oldcpu

Hassle? I had to first get a yellow book before I could get the ID. That took over 2 hours in a local city office , where I had to bring copy of official translations of my passport (which I had) ... Bring a copy of the deed to the condo that I owned ... For the pink-ID it was almost 3 hours waiting in city hall, with similar documents, (including copy of yellow book), together with a visit to a local police station to be finger printed, followed by a return to city hall with documents from that police station, and then more waiting in city hall offices. I don't consider that quick nor simple.

In regards to the utility of the "pink-ID", while it was my Thai wife pushing me to get such, I do concede that both have come in handy at times. The YellowBook came in handy for me when renewing a Thai driver's license, and also when going for a one year extension on a Type-O visa (for reason of retirement). Did I need the YellowBook for such? No, those can be done without. The Pink-ID has enabled me to get a discount entry price at a Thai Aquarium entrance (I obtained the Thai rate). Could one enter the Aquarium without the ID? Yes, and the price difference trivial (between Thai fee and foreign fee). The Pink-ID (with Yellow Book) enabled me to buy Thai government bonds (which I needed as part of an investment in Thailand for an LTR Visa) from a local Bangkok Bank branch. The Bangkok Bank branch manager would not let me buy the bonds without such. Two other (different) Thai banks would not let me buy Thai government bonds at all. Is it possible to buy Thai government bonds without a yellow book and Pink-ID? I would guess YES, but having those two 'documents' (Yellow Book and Pink-ID) did make it easier for me (and I did not have to investigate further). So was my wife right in pushing me to get the Yellow Book and Pink-ID? Frankly? I don't know. Sometimes it can be difficult to admit one's spouse is right. :-)

For me it was a hassle. But my Thai wife wanted me to have a yellow book and a pink-ID, and putting up with the hassle to get these was far less than the pain of my wife constantly nagging me. I don't think a Thai friend is needed for certification. I note thou my Thai wife was with me the entire time pushing me - and doing all the talking to the authorities.

I hope you are correct ... but I am not yet certain this will be the case. The RD 743 is clear the LTR foreign income is non-taxable (for LTR visa holders), but it is not clear from what I can read that income tax returns are not required. If it specifically states exempt from 'income tax returns' (and not just 'income tax') I would like to read such as I must have missed such clear statement (and I looked). I am not keen on submitting more income tax returns than I have to so I would like to read such. There are countries in the world (Canada for example) which want all INCOME reported and not just income that is clearly not-taxable. The revenue department of Canada likes to make their own judgement on such matters on a case by case basis. Will this be the case for Thailand? I don't know. I hope not and I hope you are correct, but when I read the translations of the Royal Decree and the relevant Thai tax chapters, at best I can say is that it is ambiguous. Again - I would like to be proven wrong and have a clear statement from authorities that no tax return is required.

That's good. However the RD743 notes the LTR foreigner is exempt to pay "income tax" under "Section 5 - Part 2 of Chapter 3 of the Revenue Code". It does not say "income tax return" is exempt. So I dug up "Section 5 - Part 2 of Chapter 3 of the Revenue Code". Its long. Very long. That Revenue code section does thou note income tax "returns" are required for specific incomes over certain amounts and as near as I can tell (where I am reading a translation) it makes makes no distinction between local nor foreign income. Again, we are talking about "tax return" submission requirements here. So while clearly RD 743 exempts one from paying income tax on foreign income, it does not make it clear that a "tax return" is not required. This is VERY ambiguous to me. My hope is a tax return is not required, but it is by no means clear to me at present. I think with time it should become very clear.

I read translations of the Royal Decree, and best I can read, no where does it clearly state that my income from outside of Thailand (as an LTR-WP), is not assessable income. I do read its not taxable, but thats not the same thing. Based on my reading, I can not conclude that only my interest from Thai investments is used in the 120,000 THB assessment for whether a Thailand tax return is required. While I would like to infer such (no tax return if Thai investment less than 120,000 THB) , I also don't want to let my wishful thinking drive my assessment. The translation I read (where I have a LTR-WP visa) from the Royal Decree states: "Section 5 Income tax under Part 2 of Chapter 3 in Title 2 of the Revenue Code shall be exempted for a foreigner categorised as Wealthy Global Citizen, Wealthy Pensioner, or Work-from-Thailand Professional who is granted a Long-Term Resident Visa under immigration law for assessable income under section 40 of the Revenue Code derived in the previous tax year from an employment, or from business carried on abroad, or from a property situated abroad, and brought into Thailand." I do not know what "part 2 of chapter 3 in Title 2 of the Revenue code is". Is that the definition of assessable income? or is it something else? If that is not the definition of 'assessable' income, then that suggests to me that while no income tax will be due, it does not suggest to me that no income tax return need be filed. I would be happy to be wrong on this. Further there are also (and these are translated words) in the Royal Decree which state: " In order to be granted exemption under paragraph one and two, the foreigner shall file a tax return reporting assessable income which is exempted from having to be included in computation of income tax. " Does that refer to an LTR-WP ? I would like to think not, but the translation to English language is not clear to me. For certain, that translation suggests for some of the LTR visa types, that an income tax return must be filed. Whether that applies to an LTR-WP is not something I can tell reading the Royal Decree translation ... My hope is that this will become more clear as time goes by.

Like everyone else - I too am unclear how this will all play out. But in regards to your statement which I quoted, in regards income that may be considered non-assessable, there are countries in the world that are interested in all such global income for their citizens or for people who earn income in their country. And they don't care if they still can't tax such. They want to know. For such countries, ALL GLOBAL income for them is 'assessable' even though clearly no tax is required on such. Case in point: Canada. I receive interest income from Canada investments, Old Age Security, and Pension. Accordingly I have to file a Canadian Tax return every year, even thou I spend > 182 days per year in Thailand. Further, in that Canadian Tax return, Canada wants to know ALL my global income, even thou they can't tax it. They want to know every last cent earned from outside of Canada. Why? Because my global income is what they use to assess my tax rate and hence assess how much they will tax my Canadian Old Age Security, how much they will tax my Canadian pension, and how much they will tax any interest I get from funds in Canada. In fact, if my global income is too high, they will claw back part or claw back all of my Canadian Old Age Security. Its my TOTAL GLOBAL INCOME that Canada uses to determine my tax rate for any income from Canada. And this is as a non-resident to Canada. If I was a resident to Canada it would be much worse. As it turns out, as a non-resident to Canada, most of my income comes from OUTSIDE of Canada, and as a result I pay MUCH higher taxes on my Canadian Old Age Security, my Canadian pension, and my interest from Canadian savings (than I would if I had no such extra income from outside of Canada). Even thou I am not a Canadian resident, for me to not declare my global income to Canadian authorities would be illegal from Canada's perspective. And as noted, if I was a resident to Canada it would be worse (as they would tax all income from outside of Canada (if and as governed by any DTA with other countries )). I am NOT saying this is what Thailand may be thinking, but I do note that there are examples of other countries, where such countries require one to state ALL their global income, even thou it can not be taxed and even thou it is covered by a DTA. So at this stage of us not knowing, possibly Thailand is pondering something like that. And possibly not. I simply don't know - and I think at this stage we are all just giving this our best guess. My hope is that there will be no requirement to file income tax returns in Thailand for the majority of us resident here (where our income comes from abroad) but at this stage I think we have many educated guesses , but we really don't know yet exact how this will turn out.

I believe a Thai income tax return is DEFINITELY required by a foreigner with an LTR Visa if they have a Thai sourced income over a certain amount ( 120,000 THB income/year ?? < unsure > ) . An LTR visa does not exempt one from paying tax on Thai sourced income. I think thou, with the updated tax situation, we all are wondering if LTR visa holder (whose local sourced Thai income is less than 120,000 THB) will be required to file a return if their foreign sourced income is > 120,000 THB, even if not taxable per Royal Decree. I suspect we all will need to wait for further guidance from the Thai Revenue Department.

It is sad if that happens. But the simple fact is they are not Thai citizens, they likely have not been paying Thai tax, and their presence here in Thailand is due to the grace of the Thai people and the Thai government. It's not uncommon for expats in Asia ( and not just in Thailand) who run into financial problems, have no choice but to return home to the country of their citizenship. As harsh as it may read, Thailand is not interested in those who don't follow Thai law. This is IMHO especially true when it comes to financial matters. Thailand puts in place financial requirements for foreigners to long term stay in Thailand to benefit Thai citizens and not as a social benefit to foreigners having difficult financial times. Maybe its sad but that is true for most countries and not just Thailand.

My understanding is that typically when it comes to legally using an agent, (where one meets the nominal requirements but wants the convenience of an agent) one signs over a very limited power of attorney to the agent, (ie either for some immigration aspect, or some banking aspect) where they can legally conduct an activity on one's behalf. Obviously it behooves one to ensure the power of attorney is strictly limited to this activity and limited to a specific timeframe. When it comes to opening bank accounts, I believe one is facing HQ (main bank) bank policy as to which accounts they allow to be opened, and not so much any legal aspects preventing an account to be opened for a given expat.

When I am traveling with my Thai wife ( first on Type-OA, later on Type-O, and recently on LTR) and I have always gone thru Thai line.

I don't think it is easier in Phuket. It could be just as difficult, if not more difficult, than Bangkok. Back in 2016 I opened a bank account with Bangkok Bank (in Phuket town) when on a Visa Exempt status. Prior to that I had visited Krungsri Bank, SCB Bank, and UOB bank, and they all refused to let me open an account when Visa exempt. Bangkok bank only let me (then) because I convinced them I was about to buy a condo, and possibly also because I had my Thai wife with me (who had an account). Possibly if I had tried a bank (then) in Patong Beach, Phuket (which was more touristy than Phuket town, in year 2016) I would have found it easier - as banks there are more used to tourists. ... and possibly not. In the end I succeeded in Bangkok Bank in Phuket Town (and since then, once on a Type-OA visa, I successfully also opened an account with Krungsri). Having typed that, starting a few years ago (BEFORE COVID) I started seeing big signs in the Bangkok Branch office, stating (words to this effect, albeit a bit different) no new account opening on Visa-Exempt/tourist visas. Only new accounts with Long stay visas. The banks can be difficult sometimes for opening accounts. When the 10-year LTR visa first came out, we heard a few stories that the LTR visa was unknown to a couple Phuket Banks (SCB, UOB, and Krungsri come to mind) and some initial LTR visa holders were initially denied a new account. (We heard this from a friend who is a manager at one of those banks). But in the end that was sorted and the LTR visa was accepted for opening new accounts. I know - that sounds incredible - a 10 year visa and there was difficult opening a new account - but the bank branch managers had never heard of such a visa initially, and they did not want to go against their bank's policy for foreigners opening bank accounts. So possibly an agent is needed to help on Visa exempt, or on a Tourist Visa, to open a bank account. I don't know of any agents in Phuket, and it may be easier to find an agent in Bangkok.

What aspects of Koh Samui are more expensive than Phuket? According to numbeo.com: * Rent Prices in Koh Samui are 26.3% lower than in Phuket * Restaurant Prices in Koh Samui are 20.5% lower than in Phuket * Groceries Prices in Koh Samui are 4.0% lower than in Phuket Which as noted before supports a view that Phuket has very expensive rent and restaurant prices compared to most places in Thailand. According to numbeo, grocery prices are similar between Koh Samui and Phuket. However numbero.com also notes it does not have enough data to calculate difference in Consumer Prices nor enough data to calculate difference in Local Purchasing Power between Phuket and Koh Samui.

I agree that its very difficult at this time to be certain anyone's speculation on this will be accurate. A number of us are doing that - but as noted there is some speculation involved here as well (that its a safe approach) although my hope also is that bringing some additional funds to Thailand before the end of this calendar year might be a partially mitigating approach if any tax law is implemented in an unsatisfactory manner. My view is that it is not simple to enforce, but also that it is not too too difficult. Expat friends who have been here for decades, advised me there was a time when an expat (on a long term stay ( > 180 days)) in Thailand, would leave Thailand, they had to obtain some taxation document first, and have that available to show immigration upon departure from Thailand. According to my friends, it was annoying to enforce, so it was eventually done away with. So IMHO that aligns with the 'difficult to enforce' assessment. But possibly more likely (and this is pure speculation) is that if there was indeed a determined attempt to tax expats who have been in Thailand > 180 days, then this should be done when they go for their extension of stay. For any on an extension for long stay visa (such as Type-O or Type-OA) for Thailand, when they go for their 1-year extensions, they could be asked by immigration to show a Thailand tax document (if their passport indicates a stay > 180 days). That would put the onus back on to immigration to force one to either prove they submitted a tax return, and if not, the expat could be denied an extension. Again - pure speculation - but it might be a way to partially enforce such. My hope is that none of this speculation comes to pass, and clarification to any such taxation exempts expats on long term stays ... especially my hope is to exempt those living off a pension. Pushing expats to file tax returns (especially considering many may be covered by Double Tax Agreements with no tax to Thailand due) could needlessly massively increase the paperwork for Thailand's revenue service. Maybe it could cost them as much to enforce this (especially for expats on pensions) as it would for any tax gained. But that is a hope and has as much probability of happening as any of the speculations I noted. Maybe by next summer (2024) or possibly even as late as spring (2025) we will find out how this all is implemented.

Taxi costs has always been something Phuket should be ashamed of. The "taxi mafia" (as the expression goes) in Phuket have inflated taxi prices for years. I suspect other factors are more representative in regards to Chiang Mai being less expensive. I tend to agree with the 'numbeo' website assessment that the big differences between Phuket and Chiang Mai prices are rental prices, and restaurant prices (where Phuket is about (more or less) to being 2x more expensive). I also tend to agree with an assessment that in most cases (Taxi, rental accommodation, and restaurant meals excluded) that Chiang Mai is 75% to 85% of the nominal Phuket prices.

That comment, asking about the locals, brought memories of Whistler BC Canada. Many of the locals who work in the resort of Whistler BC, Canada can't afford to live there ... so they live in Squamish BC, Canada. They drive (or in many cases share a drive) back/forth from Squamish to Whistler every working day - about a 50-minute drive on a highway (in good weather conditions). When weather conditions are bad, it takes much longer. Sometimes the road is closed due to weather. Some live in Pemberton BC, which is a bit closer, but also can have bad weather conditions trying to drive to Whistler, with a 30 minute drive if they are lucky, and often much much longer to drive to Whistler. I'm not saying ideal - Far from it. Its not good. But sadly, that is the way it often is in this world, in regards to tourist resorts - and Phuket (and Patong) is no different in this regard - where local workers often can not afford the accommodation in the area close to where they need to work.

Another such site to get such comparisons, is expatistan.com: In summary it states: - Cost of living in Phuket (Thailand) is 10% cheaper than in Bangkok (Thailand) - Cost of living in Phuket (Thailand) is 15% more expensive than in Pattaya (Thailand) - Cost of living in Phuket (Thailand) is 7% more expensive than in Hua Hin (Thailand) - Cost of living in Phuket (Thailand) is 14% more expensive than in Chiang Mai (Thailand) - Cost of living in Phuket (Thailand) is 48% more expensive than in Chiang Rai (Thailand) and one can get more detail if one goes to the site and enters the two different cities that one wishes to compare. I think one needs to take such information with a grain of salt - for as I stated before, local knowledge can go a long ways to reducing costs.

There are websites where one can enter cities, and the websites will give detailed cost comparisons of two cities, with a summary, and also a large list, comparing the average price of different options. For example, numbeo.com website allows one to enter different cities in Thailand to compare, where I think one will see that in Phuket, on average, that rent is more expensive than other places in Thailand. Restaurants in Phuket also tend to be more expensive than other places in Thailand. ... My Thai wife and I mostly eat at home, and we own our own place, so those two aspects are not issues for us. Anyway, from numbeo (and there are other websites that also give such comparisons in price for the cost of living): When comparing Phuket to Bangkok: - You would need around 112,886.8฿ in Bangkok to maintain the same standard of life that you can have with 110,000.0฿ in Phuket (assuming you rent in both cities). - Consumer Prices in Bangkok are 10.6% higher than in Phuket (without rent) - Consumer Prices Including Rent in Bangkok are 2.6% higher than in Phuket - Rent Prices in Bangkok are 13.4% lower than in Phuket - Restaurant Prices in Bangkok are 15.4% lower than in Phuket - Groceries Prices in Bangkok are 14.7% higher than in Phuket - Local Purchasing Power in Bangkok is 12.8% higher than in Phuket When comparing Phuket to Pattaya: - You would need around 91,661.2฿ in Pattaya to maintain the same standard of life that you can have with 110,000.0฿ in Phuket (assuming you rent in both cities). - Consumer Prices in Pattaya are 3.1% lower than in Phuket (without rent) - Consumer Prices Including Rent in Pattaya are 16.7% lower than in Phuket - Rent Prices in Pattaya are 43.9% lower than in Phuket - Restaurant Prices in Pattaya are 12.5% lower than in Phuket - Groceries Prices in Pattaya are 11.3% higher than in Phuket - Local Purchasing Power in Pattaya is 1.8% higher than in Phuket Phuket to Hua Hin - You would need around 78,075.2฿ in Hua Hin to maintain the same standard of life that you can have with 110,000.0฿ in Phuket (assuming you rent in both cities). - Consumer Prices in Hua Hin are 17.1% lower than in Phuket (without rent) - Consumer Prices Including Rent in Hua Hin are 29.0% lower than in Phuket - Rent Prices in Hua Hin are 53.0% lower than in Phuket - Restaurant Prices in Hua Hin are 18.9% lower than in Phuket - Groceries Prices in Hua Hin are 6.5% lower than in Phuket - Local Purchasing Power in Hua Hin is 57.7% higher than in Phuket When comparing Phuket and Chiang Mai: - You would need around 78,290.6฿ in Chiang Mai to maintain the same standard of life that you can have with 110,000.0฿ in Phuket (assuming you rent in both cities). - Consumer Prices in Chiang Mai are 16.0% lower than in Phuket (without rent) - Consumer Prices Including Rent in Chiang Mai are 28.8% lower than in Phuket - Rent Prices in Chiang Mai are 54.8% lower than in Phuket - Restaurant Prices in Chiang Mai are 40.9% lower than in Phuket - Groceries Prices in Chiang Mai are 4.7% lower than in Phuket - Local Purchasing Power in Chiang Mai is 36.7% higher than in Phuket When comparing Phuket and Chiang Rai - You would need around 69,650.1฿ in Chiang Rai to maintain the same standard of life that you can have with 110,000.0฿ in Phuket (assuming you rent in both cities). - Consumer Prices in Chiang Rai are 23.9% lower than in Phuket (without rent) - Consumer Prices Including Rent in Chiang Rai are 36.7% lower than in Phuket - Rent Prices in Chiang Rai are 62.5% lower than in Phuket - Restaurant Prices in Chiang Rai are 45.7% lower than in Phuket - Groceries Prices in Chiang Rai are 14.5% lower than in Phuket - Local Purchasing Power in Chiang Rai is 9.2% lower than in Phuket That is according to numbeo.com web site on cost of living - but in truth, I am a bit skeptical as to its accuracy. (I think it makes Phuket look more expensive than it can be in practice). I still say that a little local knowledge goes a long ways in Phuket, and one can find ways to keep one's costs down in Phuket to be mostly more comparable to other provinces. Although I will re-iterate, if one is looking for the least expensive place to live in Thailand, the for certain one does not move to Phuket. .

Agree. Still, as you point out, after one lives here in Phuket for a while, one gets to know where to find inexpensive places for most things, and it can be mostly comparable to most other provinces. Having a Thai spouse makes a world of difference, in finding those places. I think thou, for one without a Thai spouse, and without the extra time to 'learn the ropes', Phuket is more expensive. I've been living in Phuket for many years and I like the province, but I have a Thai spouse, which for certain makes things easier for me. For certain, I do not believe one lives in Phuket, if one is looking for the least expensive cost of living. .

Perhaps ... but not for all. I had the 22nd anniversary with my Thai wife a few days ago. I have to keep reminding myself how lucky I am. Like myself, while we were married (before us moving back to Thailand), she was an engineer in Europe, earning an engineers salary. She did not need to live with me for money - she had and has more than enough of her own money. I hope that you eventually have the good fortunate like myself, to meet a Thai women who can see you for your qualities other your money. In my case my wife has more than enough of her own money and my money is IMHO not relatively large enough to be a factor for her sticking around with me.

Not always. If one fully meets the requirements then I doubt there is any payment to the IO. In such a case, for strictly the extension of one's permission to stay, the agent is given legal power of attorney and everything is 100% legal in that case and by the book. No bribes. Nothing illegal. One simply pays the agent such that one does not have to sit around the Immigration office, and one does not have to research to see if any new documents needed. The agent does most of the work, all for a fee. Would I ever go for an agent? Highly unlikely. I'm too cheap. I would rather spend the money elsewhere. But as I posted already, there are those, with the money, who do not have my patience when it comes to the renewal of their permission to stay and they will happily pay an agent so they don't have to be bothered. .

The paperwork? For the first extension, its mostly paper work proving one is married. If married not in Thailand (to one's Thai spouse) then there is a lot of official translations ($$) and certifications needed of one's foreign marriage documents (and even foreign passport) to take in Bangkok to one's embassy (for certification) and to Thai foreign affairs (for certification) followed by taking to one's local city hall, to have the marriage registered in Thailand and obtain the Kor-22 (?). And after obtaining this, do NOT lose it ... its a pain to do again. Then every year, prior to going for the extension for the permission to stay in Thailand, some (all ? ) immigration offices require one go back to City Hall to have the Kor-22 (?) marriage registration document in Thailand updated (with a current date stamp). Dependent on the City Hall, this could mean hours waiting. Some immigration offices may not require this, but some do require this, every year. One also needs to have paper copies with images of one's wife's current ID for each extension of the permission to stay. Some offices require images of one with their wife (1) inside their home (2) outside their home where their house (or condo) # is visible. In the case of a condo it could be 2 images (not just one by the entrance), with one by the door to their unit, and one by the condo entrance. Some immigration offices insist it be new image(s) (by one's home with one's wife) every year (as opposed to continually using the same image). I think some Immigration offices might require one's wife accompany one as part of the extension (of one's permission to stay) process. Also some (not all) immigration offices require that one be at home with one's wife for a house visit, where one or more immigration officers will come to one's home, and want to take images of one with their wife in all sorts of rooms in one's home. That is what comes to my mind off of the top of my head - maybe others know of other items that I forgot while typing this. I did not find it too onerous, but it was definitely more than what was needed for retirement. However I do believe there are those who would have ZERO patience for all of that, every time a renewal is required. I know my wife was irritated by the process ... and "a happy wife is a happy life" ... but an upset wife makes one's life less than pleasant at times. .... What I found most unpleasant, was that the annual extension for one's permission to stay, based on marriage, took weeks waiting for the approval, as opposed to days in the case of a retirement extension.

As noted there are two types of Visas to consider: Type-OA and Type-O (with permissions of stay in Thailand can be based on retirement or based on marriage). If you obtain permission to stay (in the Visa application and subsequent extensions) based on marriage, you do not need to worry about being forced to get health insurance from the Thai branch of a health insurance company. A type-O visa has (IMHO) the advantage that if one wishes to go for a 'permission to stay' based on retirement, there is no Health Insurance requirement (from a health insurance company Thai branch). This is contrary to a Type-OA which has a health insurance requirement for extensions based on retirement. Note: A retirement extension is more expensive in terms of proof of funds than a marriage extension: An extension of one's permission to stay in Thailand requires more proof of funds for an extension based on retirement, as opposed to when on an extension based on marriage. The advantages to an extension based on retirement (over marriage) is that there is far less paperwork (and IMHO less hassle, and its quicker to obtain) and it if based on an underlying Type-O visa, no health insurance proof needed. The advantage to an extension based on marriage (over retirement) is that one needs less proof of money (than that of a retirement extension) and in the case of a Type-OA underlying visa, there is no Health Insurance proof needed for an extension based on marriage. I would recommend going for a Type-O based on retirement if you can prove the funds. And if you don't want to meet the financial requirements (for retirement) then I still recommend a Type-O (but instead based on marriage). This way if something should happen to your wife, or something happen to your relationship with your wife, you can more easily (at your annual renewal) switch to a permission to stay extension based on retirement (assuming you can then meet the increased financial requirements of a retirement extension over a marriage extension). If you were on a Type-OA (based on marriage) and you were suddenly no longer married, you would be faced with the Health Insurance requirements from the Thai branch of a health insurance company, which could be disruptive to one's current health coverage setup. The Type-O visa avoids such a potential future possibility.

While I agree (or at least when I was on a Type-OA and a Type-O agreed) that if one meets the requirements (via funds) there is no need for an agent ... and I have NEVER used an agent myself, ... I do have friends who have lived in Thailand for years, who have more than adequate finances to meet the extension of the permission to stay requirements, and they ALWAYS use an agent. Simply put, they are in their late-70s, they detest sitting around at immigration, and an agent is far far less hassle for them, and the amount of money they spend for an agent is trivial for them. Their tolerance for any hassle is FAR FAR less than mine. When they fly somewhere, they fly business class. Why? Because the extra money from economy to business is trivial for them. Again, if I was still on a type-O or a type0A visa myself, I would NOT use an agent, but the point is I do know some who think different than myself, for reasons that are very logical for them. Not everyone uses an agent because they can't meet the financial requirements.

Likely no more home visits (nor home videos) for myself for a decade or so. As soon as I obtained the one-year extension on my 90-day Type-O Visa (for reason of retirement), I then immediately applied for an LTR-WP visa. I waited until I had the approval of the one year extension on my Type-O permission to stay (for reason of retirement), before applying for the LTR-WP, so that I would not stress over my LTR-WP application if it was slow in getting approved. That turned out to be a fortuitous approach, as it took me 5-months to get the LTR-WP, most likely because my assets are very very diverse, because I had to buy some government bonds to reach the necessary investment in Thailand, and because BoI wanted an up to date Canadian taxation document - where that took me some time to get. One thing I like about the LTR-WP (as opposed to the old Type-OA retirement extensions) is that the LTR-WP allows self Health Insurance by having a certain amount of money in a bank anywhere in the world. Wow ... just showing up. That would work for me (for retirement) if only I had to be in the condo when they (immigration) showed up. But if it was for 'marriage' extension, trying to pick a time (other than early morning or evening) when both my wife and I are in my condo would be very hit and miss. Fortunately, with LTR-WP, most of those paperwork days are gone for another 4.5+ years for myself. However when the 10-years of the LTR-WP are up, I might go back to a Type-O visa, if it is still around, and if the conditions/requirements have not changed.