oldcpu

https://www.cignaglobal.com/ I think it fair to say its a bit on the expensive side. As noted my former employer subsidizes mine such that i pay no more than that of a 65-year old. This is part of a pension package perk. I have not yet used it for the LTR, but one of our active forum members has obtained a letter from Cigna that was satisifactory for BoI to meet the LTR visa requirements. My understanding is that they had to contact Cigna and request specific wording in the letter.

With respect, if you calculate through the numbers, LTR visa holders (~7,000) bringing in 24-billion Thai Baht to the Thai economy, the number equates to only ~$100,000 USD equivalent per LTR visa, which is a pretty small number for one of means. Not fantastical at all.

I agree here. One does not need to be a billionaire to meet such requirements. Nor does one need to be a billionaire to have $100k US$ in a foreign savings bank account earning 4% interest. One of means (without achieving billionaire status) can easily afford to only receive 4% on $100k US$ and not have it irritate them that they are not getting the 12% that perhaps the stock market might yield for them otherwise. I suspect there are some of means with multiple accounts with that amount of money inside each account - and the lost income from not having the money invested elsewhere, relative to their other financial holdings, means that amount not earned does not matter to them. I do sense annoyance thou, of those who barely meet the LTR-WP/WGC requirements, where for them to meet the BoI financial requirements would require a financial restructuring that would cost them money that was important to them. Hence they choose this shortfall of finances on their part, to use it as a springboard to bad mouth the LTR-WP/WGC visas. While I sympathize, this is a BoI decision as to the LTR-WP/WGC financial (including Health Insurance) requirements, and there are many us (7,000 expats or so), all endorsed for the LTR visa (where I note the largest group are LTR-WP). Those endorsed for the LTR visa likely have had no issue with meeting the Health Insurance requirements. Fortunately Thailand has the Type-O visa , and while (due to Type-0 90-day reporting and yearly re-proof of fiances) it is not IMHO as convenient as the LTR-WP, the Type-O never the less, has far less financial requirements, and it is a very good Visa for many. As I posted before, many of my expat friends are on this Type-O visa, and have been successfully renewing their permission to stay in Thailand every year for more than a decade. Some for more than 2 decades. And I am happy for them. That's always a possibility. Although given BoI recent claim that LTR visa holders (~7,000) have brought 24 billion Thai Baht to the Thai economy, I suspect BoI will attempt to maintain the LTR, for at least another decade. Actually 24-billion divide by 7,000 is not that much (only 3.43-million per LTR holder ... which is only ~$107,000 US$. A pretty small amount considering this is a visa for people of means. I think many of us (thinking of myself as an example) have brought in a lot more into Thailand than that 3.43-million baht figure (just my Thai condo without my investments is > 8x that amount of 3.43-million - I also debated buying a couple of more condos in the same complex, but I concluded it was too many eggs in one basket - and that was my mistake and my loss not doing such - as I would have made ~7-million THB off of each additional condo I purchased, had I purchased such). But I can't predict the future - in the future there could be completely different types of Visas available, and we will need to see how it unfolds. I suspect thou, what ever the future bring, those of us ( ~7,000) who have had our LTR visas endorsed, will be able to meet any new Thai visa requirements that the future brings. Unfortunately, those of less means, may have more difficulty. That, sadly, often tends to be the way things work in this world. For myself, I am grateful to be one of the 7,000. And for my friends, I am grateful there is the Type-O visa. Best wishes to all on this thread, and I hope you obtain a visa that suits your financial situation without any annoyance on your part. .

I think both he and his wife have work visas (teachers at a school ... < unsure > ). if his foreign wife was a dependent, he would need less for self health insurance (ie 'only' $100k + $25k + $25k + 25k = $175k US$ in a savings bank anywhere in the world - gaining only ~4% interest).

That was an interesting page from BoI ... Given the discussions in this thread, I found the section at the bottom with a yellow back ground of interest, where it states "Insurance Requirements for all LTR Visa types". I concede in the past, I did not look at all the details. Looking now what I missed was: 1. Social security in Thailand. It had me wondering, what sort of LTR visa holder would receive Social Security in Thailand? 2. Savings Deposit. Obviously I knew of the 'Savings Deposit $100,000' US self insurance (as that is what I currently use). I concede thou, I missed the 'per person" aspect, and also missed the "Dependents: USD 25,000/person". I think that a stark reminder, this Visa is really only intended for foreigners 'of means'. Perhaps not so relevant to this thread, but I have a European friend, with European wife, and two children. He 'self insures' (so he says) but he definitely does NOT insure to the BoI requirement. He considered applying for the LTR visa, but when I last chatted with him, he noted the Health Insurance requirements were higher than what he could comfortably meet. I suspect the $100k + $100k + $25k + 25k = $250k US$ in a savings bank account exceeds his assets that he can comfortably set aside and not have any reduced income (of equity vs interest) irritate him. Fortunately, he does ok on the Type-O visa. My hope for him and many others like him, that the Type-O visa retains its current very good and not too demanding financial requirements. The Type-O is well suited for those of lessor financial means. He and his family are good people. I believe his children are now reasonable speakers of the Thai language (having been here for years). And they contribute to the Thai economy by their purchases.

There are so many threads on Yellow books. Still - i was curious - so I watched the video. There may be a trend for more people to get a Yellow Book, but most expats I know do not have one. Most I know have never found it necessary. I obtained a pink-ID to go with my yellow book, but when I check into a hotel in Thailand, they still want my passport. When I go to fly on a domestic flight, they still want my passport. When I do most banking in Thailand, they won't accept my pink-ID by itself (they still want my passport) ... but i diverge. reference the OP question. In Phuket, before I had my yellow-book/pink-ID to open a bank account, I needed a Certificate of Residence (COR) from the local immigration. I needed a passport sized image of myself when going to immigration (and passport), as they needed that to incorporate it into the COR. Apologies if such mentioned already. When I went for my initial Thai driver's licence in Phuket, I needed the COR (and passport). Having typed that, now that I have the yellowbook/pink-ID, I was able to use that combo in lieu of a new COR for my drivers licence renewal in Phuket. I was able to open a new bank account in Phuket (Krungsri and also SCB) using my yellow book and pink-ID instead of going to immigration to get an updated COR. i was also able to buy Thai government bonds at Bangkok Bank with my yellowbook/pink-ID, in lieu of a COR. In every case, passport was still required. The yellow book has other uses which have benefited me) , but in terms of this thread scope for a COR, IMHO a COR is more than adequate. In Phuket (granted last time was ~4 or ~5 years ago) getting a COR was easy. Show up with one's passport photo, there may have been a form to fill in, and the COR was issued very quickly.

You know, ... your question has me thinking. Ok ... not Oz but worth thinking about. My private Global Health insurance is from a 'European' government organisation (they contract to a private company) , where the office is located in Germany, ... but i pay a separate amount for LTC. I think the LTC covers me in Thailand, but i need to double check. Probably I checked in the past and forgot.

Thats a good point. A Thai friend of my wife and her older German husband were visiting some small island, I think off the coast of Pattaya (I am not sure if off coast of Pattaya or elsewhere). Her husband had a stroke. There was no hospital. She was quick on her feet. Hired a small boat on the spot ( $$ ) and quickly motored him to land, (with ambulance waiting) and rushed him to a hospital. His stars were precisely aligned in the heavens, as that day there happened to be a specialist from Bangkok visiting, where his specialty was dealing with strokes. An urgent injection into his heart (?) ( or close by - the story is 3rd or 4th hand coming from my wife) and that saved his life. He was in the hospital for some time before considered safe to move him. Eventually, he was well enough to fly back to Germany (albeit extra expense needed in case he had a relapse and plane had to be diverted) where he went to a specialist hospital in Germany. No time to re-register in the German health care system, but fortunately he was only visiting Thailand so he never left the German system. It was over a year before full recovery. The point is, his medical bill outside of Germany was very large. If travel insurance is for only 90 -days within a 1 year validity, and if one is outside the 90-days, the the travel insurance will not pay. so one really really needs to look at the fine details of the contract if one plans to spend almost all their time in Thailand. .

i assume that is because when you lived in Germany, you remained on the German public system. When I lived and worked in Germany, i moved to the private system. It meant good tax deductions and surprisingly at times, it also meant possibly quicker treatment when i went to get medical treatment in Germany. I know, quicker treatment is not supposed to happen, but i believe it does (or rather it did 10 to 20 years ago) ... where for German doctors, to be compensated for the public health care services they provided, takes forever for the government to pay (the doctor) their money, ... but the doctor's often get very very quick payment from those on private Health insurance. anyway ... I diverge. Given i was on private insurance in Germany, my understanding is I can never go back to public health care service in Germany. Hence while this is true for you (where you can get German public health care if you return) i do not believe it true for those in Germany who had switched to private healthcare.

Indeed. There is an article in The Nation with headlines: I won't post the link here as such has run me into trouble before on this forum. Further, other than the headline, I could read nothing to support the 20-billion baht figure in the text content. Never-the-less, it is a senior Thai government official who is claiming such. Possibly as credible as some senior RD officials noting their wish for a global taxation system. ... How quickly should one dismiss such comments? or should one take such serious?

Not wanting to shoot your plan down, but i recommend you check the fine print of your Travel insurance contract. Most travel insurance plans that i have investigated might be valid for 12-months, BUT that is not 12 months of travel. Rather it is only something like 3 to 6 weeks of travel within the validity period. Its GREAT if your travel insurance covers you for full 12 months of travel, but be certain to check the details. Because if you file a claim, it is MOST LIKELY the insurance company will check the details (to see if they can avoid paying) and if they find adequate cause to refuse payment, IMHO they will refuse such. Best wishes.

i thought that a good point. While the Health Insurance requirements for the LTR visa does unquestionably look to be a big blocking point for some, compared to some other Thai Visas, it is not as difficult to meet. Thankfully for many there is the Type-O visa (with no Health Insurance requirements) , and thankfully those married to a Thai also don't have Health Insurance requirements. I suspect if not for those two possibilities (Type-O and married to a Thai person), the LTR Visa Health Insurance requirements might be better than a number of other visas.

I thought this is an excellent point, and it is definitely something for those considering an LTR Visa to keep in mind, if they are of the mindset that they are not keen on health insurance, but prefer to attempt to safely self insure themselves. A valid point also mentioned a number of times in this thread, is that everyone's financial situation is different. In my case, while my Global Health insurance is not cheap, one excellent aspect to it is that it is provided (and subsidized) as a perk to my pension from the same organisation. My Health Insurance payments are 'capped' to be that of a 65-year old, no matter how old I manage to live to. The government organisation in Europe that pays my pension pays to the insurance company anything extra, to ensure my payments do not exceed that of a 65-year old. So today at age-71 I pay the rate of a 65-year old. Some decades ago, when I first was told of the opportunity to apply for the this "government job", I was a contractor working for the same organisation. Stopping my somewhat (in my view) lucrative contract and going for a government job meant a big salary drop for me. The "government job" offered a pension (but frankly I could save the equivalent as a contractor to create my own pension), however the "government job" subsidized health insurance, ensuring I never paid more than a 65-year old, 'sealed the deal' for me. I did my calculations and I applied for the job, and I was very fortunate to get it. Unlike myself, many face rising health insurance costs the older and older they get. As for the LTR-WP visa, when mine expires in 2033, I will be 79, and even if it is available then for another 10 years, I may not go for another 10-years. Very few in my family (relatives both sides) live to be in their 70s or 80s. So why go for a 10 year visa if I will pass away in a few years. Likely for me at the point (if I should live to age-79) I have to consider renewing ... and I may not. I may go back to Type-O. I think it may boil down to a question of my convenience vs a desire as to how much money to leave to my wife, and our nephews and nieces. While the difference in amounts involved might be very trivial for me, it likely will not be for my nephews and nieces (my wife will have no issues re: money). Regardless - I really like the LTR visa, and I plan to switch from self insured to using my European Global Health insurance - and once again a BIG thankyou to the forum member who explained to me (with a sample letter wording) how to go about getting my Health Insurance accepted by BoI. I will put that to the test in just over a couple of years.

Interesting. That puzzles me. Medical care anywhere else in the world is cheaper than the USA. One saves the insurance company money if one goes for treatment outside of the USA. So why force people to spend money in the USA costing the Health Insurance company more money than elsewhere? It makes no sense to me. There must be more to this. My European global health insurance covers me as a resident anywhere in the world EXCEPT USA and EXCEPT Canada. Both those two countries simply outstrip every other country in the world for how much their medical treatment costs. My European global health insurance does thou cover me for about 6 weeks of travel in USA and in Canada per year. And best of all my European global Health Insurance covers me in Thailand. Now that one of the forum members was kind enough to share how they managed to get the same health insurance company to compose a letter to BoI (to meet LTR Health Insurance requirements), at the five year re-proof of finances point of my LTR-WP, I plan to switch from being self insured to the Health Insurance that I have. ... That will free up my $100k to buy a new car and buy some other things.

We are getting a bit off topic, but I guess since this pertains as to whether one should, or should not, go for the LTR visa (given Health Insurance requirements) , it is relevant. On the topic of Health Insurance and in particular, in regards to immediately returning home upon discovering a serious illness, I note discovering such, if one is not paying for annual medical expenses, such illness may only be discovered in the past 3 to 6 months before one passes away. Assuming one discovers the illness in time, If one can be immediately covered by one's home country Health Care system, that does create possibilities. I believe thou, not all countries immediately provide Health Care upon return. Further for some, it might be provincial or state decision as to whether one is covered. So for as to how long does it take (upon returning to one's home country after being a non-resident for many years), for some western countries, my understanding is for the UK, New Zealand, and Australia, one is covered from the day they arrive provided they re-enrol in the Health Care system immediately. Canada, however, is a bit more nuanced. In Canada, if a Canadian (who is not a Canadian tax resident) returns to Canada, there is a waiting period for some months to qualify for Health care (some up to a 3 month wait), before Canadian health care will cover one depending on the province. Specifically: no waiting period: Ontario, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador 2 to 3 month waiting period: New Brunswick, British Columbia, Alberta, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Yukon If one shows up, with a serious disease, in some provinces, one has to foot the bill for the first 2 to 3 months, and in Canada, that is VERY expensive if no private Health Insurance. I recommend Canadians take care and give thought to this, as showing up in the Canadian provinces that have a waiting time, could mean one will run into financial issues as one is not covered for the first 2 to 3 months. Also, good health insurance will pay for an annual medical, to give early warning of a possible serious illness, such that care can be taken, to possible stop the progression before it comes deadly. So any who choose to self insure (and i have friends who go that route) if they don't go for an annual medical , they are gambling. Also, my Health Insurance plan pretty much compels me to go for an annual medical, as the Bean Counters for the Health Insurance plan, did their numbers, and they figure it will save the Health Insurance company money, if a disease is caught in the early stages, by an annual medical, as opposed to finding out at the last minute. .... The Bean Counters are seeing this as a pure Insurance Company calculation, as to what is good for them, and THEY PAY FOR MY (and my wife's) annual medicals. IF I don't go for the medical, they may drop my coverage. So again, if self health insuring, give thought as to whether to gamble and not go for an annual medical , and also include the cost of the medical in one's calculations. .

I don't know the answer re: foreigner friendly but in regards to getting one's annual paperwork for a type-O/OA permission to stay extension, I found Krungsri bank superior to Bangkok Bank, here in Phuket. In terms of transferring money into Thailand, I still find Bangkok bank the best (although recently SCB bank worked ok for me in that regards). I confess this freezing of accounts by Bangkok Bank is a bit puzzling to me, as to whose accounts they freeze and whose accounts they didn't freeze. What was their selection criteria? My Thai wife tells me that Thai citizens are also having this issue to some extent (of accounts being frozen). Her view (which could be wrong - but she bases it on news in Thai language that I can not read) is that the banks have a computer algorithm (?) that goes through the various accounts and flags those that come the closest to matching those of mule accounts. They then freeze the accounts (its unclear to her nor me as to what sort of checks they do before freezing, to ensure algorithm did not make a big mistake). I don't know if we will ever know the actual answer here. I do know one-half year ago ? (possibly a year ago) when i was at Krungsri and Bangkok bank branches, they made an extra effort to get updated information from me in terms of my phone number and my latest visa / permission to stay. Perhaps overkill by those bank branches. . .

IMHO the Type-OA easier until , while in Thailand, you go for your first one year extension of your permission to stay. Then at that time , as I think you realize, you need to buy health insurance. Then it is MUCH worse being on the Type-OA. Clearly this begs the question ... why buy such Health Insurance, for a Type-OA, if instead you can obtain a type-O visa? If you enter Thailand on a Type-O, as noted above by Dr.Jack and others, you immediate setup a bank account and transfer the equivalent of 800k THB (or 400k THB if married to a Thai person) to your new Thai account, and leave it there. Don't touch that money. Then 30 to 45 days before your permission to stay on that Type-O visa expires, go to the local immigration and apply for a 1-year extension of your permission to stay. Sure it costs you 1/2 day of your time, and 1900 THB (I think) , but that is one hell of a lot cheaper than any Health Insurance. A lot cheaper. From then on, you are set. Just like you would do for a type-OA, for the type-O every year you go for a 1-year renewal (on your original visa) of your permission to stay in Thailand. Some in Thailand are still here on Visas that expired decades ago !!! but every year they go to immigration and obtain an extension, not on their Visa, ... they get an extension on their permission to stay in Thailand. For type-O, cost only 1900 Thai baht. For type-OA its 1900 Thai baht PLUS the Thai branch health insurance. That health insurance MUST be from the Thai branch of a Health insurance company. Of course you could simply leave Thailand every year, timed to invalidate your OA visa, and apply again for an OA visa when in the Philippines, but given Philippines not your residency, i think that would be more hassle and add more complexity. MANY of us, myself included, when on a Type-OA visa, DELIBERATELY left Thailand to invalidate our Type-OA visas, so we could come back to Thailand and obtain a Type-O Visa. It was simply much superior from a cost perspective. Ok - I concede the money difference (paying the Thai branch Health Insurance) is not that much for anyone of minor means, but for some of us (like myself) it was a matter of principle. I had superior Health Insurance (far better than what i could get in Thailand) from Europe, but that was not acceptable to Thailand. Thailand would only accept insurance from Thai branches of a Health Insurance company. Thai insurance that was not as good. Some of us then refused to pay for double health insurance (ie from both Thailand and our superior foreign Health Insurance). So as a matter of principle ( lol !! ) we deliberately left Thailand to invalidate our Type-OA visas. So we could then switch to Type-O and not be forced to go with inferior insurance from a Thai branch of a Health Insurance company. Re cost: I can't answer your question for your age nor marital status. But, for what it is worth, my European global insurance that covers myself (age-71) and my wife (age-58) for 365 days per year in Thailand, costs me ~240-euros/month. This is my subsidized health insurance.. I note that my former employer (who provides my European pension and who subsidizes my Health Insurance) pays more than that in their share - possibly they pay 250-to-300 euros. So that is about ~500 euros/month, or 6,000 euros per year. Convert to US$ and one has ~$7,000 US$/year being paid total in Health Insurance (where my share for myself AND my wife at 2,880 euro/year equates to about $3,400 US$/year for my & my wife's Health insurance). Again, Thailand for a Type-OA visa, will not in Thailand, accept that health insurance, as it is not from the Thai branch of a Health Insurance company. I believe that Health insurance from the Thai branch of a health insurance company is likely much cheaper, but with massively less coverage.

This reminded me that if comparing type-O/OA to LTR that DTAs are a factor. DTAs are very important to those on a Type-O/OA, but not so much for those on an LTR-WP/WGC (unless of course, there is ever a change to global taxation -then DTAs will be relevant also to LTR-WP/WGC visa holders). For an LTR-WP/WGC holder at present, it makes no difference (from a Thai taxation perspective) in regards to foreign capital gains nor interest/dividends if remitted to Thailand. There is no Thai taxation there for the LTR-WP/WGC visa holder. However Type-O/OA visa holders, instead, have to pay close attention to the wording of the DTA associated with the source country of one's foreign dividend/interest/capital gains. Both LTR and Type-O/OA visa holders thou, likely should also pay close attention to their source income country's tax law in regards to interest/Dividends/Capital gains. I know for some countries, there is no foreign tax on one's capital gains from that same foreign source country IF one is not a tax resident of that foreign source country. In such case then, if that is the foreign law (for a non-tax resident of that foreign country) then the capital gains can grow tax free. However it possible the same foreign country's may still tax dividends/interest on one's equities held in that foreign country, even thou one is not a resident. So in the case of an LTR-WP/WGC visa holder, for some countries, it may make less sense to go for equities that have high dividends, because those will taxed (in the foreign country, despite one not being a tax resident) while for the same country its possible equities with higher price trends is better to own, as there is no tax on capital gains. And with LTR-WP/WGC visa at present, any capital gain from liquidating equities in the foreign country (given some, not all , DTAs wordings) may mean one actually legally pays no tax to either country, when one remits the capital gain, to one's Thailand account. I believe it all depends on both the DTAs, and whether one has an LTR-WP/WGC.

Wrong. An investor who bought $1,000 worth of NVIDIA stock at the IPO in 1999 would have $4,728,255 today, roughly 4,728 times their original investment. But possibly, according to you, investors also do not live in Thailand? I will have to stop looking in the mirror.

Yes ... you are absolutely correct. I had a fuzzy recollection of S&P average over past year being 17% so deliberately plugged in that very high number to make a point. Of course if one looks over 10 years (which makes a lot more sense for a comparison) the stock market return (such as S&P-500) is closer to the 12% you note. Perhaps I pushed too hard to make a point, a point which Jim Gant summed up nicely in better words than what I succeeded to describe. Putting aside $100K US$ equivalent in cash for a person of means, for self health insurance, is not an issue. On that note, my trading strategy, which has served me well for over 3 decades, is always have a cash reserve, ready to use - which has served me incredibly well, given my trading style. One example: I used my cash reserve to load up in nvida shares when it was dirt cheap ( > 1,000 shares) decades ago . I had a salaried job then, and as months/years went by I rebuilt my cash reserve and then increased my position in nvidia even more in Nov-2008 when the price dipped. Look at that nvidia stock today. And nvidia is only a fraction of my portfolio today. Having a cash reserve has always worked well for me. Again .. it gets back to what Jim Gant noted about people of means. One point I did not mention, is if one thinks they can get 12% (using your number) on $100k that is $12,000 US$ /year then that more than pays for good health insurance. I suspect one can get pretty good health insurance for 1/3 that cost. I pay ~240-euros/month for my subsidized health insurance that covers both myself and my wife. I note that my former employer (who provides my European pension and who subsidizes my Health Insurance) pays more than that in their share - possibly they pay 250-to-300 euros. So that is about ~500 euros/month, or 6,000 euros per year. Convert to US$ and one has ~$7,000 US$/year being paid total in Health Insurance (where my share for myself AND my wife at 2,880 euro/year equates to about $3,400 US$/year for my & my wife's Health insurance). So I note, that ~$3,400 US/year (in Health Insurance costs) is a lot less than ~$12,000 US equiv earned in capital gains from $100,000 US$ (if one can get 12% capital gain) . So one could, if they wish, put the $100,000 US$ equivalent in the stock market, say buy an ETF that tracks the S&P-500. Assume it tracks reasonably well and gets 12%. That $12,000 would pay for the $3,400 US Health Insurance for 2 people (myself age-71 and my wife age 58). Then get a letter from the Health Insurance company worded in a way to meet BoI requirements. That is another approach as well. I think it makes sense to have good Health Insurance. All of this, IMHO, is manageable if one is able to restructure one's finances (and Insurance) to meet BoI requirements for the LTR visa.

i doubt that you meet the requirements easily, or we have a different definition of easily. So - it boils down to you thinking the amount of money you are willing to set aside in non-liquid asset (ie not in cash) for Self Health Insurance, is superior to the BoI requirement of $100K in a Bank in Cash for self Health Insurance and further, you think your non-liquid asset (ie not in cash) is superior to any Health Insurance. Well - you are not alone there in that view. I know some expats who rejected the LTR for the same reason as you , where they have no Health Insurance and they don't want to lose any penny on putting money in cash for self Health insurance coverage. They are happy to take that gamble, and they are happy to go the Type-O route. My view re: the Type-O, is good for them!! I hope it works out. Further, to be clear, I hope (in all sincerity) that this all works for you. BoI have a different view than you thou, when it comes to what is required for Self Health Insurance. You can argue with BoI. Go ahead. Good luck there ! As for the use and definition of wealthy. its not my definition. It never was ... so your insults in that regard simply re-enforce your handle. It BoI's definition. In my posts its always been about BoI's definition. As your posts have proven, you can't do such $100K US$ equivalent (in cash) self health insurance to BoI's requirements, without the loss of income irritating you. Right? It would irritate you. Which in my case, frankly, is a loss of annual income so small (in my case - ie the difference between 4% and 17% on $100k US$ ) that it is relatively trivial for me - with no affect on my life style - at most it might mean a few pennies less to who ever inherits my money when i pass away. Obviously, it is not trivial for you. Regardless ... Honestly? I actually wish you all the very best. But I note your waiting for some BoI decision about taxation against some not approved wish of the Thai RD to switch to global taxation is wrong. This has NOTHING to do with waiting for BoI. It is the absolute wrong approach IF you wish to live in Thailand. This is not about taxation for you. Its about health insurance (and maybe about whether for you to live in Thailand ). If (in bold) , if there is Global taxation, all Visas will be affected if global taxation is implemented. Your waiting for the BoI ONLY makes sense, if that affects your decision to live in Thailand. Else you would simply decide now, no waiting and no LTR, because you hate the thought of not maximizing an investment on $100K US equivalent (where self health insurance to BoI requirement would possibly reduce the return on $100k US to only 4% per year ). What you state about waiting, is simply, illogical if you decide regardless to live in Thailand > 180 days per taxation year. Simply decide now, LTR or no LTR with Self health insurance to BoI requirements as your criteria.

Yes - however IMHO it is better than the no lease scenario ... where 1 year after the wife meets someone else, falls in love, and kicks him out of the house. This way for 30-years, she can't kick him out of the house. Say the man is age-55 when he signs the 30-year lease. She can not kick him out until he turns 85, if he should be so lucky to live that long. Is that not preferable to having no 30-year lease? Is it ideal ? Obviously not. Would I do that? No. I would (and did) buy a foreign freehold property in a condo in a location where I believe it will retain its value, or go up in value. In fact, it has gone up, significantly. So possibly we agree - except I see that if one wants a house , and if one does not want to rent, AND if one does not want to go against the (currently ignored) law and have a Thai company buy the house, then having the house name in a Thai family member (with a 30-year lease written) , ... suggests to me a lease is better than no lease.

That is also my understanding. ... Its surprising thou, as to how many foreigners do this. ... For them, there is a ongoing risk that some day Thailand may decide to do a country wide crackdown. At present thou, it appears only if one gets in trouble for other reasons, that the local government makes the effort to also go after any such one for the inappropriate setting up of a company for sole purpose to buy a house. I nominally always recommend to my foreign friends, who are thinking to buy in Thailand for the first time, to only go for a foreign freehold condo. For a house with land, having one's Thai wife buy the property is one approach. I know of one couple (Thai wife / foreign man) where the foreign man paid for a Thai-Freehold condo which was registered only in his Thai wife's name. He and his Thai wife then paid the legal fees for a 30-year lease (which is registered at the land office), where she leased the property to him for 30-years for next to nothing. The idea being to protect him, in case their relationship went south. ... while this was for a (Thai freehold) condo, the same approach could be adopted for a house/property.

Nice looking house. Your post reminded me ... a bit off the topic of your post ... but relevant to the LTR visa thread. My understanding is if one is looking to use a real estate purchase as one's investment in Thailand (for the LTR-WP visa), I believe it can only be a freehold condo or possibly a 30-year leasehold (although I am uncertain re;the leasehold). One can not use (as proof of investment in Thailand) the house one lives in, where house has been bought by a Thai company (in which one has 49% share in the company - which is max amount allowed by law). This is relevant to a couple friends of mine, whose passive income just falls short of the $80K US equivalent passive income per year for the LTR-WP visa. They live in a massive, on the beach, villa, purchased years ago by a Thai company in which they have 49% ownership share, purchased of course, with their money provided to the company, to purchase the house. The sole purpose being to let them live in it. Today market value for the villa they live in is around $40-million THB. Because the house is in the company's name, and not their name, they can not use the house as proof of investment in Thailand. The same story is true for another couple. So sadly, its not just an investment in Thailand, but it has to be an investment structured in a certain way to meet BoI requirements.

I believe it is natural for people to meet and hang out in certain circles of a acquaintances who have similar financial circumstances. And then often they will not meet people outside that circle - and eventually they come to believe there is no other expats outside of that 'circle' in terms of finances. When in fact, such is not accurate. Some of us, actually like Thailand. Some may have considered retiring in Germany, or Portugal, or Malta, or Ireland or Canada or USA (like myself for all those places) but in the end chose Thailand, because we liked it, where money was not the driving factor. Possibly also because we have Thai family through our spouse (like myself). In such a case, the amount of money is not a factor. its family and liking the culture where we want to live. In Phuket, the condos in the complex that i bought (which were selling for ~15-million in Thai baht in year 2016 ) are now selling for 27-million Thai baht. Frankly I find the price increase shocking even for a 272 sqm unit (where i live). But about 500 meters down the road is a new condo complex - starting price for units 1/2 the size of my unit is 30-million Thai baht. Crazy high for 1/2 the size of my unit. But that's next to nothing compared to two km away , where the asking price for (very large) new villas is 150-million Thai baht per villa. And there are other places as well in our neighbourhood (but prices only about 40 to 50-million Thai baht per villa) . Why so much? Ok, the places all have sea view and direct beach access - but still that is a lot of money, and yes people pay for it. Expats buy and live here. As you note ... foreigners are still buying, at those high prices. I also note, about 2km away is a condo complex with about 200 units. Prices in that complex have dropped and when i last looked about 5 years back, had fallen to 1/2 of their original price. Prices were only about 5 to 10 million Thai baht back in 2016 for 1 and 2 bedroom units. But why did the price drop? Location not as good, with only a limited view, no beach access, and further, the complex was not well taken care of. It was in bad shape. The co-owners did not want to pay higher maintenance fees to maintain their complex. One thing thou, living in this neighbourhood, is many of the expats i meet have absolutely amazing life stories. Incredible. They are of many different nationalities, and it is fascinating to chat with them, as we exchange our experiences. Exchanging stories about our lifetime experiences with the expats is one of the things I like about Thailand.