ronnie50

Yes, but is it a ruse? Are they doing this to 'hold the American companies' feet to the fire'? In other words, could they still end up buying F-something fighters, or is this a final, final deal in the face of big US tariffs? If the latter, good for them. Don't cave to Trump.

Are there any instances, in your opinion, of any crime, where the victim(s) should be able to claim against this publicly funded scheme?

Only if they can do it on Facebook...

I've tried to read most of this thread. It's Bangkok Bank - yet again. So glad I don't deal with them. But I'm unclear on this issue of converting a 'tourist visa' to a retirement extension. I thought it wasn't possible to convert a tourist visa (or exemption stamp on arrival) directly to a retirement extension. I was advised to first convert my arrival stamp (visa exemption) to an O Visa and then after that converting the O Visa into a retirement extension. Did you go A to C without step B (w/o getting an O Visa for purpose of eventual retirement extension)? Also, when you were preparing for your extension request at Immigration, did you ask the bank for the two letters (one confirming you are the owner of the account, and the other from the manager stating how long the money was there? If so, the bank should already have all this on record. Can you fax them the bio page and extension plus latest arrival stamp? Again Bangkok Bank really s@cks. The KK branch should be able to fax for you (or send by internal email).

By my calculation - using a liberal daily wage on 400 THB, working six days a week - the average Thai worker would be doing well to hit 125,000 THB per year - maybe in a leap year. Univesity educated middle managers in local Thai companies earn only 30-35k per month - their subordinates if educated or skilled maybe 25-30k per month (that's 1,000 THB per day). Even the foreign embassies when hiring local staff don't pay much more than that unless it's a very senior local hire position (and they are expected to be near-fluent in English - scandalous really).

Maybe or maybe not. It says 'every Thai citizen' - which presumably means based on their 13 digit national ID as filing/tracking. In any case, if you're a foreigner and earning money in Thailand from a Thai source you should already be paying tax on it.

Apparently they (Thai) had already arranged to take mainstream media to the border areas this month to show them the damage they say was caused by Cambodia heavy weapons. So they invited this guy to join that later this month. Then they found out he's a faker and canceled the invitation to him.

Weird story. So he's a spin guy - not an accredited journalist (for any publication? not just White House? Many of the above posts are too harsh. The government invited him then, during due diligence, realized he's a faker, and rescinded the offer to come to Thailand. The Bangkok Post report says it that way - nothing about being turned away at the border or airports. Yes, they should have checked him out first though. So who IS he working for? Is he and his new PR company being subcontracted by some big shady spin firm working for Cambodia (e.g. Hill and Knowlton, or the like)?

Way too much room for bias in the polling. An only 1,300 nationwide. Why bias/room for major misinterpretation? First off, it doesn't say who sponsored the NIDA poll. It's unlikely to be the elected government, now is it. So who gains by such a poll when it's already obvious the ruling coalition is very weak. So who sponsored it?? Second, the questions about whether they'd vote for the same party again or same politician would need to be narrowed down to each city/province to see the disparities. Pretty positive it wouldn't be 50% across the board in each place, nationwide. So it depends who, where and how many in each place and what their answers were. So you need to see the disagregate - not the sum of all parts. Finally, as in the first point, such a headline is designed to help the establishment meet its goal - get rid of the (quasi) democratically elected government and install an authoritarian regime that the establishment likes and can profit through. Wash, rinse, repeat. Nothing ever changes here, and people just swallow it up unquestioningly.

Didn't know they had gone. But not surprised. Suburu Forester never seemed to compete well in Thailand with sport versions of Honda CRV or Mazda CX 5. Not sure why. At one point, some years back, it was very expensive, now less so, or so it seems. Was that earlier price shock an initial excise punishment for leaving?

Doubt it. It would compete with Makro. Same reason a Walmart never opened here. Remember, you can't open a major international retail outlet here without a major Thai partner, like CP for food related or CPN (Central Pattana) for high end retail (or for low end like Costco/Walmart). There's also the Mall Group (owners of MQuartier etc.) - that's about it - and they tend to own or have a major hand in almost everything. The rest are smaller players and wouldn't be able to effect the necessary supply chains of some big multinational player or meet its other requirements. My sense is more international businesses are leaving than arriving here (Tesco, Carrefour, Esso - maybe M&S?) - those that stay are facing difficulties with their local 'partners' (e.g. Nestle), unless they are partnered with the above mentioned mega-groups - and the 'ask' from those groups seems to be increasingly driving away the big international firms. Even many of the international airlines have given up on Thailand despite recent safety improvements at airports (they'd need local regulatory approval and probably code-sharing rights, and they can't be bothered - the ask too great, the ROI too little).

As we agreed last time this same story was posted, the author or AI or whatever has mixed the various long-term visas into one sentence that leaves an inacurate impression about the five year WP LTR.

I don't think they closed 1,000 shops, just like I don't believe they killed 3,000 Cambodian soldiers. In fact, I don't believe much of anything those in authority say here.

If that Thai global taxation threat becomes reality, you'll need to be sure you aren't here more than 180 days in a calendar year. Don't rely on the Thai-UK dual taxation agreement. More than 180 days and Thailand would consider your 'their' property when it comes to globally taxing your income. If your UK OAP is automatically taxed in the UK, regardless of your residency, you can argue tax is already paid and refer to the dual taxation treaty, but it is going to be a super mess for many of us living here 'if' it happens.

That's why I don't want to take my car to a dealership for service. I don't think they'll cheat me, it's their Service/Parts Department business model I don't like. They are in the business of selling brand new parts - like a full power mirror assembly - as just an example - rather than taking the mirror assembly apart, and replacing the worn out bit inside (which they could order if they wanted to). But instead of paying 500 baht for the smaller part + labor (which isn't much here), they'll charge you 5,500 baht for the new mirror assembly plus the labor. A mom/pop auto repair shop would just 'fix' your problem, rather than try to sell you expensive brand new packaged-assemblies like the dealer.

I agree with you that the average Thai, one who has some connection to a foreigner living here is - perhaps subconsciously - financially grateful we (middle class, not riff raff) are here for long stay. As employers, as customers, as renters. But regarding the highlighted parts, there is an historic suspiciousness about Westerners on the part of the Thai-Chinese merchant class who run much, if not the vast majority, of the economy - from owners of mom/pop shops, gas stations, convenience and hardware stores on up to the ultra-rich families who own all the medium-to-upscale hotels, offices, land, restaurants, financial services, etc. I don't mean this in a racial way - I have nothing against Chinese ethnicity, my own spouse is part Chinese Thai - it's just a fact. So, by extension, the people that make up the rules (about our presence here - that you refer to) are usually somehow related to that multi-generational ethnic group and, in any case, they are also within that mindset. We are seen as potential competition to their families if we try to start a business, so we are to be watched closely - and kept on a tight leash - particularly as foreign retirees on 1 year extensions - just loose enough to allow us spend at least 2 or 3 times as much as local Thais from foreign money brought in from abroad, but not in a position to legally run a small business that could one day expand into competition - ask the American guy who tried and failed decades ago, so then managed to get a Thai passport (no more need for any local partnerships) and is now one of the 'Thai' oligarchs. On the bright side, if you lived here long enough, you'd know that it is slowly changing for the better, despite all the uncertainty and keystone cop nature of declarations. In the past, 25 years ago, foreigners legally married to Thai women meant their spouse could not own land in their name - not at all. Now they can, in their married name, but the foreigner has no claim to it. If she dies, the foreigner can continue to live in it, but must sell within a certain time limit (I think 1 year) - not sure who gets the proceeds. After the financial crash of the late 90's, the Thai government allowed foreigners to buy condos (up to 49% of the building's habitable floor space), a rule that is still in place today (and really needs to be given the over-build of condos.)

The oligarchs that run most of the retail restaurant trade under various brand names are facing increased competiton from smaller up-and-coming chains. Their proxy is speaking out on the establishment's behalf. The big restaurant chains aren't cutting prices are they. So they're losing business to these smaller eateries that are price-cutting and offering promos. If you walk into any shopping center or even smaller places anchored by supermarket chains, most of the restaurants are owned by all the same suspects nationwide.

I seem to recall that the political party and its politicians that pushed hardest for legalization were an unlikely bunch of conservatives. So they had to be fronting for some very rich and powerful people. Therefore, I'm guessing this roll-back of the law and the crack down on some - but not all - weed shops is part of the internal war going on between Thaksin's party and his adversaries who probably own many of these shops en mass. Wasn't Anutin one of those pushing for legaliation? Hmm, wasn't he also health minister for a time? (or was that the heroin smuggler? It's so easy to mix them all up)

I guess no reason one couldn't have more than one country's retirement visa? I was hoping Vietnam would simplify theirs so I could double up on the Thai retirement extension. For Cambodia, do you need to prove you have a residence there (rent or own) to get the retirement visa?

I read somewhere today that they (AC flight attendants) were being offered a 25% increase in first year, and 38% total over 4 years. Their union said they are not being paid for the prep time and waiting at airports for their flights. I wonder though if other airlines pay that, then okay they deserve it. Do other airlines pay for that? ... Also AC pilots, while paid well by Canadian standards (apparently) make much less than their U.S. counterparts (but they are not part of this strike). So a bit of apples and oranges maybe, just in general for the airline sector, and can't be compared country to country. U.S. professional salaries in most sectors are typically more than those in Canada.

A good summary of the meeting by BBC, and the main takeaways with quotes from both leaders. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gj9er0x0zo

Good point. Forgot about that. (I assume just them. Do we know for sure?)

IIRC, in Trump and Putin's last meeting, didn't they close the door and kick everyone out for a brief period (except translators) so they could have a 'private' conversation?

What they don't report is who owned the shops. Are we supposed to believe they are all young entrepreneurs with only one or two shops each? Or, as might be the case, a few big money owners that were friends with the party that pushed for legalization? Could be both I guess, but things always happen for a reason here.. not just out of enforcing the laws. And not because a handful of people complained about the shops. There's one a stones' throw from my place. It's still open.

Think this is a compilation of an older story - one that also had the mistake of saying the LTR WP had a requirement of two year's proof of $80k+. I believe the requirement is one year (12 consecutive months), not 'two years.'