gentlemanjackdarby

5 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

At age of 43 you cannot get a 'retirement' visa, you have to be at least 50 years old and meet the financial requirements.

Some posters suggested the Elite Visa option, but that's a very expensive method and only worth considering if money doesn't matter at all.

A worthwhile alternative to consider would be a applying for an METV (multiple entry Tourist Visa).  That would allow you to stay 6 months + 60 days + one additional 30 day extension in Thailand (almost 9 months).  However on an METV, you will have to do a visa run every 2 months.

When you live relatively close to a land border point or enjoy visiting neighbouring countries over land or by air, an METV would be a good solution.  But it does mean that you have to go back to your home country at least every 9 months (to apply for a new METV, which you can only get in your home country).  If you combine this with visiting family/friends, an METV is worth considering. 

The additional advantage being that you will not be harassed by Thai immigration for too many visa exempts. 

Well, I can't say that I agree that the Thailand Elite Easy Access visa is 'very expensive' since, at THB 500,000 (about USD 15,000), someone in the workforce or recently retired below 50 with enough money to 'retire' should be able to swing that without thinking twice.

After all, as a 5 year visa with the ability to stretch it to 6 years if timed correctly, that works out to about USD 2,500 per year or about USD 200 per month - the cost of a few good nights out per month and surely a lot less than a 9-month cycle of trips 'back home' to get a new METV, not to mention the cost and aggravation of visa runs.

As well, one must also consider the possibility that, at some point in the future, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, under which embassies and consulates fall, may decide to change the criteria and or put a stop to one getting continuous METVs.

9 hours ago, mokwit said:

I have a vague memory that the visa is for 10years and after that you have to renew, but that might not be the same as re apply with new conditions. If it is they are for all intents and purposes changing the deal on you.

So basically those who made Malaysia their second home have had the deal changed on them - those who made Malaysia their *ONLY* home and can't stump up 37k are presumably stuffed.

 

Key takeaway: In Asia reneging on agreements is not the issue it is in Anglo Saxon countries and this makes these countries unsuitable for retirement (other than by those who have a surplus that allows them not to have burned any bridges). Thailand not grandfathering those on 800k-> >400k is a key indicator of whether or not you should retire here other than temporarily (which is how they see it).

My solution will be to at some point move somewhere that offers security of residence. Thailand IMO now does not, and the non grandfathering is a watershed moment IMO.

 

Similarly overstays, viewing something they were very casual about, -basically the attitude was: if you want more time just pay for it on exit* to it now being a serious offence and seemingly applying that retrospectively. What else will they apply retrospectively? 

 

As for buying an Elite Visa in the expectation of being able to use it for 20 years of unbroken residency - current trends suggest that is unrealistic IMO. Flying in from overseas to stay at your Phuket villa for a few weeks, a few times a year will be possible IMO, but why pay Bt2m for that "privilege"?. That was the target market/usage envisaged and like Multiple entry Non O/B it was not envisaged people would turn it inside out and use it to stay year round/near indefinitely. That will be fixed for Elite IMO at some time in the future - possibly indirectly for new applicants e.g some qualifier of permanent non residence such as proof of employment and employer rehire letter as with METV.

 

* it was always an offence and being found to be on overstay other than "surrendering"  at border exit meant arrest and IDC detention even in the more laid back times of yore.

 

It's been a couple of years since I considered Malaysia, and as I recall, you're right that although the MM2H social pass is for 10 years, I believe it requires renewal after 5 years. From what I read, the renewal was not a big deal.

There is not nearly the amount written about MM2H as there is about Thailand retirement options, likely because it's a smoother application process and changes are relatively few-and-far-between and they only apply to new applicants, and I haven't really read anything bad about the program. Some folks mentioned that it seemed to take too long for initial approval and some others thought it took too long to get their fixed deposits back once they left the program, but beyond that, not much.

I'm not sure that I agree that those who were already IN MM2H got the deal changed on them - Malaysia, through it's MM2H program, has always made very clear, in writing, that changes apply only to new applications

Now for someone like me, whose retirement is a couple of years away and who did not apply to the MM2H program before the requirement for a fixed deposit went into effect, for sure the deal has changed for me.

I'm considering the Thailand Elite Easy Access 'flavor' - it's 'only' THB 500,000 and is 'only' valid for 5 years; In my view, I don't think Thailand is a good risk for THB 2 million and 20 years.

At this point in time, in my view the best retirement visa option in SE Asia is the Philippines SRRV (Special Resident Retiree Visa) since it's valid for as long as one chooses, doesn't cost much (the SRRV Courtesy is nearly free for military vets), the annual 'renewal' only involves the payment of a minimal fee with no re-proving of financial bona-fides, and it gives one resident status, which means it's likely I can get a Non Immigrant O-A in Manila rather than back in the U.S. for when I wish to visit Thailand with little hassle.

One other thing that I've noticed is that the PI has made several changes to the SRRV program to make it EASIER for folks to get it - that's not a trend I've seen anywhere else in SE Asia.

Since I'm planning to travel around SE Asia for a good while once I retire, the PI will make an acceptable 'home base' and, while Manila is down the list when it comes to travel hubs, flight options are getting better for Clark and Cebu, so in my book it's the best of the bunch right now.

2 minutes ago, mokwit said:

Is this  a new condition - if so was there any grandfathering?

I can't say for sure on that - unfortunately, the official MM2H website isn't updated frequently so, when I was considering retiring in Malaysia, I dug around and found a well-run agency with a great website that is updated frequently.

It's my perception that TV is strict on the posting of external links, so if you want the agency name and link, shoot me a PM.

The specific language used on the agent website is '...applications with income mainly from rentals & bank interests will not be acceptable.', the operative word here being 'applications'. That announcement was made in December 2018

So I don't think the source requirement will effect existing MM2H pass-holders since Malaysia, in the past, really seemed to want folks to take advantage of MM2H and wanted to make it easy for a foreigner to get through the application process, mainly by endorsing the use of agencies, of which the MM2H program published an official list of registered and approved agents.

And Malaysia, as well as every other retirement visa scheme of which I'm aware in SE Asia, doesn't do as Thailand does, i.e. annual re-qualification to stay; when those countries issue a social visit pass, SRRV, etc. it's good for a set period of time (MM2H) or a s long as one wants it (SRRV).

Now what happens for folks renewing in the future, we can only wait and see - Malaysia has reduced some of the benefits that were previously granted to MM2H pass-holders and they also made one very significant change a few years back, that being that folks who previously qualified based solely on a monthly income meeting the minimum program requirements now also have to make a fixed deposit of about USD 37,000

10 hours ago, Lovethailandelite said:

Yes I understand. IMO, and in the opinion of others that actually count, the next move will be too a Malaysian bond style system for those on retirement. Within 5 years has been muted around.

And when Thailand more closely follows Malaysia's model, not only will one need a larger fixed deposit that can't be touched at all, one will also need a substantial monthly income and, as Malaysia announced in December, at least 75% of the monthly income will need to come from a 'fixed' income stream, such as a pension or a salary, not from income subject to fluctuation, such as interest income, rental income, dividends, etc.

In other words, Malaysia cares about the source of the income (not just a series of minimum international transfers that **could** be recycled) and expects it to be stable

1 hour ago, Pib said:

You are correct that all US banks have been able to "receive" ACH IAT format since around the 2009-2013 format....the banks can receive into a retail or business bank account.  Receiving is no problem.  However, when it comes to "sending" in IAT format that is reserved for certain "cooperate/business" accounts since many businesses need to pay for foreign services/products.  ACH IAT is not used in sending from "retail" accounts like the typical Joe has....SWIFT/International Wire is used instead....once again, like you said.

 

And regarding SSA coding all foreign beneficiary payments in IAT format, that is not correct.  I have a family member who has had a Thailand address on file since day one not receiving the SS pension in IAT format.  The family member is one of the approx 20% of SS beneficiaries receiving their payment to Bangkok Bank not in IAT format.  All telephone calls, emails, and letters to Manila and Baltimore SS Office since Oct 18 to correct the family members payment to IAT format have had negative results....latest early Feb payment still not in IAT format per Bangkok Bank.  Late  last week an IDD for Thailand form was emailed to Manila which means the payment would switch to the SWIFT system....Manila acknowledged receipt last week's and said they will update the member payment bank/payment method.  Probably too late to affect the upcoming early March payment...hopefully by the early April payment.  Time will tell.

 

P.S.  Per a call and email from two different Manila SS Office reps last week they say SSA is working closely with Bangkok Bank to ensure no payments are rejected come 1 Apr 19.  And more research from discussions to the POC at HQ Bangkok Bank on this issue last wee, Bangkok Bank "New York" has submitted letter to US Treasure OCC asking the US Treasury extend the deadline from 1 Apr 19 since SSA still sends many payments to foreign beneficiaries in "non-IAT" format.    This non-IAT format issue is also a prime reason SSA finally approved IDD for Thailand to help resolve the issue...create another method to pay foreign beneficiaries which does not use ACH.

Yes, you highlight one of the difficulties of implementing U.S. IAT ACH standards worldwide

The efficiency and low cost of ACH stops at the U.S. border -  there's still a lot of work to be done to get all of the different worldwide payment systems gateways 'speaking one language' and, although the IAT ACH working group doesn't say it, it's my opinion that a lot of the banking systems within a particular country don't speak the same language as well, making the system more difficult to implement.

Why else would there be such a problem getting all Transferwise payments, no matter which partner bank TW uses, to show as an 'international transfer' in the final recipient's account? 

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

That's the bottom line. For now, and for the foreseeable future AFAWK, ordinary individual (non-business) U.S. bank, CU and brokerage customers are S.O.L. when it comes to having any ability to send IAT formatted transfers.

 

Pretty much across the board, it's either ACH for domestic transfers or SWIFT type international wires for foreign transfers with the banks, CUs, and brokerages.... Unless you start venturing into the private money transfer services like Transferwise, which have their own set of issues.

 

Yes, absolutely correct and I agree completely

However, and not meaning to be too pedantic about, but when folks say that 'it's up to the bank' to code an ACH transfer in accordance with IAT standards, it creates misunderstanding by those reading that post and worse, it misleads them into believing that that the problem lies with their bank and not, for example, with the payor of their pension.

That's important because if someone wants an IAT and they can't get it, they need to focus their efforts with their payor and not with their bank; I think it's likely that for folks who get a pension or other payment from larger payors may find that their payor can do it or is willing to work on implementing it.

After all, the payors are using the same ACH system as they're currently using for everything else - IAT simply requires that additional fields be filled in the ACH record for an IAT ACH to comply with 'new' requirements.

I can see banks being very unwilling to make the ability to send IAT ACH transfers available for their individual accounts; after all, it costs pennies to make ACH transfers and payments where, in the U.S. at least, SWIFT transfers cost around USD 40 - 50 or more, so it's a profit center for them.

However, as the 'bugs' get squashed in making the U.S. ACH system 'talk' and be completely 'understood' by other payment systems throughout the world, it's likely that a non-bank player will step up and offer a system that will be less expensive than U.S. banks' SWIFT transfers. After all, Paypal will allow its users to make international USD transfers for very low fees from the U.S. to certain countries - unfortunately, it likely won't satisfy Thailand Immigration extension requirements. 

On 2/24/2019 at 4:27 AM, Pib said:

If you are using "ACH" transfer from Chase Bank  to Bangkok Bank you will no longer be able to use that method beginning 1 Apr 19 unless Chase uses ACH "IAT" format---and it highly, highly doubtful they use IAT format.  Now if you are using SWIFT then that will continue to work.  

There seems to be a lot of confusion surrounding IAT (International ACH Transfers)

There is no question that Chase, as well as other banks, 'use' the IAT format for international payments - that standard has been required since 2009

What is being missed is that it's not 'the bank' that is responsible for correctly coding a particular transfer as an INTERNATIONAL ACH transfer - it is the originator (or payor, for example, U.S. Social Security or XYZ corporation)

There are a lot of U.S. businesses making payments to non-U.S. vendors for goods and services and not all of those are large enough or are of such urgency to require a wire (SWIFT) transfers - those payments are made through payment gateways in IAT format.

If the entity that originates (makes) a payment TO you is willing to code that payment in the IAT format, their bank, whoever that may be, will process the payment and you'll get your money. U.S. Social Security is coding their payments for those who have non-U.S. addresses in the IAT format, so all is good

In 2009, the U.S. Treasury required additional information on ACH payments whose final destination was outside the U.S. as well as additional information for payments originating outside the U.S. whose final destination was a U.S. account

If one has a BUSINESS account with a particular bank, one can make IAT payments all day long to one's heart's content since larger banks offer that as part of their treasury function

As of now, I haven't been able to find a bank that offers the service of making IAT payments for individual accounts

11 hours ago, gk10002000 said:

Thanks for that.  I do plan to roll over my last 401k to Charles Schwab, but I have not checked on what their rates or policies or fees are.  Chase I hate due to past dealings.  Fidelity I thought was giving people a hard time that were now living overseas or had addresses or phone numbers or IP addresses showing overseas?

When folks speak of Charles Schwab, they don't distinguish between 'Charles Schwab' (for folks that are U.S residents) and 'Charles Schwab International' (for folks that are residents outside the U.S.)

Charles Schwab doesn't offer international wire transfers

Charles Schwab International charges USD 25 and they (actually an intermediary bank) performs the foreign currency conversion; CSI doesn't have their forex rates online as does, for example, Transferwise. CSI simply gives mumbo-jumbo about 'favorable' rates; in my experience, entities that don't publish their rates generally give poor ones

13 hours ago, JackThompson said:

I am sad to think of the Thais whose jobs relied on the income you were spending - but given what immigration is doing to us, one can hardly blame you for bailing out.  At least some nice Filipinos have been hired with your income, in place of the Thais who were "de-employed" by Thai immigration's policies.

8 hours ago, HampiK said:

Actually I don't think so. with the big and always bigger amount of tourists the thais not even will know of a few expats leaving.

100 leaving and another 100'000 are coming… for them the statistics look perfect.

You're likely right, the Thais in tourist areas probably won't notice the departure of a few expats

But what about the Thais who depended on those who depart in areas that aren't tourist areas? They will most certainly miss those who go.

While I'm a firm believer in playing by the rules and having the appropriate visa or extension, it seems to me very short-sighted of the Thais to forego any foreign currency brought in to the country, especially if the folks bringing it in aren't costing 'the country' anything and those expats are living outside of tourist areas; at the end of the day, income is income, even if it's small and, from my point-of-view, any income brought into a non-tourist area would be more valuable precisely because it's a non-tourist area.

A rising tide lifts all boats, to steal a phrase.

While Thailand is certainly booming and there are likely a lot of Thais believing the great press about how good it is, at the end of the day Thailand really doesn't amount to a hill of beans, economically speaking, in the grand scheme of things, so it seems counter-productive to forego opportunities to maximize hard currency income.

It seems to me that it's better all around for the tourists to spend their money in the tourist areas doing tourist things and the expats to spend their money in expat areas doing expat things.

No one questions that tourism is booming, but Thailand can't (and doesn't) survive on tourism alone and one day the tourism bubble will burst. After all, all of the recent changes that are giving so many expats grief is nothing more than Thailand enforcing (and rightly so), for the most part, rules that have been on the books; the thing that the 'bosses' driving the changes are likely missing is that these changes, plus other 'uncomplimentary' things hitting the newspapers world-wide are tarnishing the appeal of Thailand to tourists and expats alike. 

Of course, as JackThompson pointed out, some Filipinos somewhere are likely very happy and even more thankful for their manna from heaven.

2 hours ago, bkk6060 said:

Elite is a joke money gone .

You financial experts need to take some remediation classes. 

I wouldn't go so far that it's a joke, but I will agree that it's money gone after 6 years

And it's my view that anyone having the financial ability to pay for an Elite Visa likely doesn't need a financial remediation class - they should probably be teaching it

TAT has positioned the Elite Visa as a premium product for people that can afford it, want a reasonable guarantee that they will have trouble-free access to Thailand for a set period of time, and won't have to worry about changes in other visa types.

Judging by the abundance of name-brand premium goods in Thailand malls and high- and higher-end cars on their streets, I'd say that Thais understand premium goods pretty well - they're not meant for everyone.

From my perspective, the Thailand Elite Visa's existence and market positioning is similar to that of an Apple iPhone -  a premium product offering the most trouble-free experience one can have with a cellphone with great customer support, but the 'goodies' come at a premium price.

While I prefer to spend my smartphone budget on a less expensive phone that works for me, I would never denigrate anyone else's preference for an iPhone (or a Thailand Elite Visa).    

On 2/3/2019 at 7:55 AM, sirineou said:

No one is Knocking anyone who has an Elite visa , what we are knocking is the assertion that  it is a serious alternative to the 800k in the bank for reasons we stated above.

Personally if I had 500k to waste because I did not want to spend a couple of hrs of my time to deal with the extension requirements, I would buy my daughter a new car, or help my sister pay her mortgage. etc,  

C'mon...using words and phrases like 'serious alternative to the 800k' and '500k to waste' isn't knocking?

I'm a 'live-and-let-live' and a 'your money, your way, no one else gets a say' kind of guy and I have no skin in the game (yet), but I find it so difficult and so aggravating when folks look at a given situation solely from a dollars and sense point of view.

What the Thailand Elite visa offers is guaranteed access (as much as anything other than death and taxes can be guaranteed in this world) to Thailand for five years (six if one times it right) without being subject to a change in financial criteria (65K , 800K, etc.) or administrative whim (one monthly transfer isn't coded correctly so no extension for you or because of the exchange rate on such-and-such day, your foreign currency deposit was 796,135, so no extension for you, or 'you spend too much time in Thailand', so you can't support yourself while here, go away, etc.) or the inconvenience of having to deal with Thai Immigration.

Some folks who aren't counting every dollar are happy to pay for an intangible asset (insurance) to ensure that they get what they want (unfettered access to Thailand when desired) with no hassles or uncertainty - God Bless 'Em, I say. 

I'll bet there will be more unfavorable changes to retirement and marriage extensions within the next 5 or 6 years and likely there will be a lot of folks on here moaning about how they can't get in to Thailand or now have to leave, just as there will be some folks with the Elite Visa who won't care 'cause they're here enjoying themselves.

5 hours ago, Thomas J said:

I am no expert on taxes but was a resident of Michigan a state that has a personal income tax.  They required that taxes be paid on income earned in the state.  So if potentially I was working in Tennessee for a portion of a year, only that portion of my annual compensation earned while working in Michigan was taxable.  In terms of dividend and interest income again only that percentage earned while I was domiciled in the state.  Even if I continued to have property in Michigan after moving to another state, it would not require me to file.  If I visited Michigan hypothetically in the summer, I was not a resident, I was a tourist.  I can not fathom a situation that having a permanent residence in another state, another state's drivers license, voter registration, car and home insurance and potentially paying the other state's taxes would not provide sufficient evidence.  Then again, we are talking about governments. 

You're right, when talking about governments, especially state governments and income taxes, things aren't always consistent and clear-cut.

You mention Michigan, Tennessee, and earned income - in my opinion, Michigan treated you fairly by taxing only income earned in Michigan - to use you're example with a slight change:

Substitute Ohio (right across the lake) for Michigan and the situation is much different - Ohio taxes it's residents on all income, no matter where earned, although they do give a credit against tax paid to another state.

Owning real property in a state does automatically generate an income tax liability; in some of the more 'difficult' states, in my view, it gives the 'difficult' state a bit of leverage in keeping it's claws into one's wallet and to some extent, I can see their point. Realistically speaking, if one were a bona-fide resident of another state, why would one keep a house in one's previous state? If one keeps it as a vacation home for use in the summer (I'm not one who'd think about vacationing in Michigan in the winter), does it sit empty the rest of the year or is the previous resident renting it out, which likely gives rise to taxable income?

Most states with which I'm familiar anticipate that a person can be a part-year resident and even go so far as to have incorporated that in their personal income tax forms - For example, many folks have made Florida their primary residence (driver's license, bought a home, registered to vote, etc.) but still have property and or business interests in New York, so New York tries to tax as much of their income as they can (reasonably?) attribute to New York, even though the folks may not have stepped foot in New York during the tax year.

5 hours ago, skatewash said:

I moved from Maryland to Florida for just this purpose before leaving for Thailand.  I did all the usual things, moved registration of my vehicle, driver's license, voter registration, library cards, banking, and filed final partial-year state income tax, etc.  The one extra step I took was to file a declaration of domicile at the county courthouse in Florida in case I ever got a request for continued state income tax filings from Maryland.  Nothing proves you don't live in a former state like proof that you do live in another state.  If I had left for Thailand from Maryland I believe it would have been much harder to prove that if necessary.  Never heard from Maryland again.  Still glad I did all that just for the peace of mind even if

all of it wasn't necessary.  

 

Some bonus considerations beyond the obvious state income tax one:  you essentially get to choose which state you would like to vote in (and continue to vote in after you leave the US) -- you have a chance to pick a perpetual battleground state like Florida rather than an essentially one-party state like Maryland.  Moving to a new state allows you to get a fresh US driver's license and I believe the one in Florida allows you to renew it completely online one time.  A good way of keeping your US driver's license alive longer.

You did all the right things and laid it out very well.

I would add a couple of things that can be done to make one's case even more airtight:

It's always a good idea, when one moves to a new state, to have a will, living will, and a durable power-of-attorney for healthcare and for financial affairs drawn up by an attorney in the new state - the new wills and power-of-attorneys make any of those from the old state(s) null-and-void and they bolster one's case that the new state is the state of one's residence and possibly (usually) legal domicile

Some states have a declaration form, usually filed with the state department of taxation, in which a taxpayer who has moved out of state essentially states that he is no longer a resident of the old state and no longer has a tax liability - it serves to put the old state 'on notice'.

And one other thing that a lot of folks overlook - 'legal domicile' and 'residence' are two very different things and folks get tripped up on that.

It's possible to have more than one residence, but one can have only one legal domicile

As far as individual state income taxes go, residence is the factor that makes the most difference most of the time and it's quite possible and somewhat common for some folks to owe income tax in more than one state because, from tax perspective, they maintain residences in each.

For those with an interest, I recommend reading 'The Money: The Battle for Howard Hughes Billions' by James R Phelen ISBN: 0-394-55637-2 (Not currently on Kindle) - it illustrates, just with bigger numbers than any of us mere mortals will ever see, just what happens when people don't understand the differences between legal domicile and residence and more importantly, don't keep them straight.

And yeah, Florida is great for drivers licenses - they're good for eight years and can be renewed once online, so after getting one the first time, one doesn't have to go back to the DMV for 16 years.

5 hours ago, AAArdvark said:

If your current domicile is in a state that has income tax, it is not easy to change domiciles.  I have dealt with this issue for many years.  The original state wants their taxes and they are god.  You have to prove to the original state that you actually live in the new state and doing simple things like getting an address and a driver's license doesn't cut it.  The most common way to prove your claim to a new domicile is showing that you paid the new income tax.  This then become a classic catch 22.  Some state, of course, are easier than others.

Some states with an individual income tax go to much greater lengths to hold on to their taxpayers than do others - California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois are the worst that spring to mind.

Paying income in another, or multiple, states by itself alone is not enough evidence to prove that one is a resident of that state -  it's quite common for folks who 'move' to another state to still have ties to their old, tax-hungry state - things like owning real property, having an interest in a business, spending more time in that state beyond what a normal tourist or one who has relatives, etc.

The best way to ensure that one becomes a bona-fide resident of a new, tax-friendly state and that it is not questioned by the old, tax-hungry state is to DO things, as you've pointed out - 'skatewash' laid it out very well in the post below yours (Post 89), but I'll add a couple of things that he didn't mention in my reply to his post.

And one other thing that a lot of folks overlook - 'legal domicile' and 'residence' are two very different things and folks get tripped up on that.

It's possible to have more than one residence, but one can have only one legal domicile

As far as individual state income taxes go, residence is the factor that makes the most difference most of the time and it's quite possible and somewhat common for some folks to owe income tax in more than one state because they maintain residences in each. 

1 hour ago, HuskerDo said:

So Pib, since Part A is cost free, is there any penalty for adding Part B and/or D later on in life? For instance, if a person was to live in Thailand until there were 75 or 80 and then return to the US, at that point can they add Part B and D for the current monthly premium or do they jack the cost up on you? Thanks! 

Yes, if one chooses Original Medicare and chooses not to enroll in Part B and Part D when eligible, there is a penalty for each part that is calculated based upon the period from initial eligibility until one enrolls.

That penalty for each part is added to the premium for that part and it remains for as long as one is enrolled in Medicare.

For more detailed information, I'd suggest visiting the Medicare website (it's very user-friendly) because there are a lot of details and situations that can't really be covered adequately in a forum post.

If instead of Original Medicare, one chooses Medicare Part C (Advantage Plan), which are plans administered by private health providers and which must, by law, provide the same level of coverage as Part A and Part B (and some plans provide Part D or one can choose a Part D plan from another provider) depending upon the state in which one lives, it's possible to get an Advantage Plan with no (or very low) monthly premium and a cap on the enrollee's share of expenses once deductibles and co-pays are met.

Roughly speaking, Advantage Plans are generally similar to the health plans most folks had when employed in the sense that they are much like PPO (Preferred Provider Organization) or HMO (Health Maintenance Organization) plans that most employers provide to their employees. In exchange for low or no monthly premium, the member agrees to share a portion of medical costs and to a (relatively) limited choice in providers, usually in a somewhat limited geographic area, which is well suited for folks like employees or retirees who usually don't move around much.

Original Medicare allows an enrollee to go to any health care provider offering services to Medicare enrollees anywhere - great for those travel or those who split the year in several areas.

One thing to keep in mind about Original Medicare is that there are no caps on the enrollee's share of medical expenses - Medicare does not pay the entire costs of medical services. That's why most folks who choose Original Medicare also choose a MediGap plan (not to be confused with Medicare Advantage) which, for a monthly premium, picks up the enrollee's share of medical costs.

10 hours ago, HuskerDo said:

I believe one is automatically enrolled for Part A upon applying for Social Security benefits, no?

No, Medicare is a separate program from Social Security Retirement, so you'll need to enroll in Medicare either during your initial eligibility period (if you're waiting until age 67 to begin taking Social Security retirement benefits), which is for most people 6 months before they turn 65 and up to 6 months after.

With Medicare, there are penalties for not signing up during either one's initial eligibility window (Age 65) or when eligibility starts because of things like still working and covered by an employer plan or waiting to collect SS retirement benefits

There are 'wrinkles' in the enrollment period for folks whose birthdays are near the end of the year.

As well, there are other options if one is still working and covered by an employer health plan.

Social Security Retirement Benefits (pension) eligibility begins at age 62 and, generally speaking, has benefits for NOT starting to receive payments when immediately eligible, i.e, the longer one waits to get benefit payments, the higher the benefit payments will be. But total LIFETIME benefits may be less the longer one waits, simply because none of us live forever and we, most of the time, don't know when we're going to go.

27 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Well I can assure you that you can do what is essentially an ACH and on top of it is within the Citibank system.   You can have a dual currency account.  Baht and USD.  You can deposit baht and covert a maximum of the equivalent of $20,000 in baht from baht to USD and do it several times per day at their buy rate.  You then transfer at the same time as the conversion from the baht account to the USD portion.  You then are allowed to transfer a maximum of $20,000 USD from the Citibank Thailand to any payee or combination of payees.  The cost per transfer is $150 baht.  In my case my transfer is to Citibank New York.  Despite being part of the same organization the transfer fee applies.  Additionally of course you are paying a "fee" when you convert because the buy baht is less than the full exchange rate.  I also have an account with Chase.  If you wire $5,000 USD or greater in a foreign currency, the wire is no charge.  That is a bit misleading because they exchange again at their exchange rate which I found was less than if the money was transferred here to Thailand as USD and converted by the Thailand bank. 

Thank you - very helpful

3 hours ago, Martyp said:

I wire transfer money from Bank of America to Kasikorn. The transfer fee is $35 and it shows up in my Kasikorn account as a domestic transfer. Someone explained to me that international transfers are handled by Bangkok Bank and then show up in Kasikorn as a domestic transfer. I think I also read that you can go to Kasikorn and they can produce a  record showing that it is an international transfer however they may only be able to go back 3-6 months. 

Likely the reason it shows up in a Kasikorn account as domestic transfer is because Bangkok Bank is the correspondent bank for BofA with no other intermediaries.

That is very helpful information because it tells others reading this thread that if one is using BofA, use a BB account.

As well, since there's likely no other bank between BofA and BB, it will be much easier to calculate the amount to transfer for those on the edge of THB 65K since, after taking the USD 35 fee into account, one's transfer should equal or exceed THB 65K, depending on the exchange rate

Thanks for posting that info

2 hours ago, Thomas J said:

We opened an account at Citibank Thailand however their transfer service is not Free.  It costs us $150 baht each transfer to Citibank New York and that is limited to $20k US each transfer. 

I'm not questioning your experience, but I checked the Citibank Thailand website to make sure I understand.

Parts of it are not working on my device and I'm getting a javascript error, but on the website, it says that Global Transfers are free; it's the destination countries and their limits I can't see, but I know that one can send to the U.S.

It may well be that the limit that Citibank USA allows from Thailand is USD 20,000 - Citibank does make it clear that Global Transfer limits may differ between sending and receiving countries, e.g, Citibank Thailand says that it's sending limit from Thailand is USD 45,000 but that may be limited by the receiving country. USD 20,000 sounds just like a limit the U.S. might place on that type of transfer.

Of course, it may just be that the Cititbank Thailand website needs to be updated.

I'm mostly concerned with transferring money to Thailand, but I have to say, the ability to transfer back to the U.S. up to USD 20,000 for THB 150 (about USD 5) looks awful good when considering wire transfer fees here in the U.S.

36 minutes ago, Pib said:

I've had the best luck in using Google Voice for bank security code/2FA.  However, it don't work for all banking I do with multiple banks.  Like when I signed up for a CapOne bank account, GV would not work to verify me as a new customer.  But after around 4 months of letting the GV number season in my profile it started working. 

 

And just today I got an email from Bank of America which I use to have a bank account but now just retain a credit card from them.  The email talked some changes they are making 15 Mar 19....like one of the changes is quoted below regarding their Zelle service.  Zelle is purely a US domestic transfer system...but pretty soon GV and other VOIP numbers will not work with it for enrollment.

 

 

Google is constantly working to make GV 'play nice' with other phone systems.

When I set up my BofA account 5 or 6 years ago, I just couldn't get the SMS TFA with GV; as far as I could track it down, it was because Google didn't have an e-mail-to-SMS gateway.

When I tried to get a TFA SMS from BofA about 6 months ago, it worked fine.

I'll have to look into the forthcoming Zelle changes; I use Zelle with one of my banks using a number from my preferred VOIP service, but it was verified last year and seems to be working fine as of now.

Thanks for mentioning the Zelle changes

34 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

T mobile its like $3 per month but limited to voice and SMS calls. 

Yes, T-Mobile is the least expensive way to have a (prepaid) cell number in the U.S.

I've been with them for years since they are the only truly world-wide cell provider in the U.S - from what I've seen, T-Mo offers service in even the most God-forsaken countries.

If one has post-paid service with them in the U.S., they also offer texting and unlimited data (at 2G, good until one gets a local SIM) outside the U.S. at no cost; however, it's not meant for extended use.

For purposes of SMS TFA, SMS service is usually all that is required, although if setting up a Google Voice account, one can opt for a voice call for verification if one chooses 

45 minutes ago, skatewash said:

Yes, the mail forwarding addresses aren't much of a secret and banks if they wish to find out can do so easily.  Up till now, they haven't been interested in doing the checking.  I hate to burden family and friends with receiving my mail but it may be moving in that direction, especially for opening new accounts.  

 

My concern about opening accounts from overseas is the problem of proving my residence in the US.  I've heard of companies wanting to see driver's license/state ID, utility bills in your name, having a US mobile for two-factor authentication SMS codes, etc.  Things that are difficult to produce for someone who hasn't lived in the US for years.  I guess I just have to give it a try and see what obstacles arise.

 

Thanks for the information about Andrews and Alliant FCUs.

I've been working on the problems you mention for quite awhile; some have been more trouble than others

When I mentioned using a family member or trusted friend's address for the physical address, I meant only for the physical address section on tax returns, brokerage account applications, etc. and using the forwarding service address for the mailing address section.

I've moved almost all of my old 'paper by mail life' to online at this point, so I really don't get much important paper mail anymore and what I do get, I'm sure if I used a mail forwarding service, most of that would go there rather than come by mail to my house.

At one point, I was considering changing my legal domicile and state of residence to Tennesee since there's no income tax and my brother lives there

In order to get a driver's license there, it was necessary to prove residence and one of the easiest thing that proves residence is an apartment lease. Well, I didn't want to rent an apartment, so it turns out that I could use a statement from my brother attesting that I lived with him. A bit out of the box, but that's how it's necessary to think nowadays.

As for two-factor authentication (TFA) SMS by phone, that is easily solved by using Google Voice as a first choice or one of the VOIP providers (I use CallCentric as a backup to Google Voice); just don't rely on Skype because Skype can't receive SMS messages unless it's a reply to one sent from Skype - that leaves out TFA SMS.

With the heavy-hitter banks and brokerages one SHOULD be using, they know very well the limits of SMS and e-mail TFA and have much more secure methods which are great for folks living outside the U.S.

Charles Schwab and BofA give their customers a fob and a card respectively that generates the TFA code on the device; Fidelity uses Symantec VIP Access, an app that runs on a smartphone that generates the codes. Not much need for a U.S. cell number if using these institutions.

Most other companies that still use SMS will work just fine with a Google Voice number - the only one that gave me fits was BofA and it took me months to figure out why it wouldn't work. The only reason I put forth the effort was to have a backup method in case I lost the SafePass card.

Companies like Paypal and Fakebook work fine with GV and I can't think of one off-hand that doesn't work with GV.

If one absolutely wants a U.S. cell number for dealing with TFA SMS and verification calls, it's not that expensive but a bit more trouble to do that.

10 hours ago, skatewash said:

Schwab is excellent for its checking account with a debit/ATM card with fully reimbursable fees.  Fidelity has free international wires.

 

It's good news to me to hear that you were able to open accounts online from overseas.  I would like to do that with Schwab for their checking account.  I tried to anticipate my financial needs before moving outside of the US but I missed opening a Schwab account.

 

I do have a commercial mail receiving agency with mail scanning and forwarding service (TravelingMailbox) just because I've found you do need to have an address to receive the occasional letter from financial institutions (despite opting for paperless).  I certainly don't want them to have my Thai address as I don't want to lose the account or have it restricted in any way.  I used to think that they were simply required to send certain legal notices (account changes, etc.) by mail, but I don't know that for a fact.  Maybe it is more nefarious than that ???? 

 

Funny story:  I own shares of Proctor & Gamble which as I'm sure some are aware had the largest proxy fight in history last year.  I had both sides mailing me several proxies and phonebook-sized bound documents despite the fact that I voted almost immediately online.  Filled up my online mailbox and thankfully I only had envelope scanning turned on, not content scanning (although they do not scan bound material).  I had a funny one-page letter from a law firm that got scanned and what it was about was a complete mystery as it just kept referring obliquely to the huge bound document.  I finally had to online chat with TravelingMailbox and ask customer service to just read me out the name of the bound document (which couldn't be scanned) so I would know what in the world it was about.  Turned out it was about the proxy fight, but the cover letter gave absolutely no clue about that.  Worst cover letter ever. ???? 

 

I have a commercial bank and a very small credit union and know from experience not to ask the credit union to do anything (it's a small-time operation).  If I need something I'll have Citibank do it.  Can't stand them, but sometimes you need that sort of bank.  I thought about joining the State Department Federal Credit Union because they have customers worldwide, but I never followed through on it.

I probably could have worded my reply a bit more clearly;

I was in the U.S., not overseas, when I opened my accounts, Charles Schwab and Fidelity about 3 - 4 years ago, and the TD Ameritrade was an old Scottrade account that I opened years ago.

When I said I thought it wouldn't be a problem opening one from overseas, I meant that most brokerages and banks are set up to do everything online except for signature cards (wouldn't surprise me if they've implemented some sort of scan/picture procedure by now) and receiving the debit card.

When I set up my brokerage accounts, I did it online and the procedure went so quickly and easily, I don't remember much about it, other than it was no problem.

I've also set up bank accounts at Bank of America and Citibank online (those banks have no branches in my neck of the woods) and those as well were no muss, no fuss - sign and mail the signature cards and wait for the debit card.

One thing to keep in mind about mail forwarding services is that nowadays, banks, brokerages, and anyone who cares can find out quickly and easily that it's a mail forwarding service even though they give one a physical address for receiving mail and packages

I think the best thing to do to ensure that one's access to U.S. accounts isn't interrupted is to use a family member or trusted friend's address for the physical address and the mail forwarding service address for the mailing address - should keep everyone happy: banks have a physical address and one gets one's mail scanned or delivered if necessary.

If I had to choose one bank for living overseas, it would be Citibank simply because of their free Global Transfer Service. It can be used in Thailand, but Citibank Thailand has a THB 1,000,000 (about USD 31,000) minimum for opening an account.

I've also been looking at State Department FCU and also haven't followed through; Andrews FCU is also worth looking at. The great thing about those two is that because of their clientele, they're very flexible when working with folks that travel or live outside the U.S.

Alliant FCU is also worth looking at; they reimburse up to USD 20 per month of ATM fees but they don't reimburse the VISA network ISA fee (can't really blame them for that). I have an account there which was also opened online and I've had to talk to them a couple of times and they've been very pleasant.

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Malaysia has had a higher financial level for a long time. 

You distort the Philippines program. They have numerous choices. Generally the ones that require an initial deposit allow the deposit to be free for certain kinds of spending.

Other Asean nations have "easy" temporary living possibilities without a formal retirement visa program.

I think the mistake people are making is looking so PROVINCIALLY.

If you really want to understand how even the current Thai system is not so great and the evolved one is becoming truly horrible, you need to look at the programs in the part of the world that has the most retirement visa programs.

I have and I can tell you this --

Most have much lower financial requirements than Thailand, before and after

Generally there is no annual application, typically it's one time and you're in for life (with exceptions but again generally annual applications NO!

Importing claimed income? Generally NOT.

Extra financial benefits? Some actually have those without buying a so called Elite card.

Obviously if you need to live in Thailand and you're not interested in any other nation, then you'll put up with anything, as long as you can, until the day comes when the next onerous rule change is too much for you, and maybe that happens when you're 80 or 90.

Is living in Thailand (on such a short tenuous leash) really worth it?

Obviously a personal decision, but mark my words, a noticeable exodus is coming soon. 

Cheers!

I agree with most of your points but:

I don't think I distorted the Philippines programs; I chose one program that I thought most resembled Thailand's program from a financial perspective.

I didn't see much point in mentioning the SRRV Courtesy since most folks won't meet the requirement of being an allied country military veteran, diplomat, etc,

I also didn't mention the SRRV Human Touch (Medical) because most folks would likely not even try to lie their way into that one and those foolish enough to try would likely be weeded out.

I'll admit, I was a bit sloppy and maybe I should have distinguished between and given more detail for the SRRV Classic and the Smile but, hey, I didn't want to bore everyone with too much detail.

While I certainly agree that other ASEAN nations currently have easy temporary living arrangements, it's my opinion that likely won't last long, especially if there's a mass-exodus from Thailand, or it gets out of control.

No doubt, other countries in the region pay attention to, rightly or wrongly, to the less flattering aspects of expat behavior in Thailand and will likely be quick on the trigger to make sure it doesn't happen in their country.

As I see, there's no doubt that some countries in Latin and South America have much less expensive and less burdensome retirement visa schemes, but at the end of the day, that part of the world is very different from SE Asia and just may not 'do it' for some people.