up (or to the top) with coffee" but that almost never works either.

My only solution so far has been to get what they give and then point to the huge empty space, and say "more coffee please." Even then, the usual reaction is unpleasant, and I get the feeling that I am breaking some kind of rule and asking for free coffee.

Egads!

So, any fluent Thai speakers (I can speak a little), can you suggest a basic Thai way of asking that they give me the full cup of coffee that I thought I was paying for. Before you accuse me of being a Cheapskate Charlie, consider that a large coffee at Starbucks is about 80 baht, so  customers should get some satisfaction.

Cheers.

It is true, the GROPENATOR recently published a list of his positions on his web site. What percentage of voters read that, do you think? I would guess less than one percent.

HOWEVER, it is widely understood and reported that during the campaign in his public persona (one debate, tv ads, speeches), Arnold:

Spoke almost entirely in platitudes (such as "I am for the children" "I am going to clean house." "We are going to create more jobs and such things.")

Studiously avoided specific detail about what he would cut to balance the budget, and avoided specific positions whenever possible. He would have to cut some things because he has vowed not to raise taxes.

This was clearly a campaign strategy that worked like a charm. He was selling his glamorous self, not his policies, and a forceful charismatic movie star beats a soft spoken party wonk (Davis) any day of the week.

This is a man, a novice in politics, that craves an endless supply of success and adoration. It remains to be seen whether this serves California well, or not. The voters decided they wanted to go down this road and take a ride with him. There are many examples in history where such a cult of personality didn't go so well.

Hail to Der Groppenfuehrer!

You will find Arnold's name in the dictionary under the definition for egomaniac.

I think he is harmless, but the question is if he can actually do any of the things that people have imagined that he has promised, as he really never got specific on anything in his campaign.

"She said I would not need a medical certificate or a criminal background check for the initial visa! ... not like what you read from the Washington, D.C. web site! ... she did advise me to obtain these documents while in the States for the extension."

I am curious about this detail. It makes sense that Thai immigration would want the background check to be from your home country, and obviously if that is the case, you would want to get that before you leave your home country.

However, with the medical certificate, if they really don't need it until the application for the first one year extension, I find it odd that they would want an old certificate from your home country. Is that really the case? Wouldn't they want a more current certificate issued by a doctor in Thailand? After all, a prohibited condition could present itself over that period of time.

I am very interested in the subject matter of how to make a relatively small amount of money, say 10 million baht, or preferably more, last perhaps a lifetime in Thailand. The key is not to just spend the money, but to INVEST it very wisely and strategically. For some people, annuities are interesting, but usually not so for YOUNGER retirees, as the higher rates only go to older folks (who the companies are betting are leaving the earth sooner).

My research has shown that there are PROVEN, predictable, safe, time-tested strategies that will continue to provide income AND protect from inflation.

The key to both systems is having the discipline to carry through with them and not break on the restrictions, and also the LUCK of the timing of the market as to when you quite working.

These systems are not radical ideas. They are mainstream investment advice from established companies like Vanguard in the US. The one part of that the many will find surprising is that systems rely on continuing to be heavily in the STOCK MARKET for life, even in old age.

What am I talking about, exactly?

System One, SET WITHDRAWAL RATE:

Take the 10 million baht.

Put 50 percent in interest bearing things like bonds, corporate bonds, GNMA bonds, etc. Not low yielding money market funds. Yes, there is principle risk on the net asset value when interest rates rise, but this is lifetime hold money, and over time, that is not a big issue.

Put the other 50 percent in the STOCK MARKET. A mix of very diversified, low expense, index funds. Note that the stock market segment historically goes up 9 percent a year. This bigger growth potential is the INFLATION PROTECTION segment of the plan.

Withdrawls: Twice a year, SELL either the stocks or the bonds at a SET PERCENTAGE, and always to keep the BALANCE as close as possible to 50 percent fixed income and 50 percent stock. In other words, if your stocks have gone up a lot during that time period, you sell stocks to keep the asset mix in balance.

Studies have shown that if you withdraw FIVE PERCENT of your total assets per year using this system, you have a 100 percent of never running out of money. Here is the catch. If you start the system at a time in history when the stock market is in a long bear trend, that FIVE PERCENT, will represent less money for years, and unless you started with enough, it would be hard to have the discipline to keep the withdraws so low. The upside of that, is if your timing is lucky, that FIVE PERCENT will translate into increasing income, the base of money will increase over the years, as it should eventually based on historical stock market performance.

But all is not lost for the risk takers among you (as I know almost all of you are, ha ha). You can take the risk of taking SIX or even SEVEN percent a year of the total. However, any amount over FIVE increases the risk that you will totally deplete your capital, so going over SIX is not for the faint of heart.

This is not a radical idea. Any veterans who have tried this system over a 10 - 20 year period?

The other, alternative, system can make sense for those with much more than 10 million baht to start. You invest your money the same way as above (50 percent in fixed, and 50 percent in stocks). However, in year one you take only THREE percent of the total. Then each year, there is a very small inflation increment increase in the percentage, so that your income increases steadily but slowly over the years. Contrary to intution, this system has a historical 25 percent chance of wiping you out before you die. This is why. If you live long enough, the percentages will get higher and higher (easily over the 7 percent risk area, as above). So that eventually you be getting into taking out too much money to support the plan.

Anyway, I thought I would put this out there. As in any situation, the more money the better, but sometimes there are creative ways to do things with less money that we would like.

Comments appreciated.

???

Even FIVE percent of the amount of transferred money sounds really outrageous. TEN percent is unspeakable.

Is this for real?

For example,

you initially wire 1 million baht.

Thai "commission" would be 50K baht.

And if you used that money to live on every year, you would need to wire in a similar amount EVERY YEAR.

More "commissions."

I can understand a small set service charge from the sending and receiving bank, but 5 or 10 percent of the total amount???

So, I am wondering if there is a LEGAL way around this financial rape. For example, are there banks that simply DO NOT do this? If not, any other ideas?

The only thing I can think of is to transfer the money once and let it sit there for as long as you are in Thailand, so you only have to pay this "commission" one time.

Thanks for the great  feedback.

As far as the valid reason, it is comforting to know that just stating that your valid reason is retirement (wow, the truth) ... works.

On the either/or financial question, it is interesting to know that sometimes if you have the required income, some officers still need to see a bank deposit. I am assuming you meant that these persons income was at least the FULL minimum income qualifier (65K baht/month?). Because, of course, a COMBINATON of income and savings that meets the TOTAL requirements is allowed.

The question that really concerns me personally is if people have had the experience with some officers of showing the FULL savings qualifying amount (800K baht) and then being denied extensions based on the fact that they could not show ANY income. In other words, persons living by periodically selling investments, rather than by pensions, etc. If so, does this tend to happen in some regions more than others? Specifically, does it happen in Chiang Mai?

Thanks!

I would like to start a new post about RETIREMENT VISA details, in relation to changes that might be coming down the pike. I have a few specific questions, and I am sure others do, though they may not be answerable yet.

To get this started:

1. Is the 800K baht requirement going to stay at 800k baht in the forseeable future, or is it going to double, as has been rumored on this board? I think if they do double it, they are going to weed out an awful lot of people for no good reason, because it is very unproductive to tie up that amount of money in a bank. Yes, I know, you can move it out again, but in practical terms for many it would mean taking the financial hit of selling stocks or bonds when they don't want to,  just to show a large number in a bank account for a few weeks. But of course, it is their country.

2. Is it going to be an AND or an OR arrangement for the financial qualification? In other words, if you can show the 800K baht, you don't have to show income; or if you can show the required income, you don't have to show savings. Obviously for people living on investments and savings without a pension, if it is AND, that rules them out. I read awhile back that some immigration officers in some regions (Chiang Mai?) intrepret this as and AND situation, even though technically the current rule is an OR.

3. What is this business of having to provide a VALID REASON to be in Thailand? This sounds quite absurd. If you are going for a retirement visa, your reason is clearly to RETIRE in Thailand, and you clearly wish to do that. Does anyone know if this new VALID REASON rule is going to take effect, and if so, what are they looking for?

Thanks.

I haven't seen this one before; perhaps there is someone who can shed some light.

My current plan is to move to Thailand in three years on a retirement visa. I am a 47 year old US citizen. My career has involved writing and editing. 50 is rather early to completely vegetate, so I will probably wish to write various things (fiction and non-fiction) during my retirement. In many ways, I would do this to keep my mind active.

I am certain that writing for ones own pleasure is legal to do without a work permit. What if I decide to try to sell my work to publishers, either in the US or Thailand? I know getting a work permit on a retirement visa is a no no. Would it make a difference if I sold my work to a US publisher, as opposed to a Thai publisher? For example, if I started receiving income from a US publisher, couldn't I just record the income on my US tax return along with my other income (investment income)? Or would I be screwed, and legally unable to earn any income on writing work done in Thailand on a retirement visa? If it makes a difference, the content of the material would most likely include subject matter related to Thailand. I also thought of self publishing from Thailand, but that would clearly be a business located in Thailand, so I assume that would be verboten on a retirement visa.

This sort of issue is also relevant to artists such as painters. I know some countries have exemptions for income derived from writing and art (Mexico), but I have never heard the Thai policy on this.

:blues:

Its only that there are ways to potentially make much better rates of return on 3 million baht than tie them up in investments that pay under 2 percent yield. For example, stock market, US GNMA bonds, etc. So I was saying that the price for approval of this kind of visa is the potential income you might make on the money you are tying up. With the retirement visa, you don't need to tie anything if you show a flow of 65K baht/month.

Obviously, a personal decision based on desires and financial goals/abilities.

Well. I found a good website for information about all kinds of Thai  bonds, including the kind that would satisfy the requirements of the 3 million baht investment scheme.

http://www.thaibdc.or.th/

The yields are really quite low. However, they do sound safe.

So, the option of depositing the money in an approved bank or buying these low yield bonds is basically a way to buy approval for the visa, and tying up a good bit of money to do so.

This all interests me because I am not yet 50 so I am not eligible for the retirement visa.

???

So, this is all very interesting.

Has anyone actually gone through the process of getting this kind of Visa (or know someone who has)? What are the costs/problems? I imagine there are lots of rules that need to be followed. Is there a way to smooth it along (consultants, lawyers)?

Also. I wonder about the different kinds of allowed investments.

For example, Thai government bonds. Are they safe?

What is shortest term they offer? Interest rates?

Is the principal safe if held to maturity?

I would guess just like bonds anywhere, if the interest rate market rises and you have to sell before maturity. you will lose a lot of money.

On the condos, it sounds like there are restrictions as to what condos you can buy. Does this mean you would be stuck buying at an above market price?

Another point. A previous post here mentions that this visa option is RARELY used. Granted, the amount of required capital is not trivial, so that might explain that. But what other reasons are there that it is not used very often?

Thanks.