newnative

Another dumb law that needs to be abolished.

Yes, definitely, and he should keep raking them over the coals as loudly and as often as possible. But, regardless of the shares, they would have found something else to use to oppose him--such as he makes me look like an old, ugly toad when I have to stand next to him so, of course, I must vote against him! Or, gone solely with the Article 112 issue alone as their excuse.

Lie # 3,495,742, 188 for those who like to keep track of such things.

Who the f cares what Bhumjaithai wants.

Yes, I am going to say it hasn't changed because it is still 800,000, not 1MB or 2MB or any other new amount. Same with the 65,000 baht income requirement, no change. So, Thailand is still looking for regular retirees, not just rich ones. I hadn't noticed the 400,000 baht left in the bank business as I always just keep things simple and leave the 800.000 in all the time. Future hypotheticals, landlord issues, etc., have nothing to do with your initial statement that I responded to.

Me.

Nonsense. The requirements are the same as when I came here in 2010. The only difference is the health insurance requirement for a certain visa--either O or O/A, I can never remember which. Easy solution, get the one that doesn't require insurance.

Actually, the average USA retirement income in 2022 was $75,254. That's the figure that is likely to be more misleading regarding wealthy Americans bumping the average up. The median was, as I said, $47,620. If $1550 a month was the income of some Americans you knew, they were likely just getting USA social security. I've said it before, if you have a very low income, you're likely better off here than in most home countries. How, pray tell, would those Americans you've known live on just $1550 in the US? I can answer, very badly. If they can manage to scrape up the 800,000 requirement, they can live here. $1550 a month equals about 54,000 baht. 10,000 baht rent for a roof over your head, rather than a refrigerator box under a highway overpass in the US, leaves 44,000 baht to live on, about 1,400 baht a day. 400 baht for meals still leaves 1,000 baht. Of course, they are not living like kings, but neither are they homeless or just scraping by, as they likely would be in the US.

I don't think 90,000 baht a month would be 'beyond the financial reach of most retirees.' Some, yes, but not most. That works out to a yearly cost of around $31,000 American dollars. My job was low-paying but with my pension and SS I easily make more than that a year. The median 2022 retirement income for American retirees was $47,620, so most could also easily afford $31,000, as well. Where I, and other USA 'median income retirees', would run into difficulty, would be paying for a decent retirement home in the US. My mother was in one and the last year she was alive, 2019, it cost $70,000 a year; it would be more now, nearly 4 years later. If I ever need to go into a retirement home, I'm better off being here than in the US.

Sweet. And, now on to Georgia and let's win there.

I would say, by western standards, my life was neither hard nor easy; rather, somewhere in the middle. Never made a big salary--state job--but good benefits, good pension, and I could retire at age 53 after 30 years. Worked part-time another 5 years to supplement my retirement. When my partner and I are driving around in our comfortable, air-conditioned car and we see an old, bent, weathered Thai pushing a heavy cart on the road trying to sell enough of something to eat that day, we look at each other and say, stop all the whining about this or that, we are so very, very lucky.

Another prime candidate for the no-fly list. Airline captain showed a lot of sense in denying him boarding. Let him walk back to China.

Good. Now he can go live in the south of France like he wants to. Buh bye bye.

Absolutely agree. They have a 3 BILLION baht budget and they want a huge 1.5 BILLION baht raise for next year! Shameless! Very vague on what they will use all that extra money for--except 'personnel costs', mentioned prominently. Meaning everyone's likely to get enormous raises--or more children and cousins and nieces and nephews and aunts and uncles are coming aboard the gravy train--or both that and raises. Love to see how the 3 billion--and the extra 1.5 billion--is spent.

And, that very nicely and succinctly explains the 'dearth'.

I figured at that relatively high price point, in 2008, we're talking a large condo. I know you don't want to sell but if you did, it would probably be a fairly easy sell--simply supply and demand. There aren't that many large condos in supply, and even fewer being built, to fill a healthy demand. Not that many 2 bedrooms, even fewer 2 bedrooms with study. I think you have a free condo at this point, or close to it. I mentioned in an earlier post that had I stayed with the original condo I paid 2.6MB for in 2011, I would have more than paid for it with the rent I saved in that time period--over 2.8MB. I figured the rent conservatively at 20,000 baht a month--I paid 25,000 baht a month for the same type of seaview unit when I first arrived, before I bought. From your description, and a value well over twice that of my condo, you likely would have paid around 40,000 baht a month to rent something that large. Figure thirteen and a half years of rent equals 6,480,000 baht. If maintenance fees have averaged around 37,000 baht a year over the 13.5 years, then you are right at 6MB in savings in rent. So, free condo, or coming close to it, depending on what the average rent was for the time period. Whatever the current value is, it's all gravy. Someone will soon be along to point out that if you had rented, and invested that 6MB back in 2008 in "X", you would have made far more money. Maybe, provided you actually did invest the 6MB in "X" instead of frittering it away, and "X" actually did increase in value. They are also making two assumptions. 1: You prefer the homeless life and sleeping in the open air. However, if you're one of those crazies who does want a roof over your head, you either pay yourself or a landlord. I prefer to pay myself, and, apparently, so do you. Assumption 2: You can't walk and chew gum at the same time. The assumption seems to be that you always do one or the other--either buy a property or invest. No reason you can't do both at the same time. At 40,000 baht a month in rent, you would save 480,000 baht a year by owning, instead. Minus the yearly maintenance fee, say 40,000 baht, you would have 440,000 baht to invest in "X" each year. In an earlier post, I said that owning in Thailand makes the most sense, to me, on a long-term basis, and as a place of residence. I think yours is a great example of just that. For those not wanting to be tied down, or here short-term, then renting has advantages, with lots of good deals, especially compared to what they would be paying in their home countries.

Who would buy a '6Mill condo'? My partner and I would, and have, five times. We certainly aren't the only ones--just look at all the successful condo projects that have been built in Pattaya in the last 10 years or so, and have found buyers at that price point, and much higher. For a number of new condo projects, 6MB would be on the low end with the project pricing. Surely you've noticed the large billboard as you approach Pattaya on the Motorway, for Arom 2 bedroom condos--16MB for Arom Wong Amat and 12MB for Arom Jomtien. I think you missed all the points of Pattaya57's excellent post, by the way.

Unbelievable. Every time I think this will be the last time I type 'you can't make this up', along comes another story far more ridiculous and absurd than any fictional story.

You'll never get an answer from these folks. Instead, you'll get deflection, you'll get pointless questions asked over and over, and you'll get absolutely useless tripe trotted out like 'drain the swamp'. The only thing 'drained' under Trump was the US Treasury, with his massive deficits coupled with massive tax cuts for the rich.

No good deed . . . Disgusting, the abbot should have been expelled.

And, one too many.

I agree about getting some payback from PT for the votes. I don't know what happens to MF members if MF is abolished.

That's an excellent outcome right there--the Senators' votes being superfluous. If PT has any smarts and wants to redeem itself, as soon as it gets into power it should invite MF back into the coalition--which is why MF should vote for the PT candidate for PM. If any coalition parties want to leave at that point if MF rejoins, fine--the ones that leave likely would be the ones not wanted, anyway. PT and MF need to be working together, as was initially planned after the election. Sort of a roundabout way of getting back to Plan A.

Just what I said MF should do a week or so ago. Proclaim loudly and publicly that MF, the party that is in favor of modifying Article 112, the party that is in favor of far-reaching reform, including of the military, will stand with PT and vote for the PT candidate as PM. Now, what are the junta parties and the Senators going to do? Be seen as also standing along side MF, and be seen as agreeing with MF, if they, too, vote for the PT candidate; or, be seen as once again voting against the will of the voters, voting against democracy, and voting to once again delay the forming of a government. Win-win either way for MF.

Had a big, hearty laugh over their first reason for the tourist shortfall--TAT hadn't gotten its money yet. Right, guys. Nice try. I will buy political uncertainty having some effect--in 2014, the year of the coup, international tourism dropped a bit, but I don't think by anywhere near 2 million.