Thomas J

45 minutes ago, Dante99 said:

Are you familiar with how having a non-resident alien spouse effects the complexity of a Revocable Trust?  I do not think any competent estate planning attorney is up to speed on the issues, few are familiar with it.  It is not the straightforward situation where the spouse is also a US citizen.  US citizenship is not automatic and often not obtained.

It should not have any effect at all other than the non-resident alien would have to pay the income taxes on the trust.  The Trustee would direct payments to whatever country the alien spouse is domiciled in.   I get my pension from the USA but it is then forwarded to Thailand.  Any financial institution such as a bank, major brokerage company, or investment company would transfer money to whatever bank the alien spouse uses. 

On 1/24/2021 at 6:27 PM, mikey88 said:

Hello...

Anyone who has any experience in this area I’d be grateful to hear from them.

I like my Thai partner to start up some sort of managed fund investment to save for their retirement.

I’d be helping with contributions of course.

Mikey88

I was an executive at one of the largest banks in the USA and headed the retirement plan area for the State of Michigan for the bank.  I ran what was called institutional trust.  It managed funds and plans for companies, governmental units, school systems, foundations, and endowments. 

Here would be my recommendation.  First off, it is virtually impossible over long periods of time to beat the stock market average of the S&P 500 or any of the larger total stock market indexes.  Consider that you can invest in lets say the Vanguard or Fidelity Index fund and pay only a couple of basis points in fees.  While actively managed funds charge you upwards of 1% to 2% of the amount invested.  If it is only 1% in 20 years you have to earn 20% more in the managed fund that the index fund just to pay the fee. 

With that said, if your thai partner is not able to manage money following your death, I would suggest you establish a Trust on her behalf.  Any assets you have now can be transferred to the Trust name upon your death.  You appoint a Trustee, typically a bank but it can be a private person, or company to oversee the monies in the account.  You can specify how you would like the money managed.  You can also establish rules for the distribution of the money.  A typical provision is that the trustee has the discretion to provide funds "to maintain the same standard of living for the surviving spouse"  As an example if she needed a car, the Trustee may agree to dispense money to buy a Toyota Camry but not a Porshe.  In effect the Trustee is making financial decisions just as you would if you were still alive. 

You can set up virtually any rules.  You can establish that she receives all the income as it is received, or she receives a fixed dollar amount, or percentage of the account each year.  You can provide safeguards if she remarries or cohabitates that the money set aside for her is not stolen by the new boyfriend.  

What you want is called a Revocable Trust.  Any competent estate planning attorney has the majority of the framework and provisions on their word processor.  You can then discuss protections, investments, and distributions with him/her and they can tailor it just for you. 

Again, the normal rule use to be to invest in the stock market for growth and the bond market for income.  The age old rule was to take 100 and subtract your age.  If you were 20 then 80% would be in stocks and 20% in bonds.  If you were 60 then 40% in stock and 60% in bonds.  Today, that is more problematic given that bonds pay next to nothing.  I would suggest if you are lets say 60 having 60% in an index fund and 40% in a fund comprised of "Aristocrat" stocks.  Aristocrats are stocks that have paid dividends and increased them for the past 25 consecutive years.  Those dividends will be more than bond interest currently plus they increase over time. 

Finally, a huge advantage of a trust is that if you have money in a fund that she can access, her friends and relatives might pester her for money.  With a trust, she can get money as she needs for specific purposes but not to give to friends and relatives.  Also, if you have children together the trust can provide for them following her death.  If you have children from a prior relationship and none with her you can have whatever remains in the trust following her death go to them. 

 

7 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Do you have a significant percentage of owners that are concerned AND willing to try to do something about it or not. 

 

Clearly if half the people now are not paying yet enjoy the same services everyone else does this will likely go nowhere. 

You are correct.  A sizeable percentage of the homes are not owner occupied.  Some are foreclosed properties by the banks, others people who live outside of Thailand.  Getting 51% of them to attend a meeting is likely a tall task if not impossible.  I talked to the land office and the person "intimated" that an exception could be made if there was an impossibility of getting the required 51%.   I personally would not have a problem with there not being a legal entity though I would favor it since it would cause 100% to pay.  My biggest issue is money running through a personal account and no reporting. 

50 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Again, join the group that is not paying and make it clear why you are not paying.

There was a gathering of people who knew we were not paying but did not know why.  They were unaware of the fact there was no legal entity.  Though some expressed concern over not receiving financial accountings others were not.  One man went so far as to say, I know she steals but not worth my time.   One way or another, everyone is at the very least paying to high a community dues because without an entity those people not paying (including us) can not be forced to pay.  My bigger issue legal entity or not is to have a separate bank account where all monies for dues are received and all bills paid from.  No more cash, no more mixture of personal bank account with community monies. 

42 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Do you have a group of unhappy residents or is it just you?

There is a group who is not paying.  The issue is that there is a larger group not paying and without a legal entity there is no way of forcing them to pay.  So everyone paying is paying a larger fee to compensate for those not paying.  The second issue and the bigger one is that everything is being paid for "in cash" or through this person's personal bank account.  No accounting of income or expense.  Tried to "guestimate" what income is coming in and "guestimate" the monthly expenses.  If only a portion of the homes are paying, there still should be more money coming in than going out.  Example, about 1.5 years ago, was assessed extra 5,000 baht to pay for automatic security gate and eliminate 10,000 per month expense for night security guard.  Paid the extra 5,000 thb but monthly dues don't go down.  Where is the extra 10,000 baht going? 

9 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So you are not starting from scratch. There is an entity, yes?

No, the land office shows the last entity to be formed was in 2012.  The person taking over the responsibilities as "chairman" never filed with the land office.  She has been "acting" as the person in charge of the common area collecting monies, paying for security guard, landscaping etc.  However, she closed the bank account belonging to the association.  From that point on, she has been collecting the money, mostly in cash, with a few payments going directly to her personal bank account.  Expenses have never been detailed.  No income and expense statement, no balance sheet.  Some expenses paid in cash, others documented to be paid directly from her personal bank account. 

 

19 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

If you and or your wife are not paying monthly fees, what is the concern?

 

If you are paying monthly fees, quit paying them until they provide you with the information you are requesting;

We did and they started having the security guard roll out a gate blocking our entrance to the village. 

14 hours ago, Delight said:

There is no such equivalent of the Condo.Act that deals with Walled Estate

There definitely is a law or laws.  Another walled area near Siam Country Club hired a management company.  They put together the bylaws, and filed with the Land Office.  There are very specific requirements as to the formation of the entity, reporting profit and loss, balance sheet etc.  The land office knows the law but has no hand outs or reference to where one can go to read it. 

On 1/22/2021 at 10:14 AM, John Drake said:

Thus costs for services, expenses for Covid, and, yes, exchange rates are a financial impact. You seem to think it simply means getting an uninterrupted paycheck versus being unemployed. Most seniors live on a fixed income. An increase in costs due to Covid is a fact. So is a decrease in interest on savings and bonds due to interventionist policies of the Fed to help big companies and stockholders because of Covid. Your definition of financial impact, sorry to say, is simplistic.

Ok John,  

Maybe there should be a Covid relief bill for prostitutes and drug dealers.  After all with Covid their business is obviously impacted.  The reality is, that of anyone impacted Seniors financially were the least.  You have numerous industries, whose business was ruined and workers out of a job.  The decrease in savings rates happened a long time ago, and if you bothered to check Social Security recipients got a 1.3% increase to compensate for the cost of living increase. 

If there will be inflation that impacts everyone it will come from the spending binge that has caused the U.S. dollar to decrease in value resulting in anything imported costing more.  You say my definition was simplistic.  Yours is grossly overstated.  If anything Seniors likely spent less during the pandemic since their travels were limited.  Also, you seem to believe the the money is coming from goose that lays golden eggs.  Even taking the position that the seniors should receive money and you are "helping them"  That money is borrowed and is owed by future generations.  So you are helping today's seniors at the expense of the current and future working generations.  

I am a senior and on a fixed income living on Social Security.  The proposal to give Seniors and increase is merely a pretense and not a valid reason.  Everyone was impacted by Covid to a greater or lesser degree but of anyone, Seniors financially were the least impacted group. 

4 hours ago, John Drake said:

Seniors weren't impacted?

Which part of THEY WERE NOT IMPACTED FINANCIALY which is what I said do you have trouble understanding.  Unlike the workers who lost their jobs seniors social security checks went on without interruption.  Were they inconvenienced or impacted by Covid yes.  But to say it is a stimulus for the financial impact seniors suffered is Bogus and  is a false narrative.  If you want to pass on money to seniors OK but don't use the façade that it was because they were financially hurt during the pandemic.  It never ceases to amaze me how people think the government can somehow just magically create unlimited sums of money and there are no negative ramifications.  If that were true, then why not make the money to the Seniors $100,000 per month.  The reality is that money once spent and borrowed can not be used for truly worthwhile capital investment projects that the USA needs desperately.   I in no way implied that other monies were not also not wasted and went to undeserving people and companies.  However because you throw away money to one group hardly is a good justification for throwing it away to yet another. 

1 hour ago, fyrekrig said:

So if some foreigner managed to do the smartphone verification, I never managed.

As I mentioned, I got the same response when I first tried to apply.  However I tried it on a laptop.  I tried it again on a laptop after someone said the policy had changed and it was denied again.  I went to the Lazada app on my phone, and it processed my after I had to take a picture of my passport and a  selfie of me.  It went through immediately. 

I previously was told you could not have a Lazada wallet as a foreigner.  However it was posted on Thai Visa that the rule had changed.  I had to use my phone not desktop and submit a photo of my passport and my picture.  Within minutes my wallet was approved. 

2 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

You will need a bank account in your name only. For proof of a income of at least 40k baht according the rules you would need 2 months of transfers of it from abroad into a Thai bank to apply for your first one year extension of stay based upon marriage to a Thai. But you will need to contact your local office to find out if they will accept only 2 months since many insist on 12 months of transfers.

You also have the option to put 400k baht into a Thai bank for 2 months before the day you apply for the extension.

To apply for the extension of stay you will need to register your foreign marriage at a Amphoe to get a Kor Ror 22 marriage registry. It seems you may have what you do need to do the registration but I am not sure what you did to have your marriage certificate "apostilled". The requirement is that it be legalised by the Legalisation Office in Milton Keynes in the UK and than by the Thai embassy in London. Info is here.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/714089/Legalisation_info_June_2018.pdf)

Ubon Joe

You are a wealth of knowledge.  I just want to thank you for being a resource here on Thai Visa.  

Just now, Jeffr2 said:

Pete is a super smart man

You again are showing your huge bias.  Pete was the mayor of South Bend Indiana.  A town of 102,000 people it has a 13.3% unemployment rate  It reportedly has a looming budget crisis.  And yet you say he is a super smart man.  Again, name 5 things that Buttigieg accomplished that DEMOSTRATE his proficiency. 

https://www.southbendtribune.com/news/local/controller-south-bend-vulnerable-for-budget-deficit-without-spending-cuts-or-revenue-increase/article_31da8f75-93d9-5da5-9b67-bd656d7775cd.html

Just now, pixelaoffy said:

They are there ! Another denier of facts

What facts.  That oil is still coming to the USA?  As said, the only thing accomplished is the oil will come by tanker truck and rail.  Please spare me when the tanker overturns and you blame the oil companies for the spill. 

2 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Nope. Just the majority. I ignore those on the fringes.

LOL  Go ahead show me the "majority"  In your opinion.  The majority is whatever you agree with, and like others you dismiss any expert as "false" if you do not agree with them.  Am I biased, sure.  However as pointed out.  Trumps picks were often flawed and so are Biden's 

Just now, Jeffr2 said:

How about going green and getting out of oil?

First off lets for the sake of discussion say that going without oil is a desirable goal.  You don't cut off the supply of oil until you have the alternative in place.  40% of electricity in the USA comes from Coal, 40% from Natural Gas. 10% from Nuclear, and only 10% from renewables.  The vast majority of cars, trucks, and all airplanes still run on refined petroleum products.  

Just now, Jeffr2 said:

In every experts opinion.

Oh you must consider yourself to be the only expert.  Or you select only those "experts" you agree with. 

1 minute ago, spidermike007 said:

Well, with the exception of scientifically vetted information, I would say 99% of what is on here, is opinions. But, I am curious. Name five talented members of the past administration. Can you?

What would be the point.  You would just call them not talented.  I can certainly point to Pete Buttigieg whose only experience in Transportation is that he can drive a car.  And I am from Michigan so I know Jennifer Granholm well.  She is now Secretary of Energy.  What is her background in energy?  The fact that she hates the oil, gas, and coal industry.  She has zero experience in the field. 

Trump also had people who lacked the requisite experience Such as Betsy DeVos.  However your statement that Biden's are great and Trumps were lousy is just opinion based solely on your prejudice.  

 

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Do you actually understand what selective bias is?

I notice you only refute what others say that you do not agree with, change the subject when I point out the oil will still get there.  So I challenge you.  Show me your studies that show that transport by truck and rail is safer than pipeline.  I said, so don't misquote me.  Oil companies don't want spills.  They are costly. Look at the Exxon Valdez,  Look at the Deepwater Gulf spill.  No company is going to utilize methods that will subject them to lawsuits and damages.  It will be environmentalists who stop the pipeline who will then point to any spill when an oil tanker truck or rail car overturns and then blame the oil company when in fact "maybe" those spills would have been prevented with the pipeline.  The fact remains and you seem to want to ignore it.  The oil has been shipped for decades from Canada.  The only impact of stopping the pipeline is more expense to the US consumer and that the oil comes by rail or truck. 

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Lots of us are actually grateful that Trump couldn't attract first class talent.

Again, selective bias.  Your opinion.  Not fact.  You say the person is talented is certainly not a validation that they are, nor is your opinion that Trumps appointments lacked talent anything more than your biased opinion. 

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I do selectively dismiss obviously biased sources. Whereas you on the other hand apparently believe that selectivity in such circumstances is a bad thing.

And at least the power of eminent domain won't be wielded for a project the benefits of which are dubious

Yes you do.  You have what is known as selective bias.  You believe sources only that agree with you, and dismiss any opinion other than you.  The studies may have been done by those in the oil industry.  Who do you think who study the subject.  The hair dressers association?   The fact remains.  Those that are in the oil business do not want spills.  They are costly.  They certainly are more knowledgeable than you.