JimGant

Dad, what does your reply have to do with my above reply?

Uh, possibly I should have said 'facetious' rather than joke. Or did you really think I believe AEON machines are wearing out due to Thaivisa members?

"It's a joke, son" is a comedy from 1947, turned into later phraseology.

Lighten up, sir

If your quest is for an AEON machine, to save 150 baht -- well, no doubt they're all wearing out now due to too much exposure on Thaivisa.

I doubt that. Considering the number of full and part time expats living in Thailand, very few visit TV. I suspect only a limited number read these types of threads and a some that do don't mind paying the extra 150b. I for one do presently use ATMs, and even though I have several fee free debit cards, I want to avoid the fees. That being said, if there is an increased rise in malfunctioning machines, I will begin doing teller counter withdrawals.

That's a joke, son. In the frantic search for the last ATM machine in Thailand that is 'fee-free,' AEON has become the metaphor for this quest. The time and cost to find that AEON machine -- that may steal your card and money in a remote part of town -- ain't worth it.

Why even use a 'foreign' ATM machine? Using the one attached to your local bank, where you know the manager and/or staff, should rectify any problems with 'card eating' or erroneous cash dispersal.

And take max chunks at a time. This will limit frequency -- and absorb better the 150 baht hit (which, for some, apparently could be avoided by a counter visit instead).

Sure, this may mean returning to home plate to lock up excess cash. Maybe a little inconvenient for some -- but not when compared to some strange shopping mall ATM stealing your card or cash.

And to wander throughout life, near penniless from strange ATM machine to strange ATM machine, means you're certainly going to encounter a problem or two at some point. One not easily corrected.

If your quest is for an AEON machine, to save 150 baht -- well, no doubt they're all wearing out now due to too much exposure on Thaivisa.

Surf,

Apparently SCB differentiates between "cash advances" with a credit card and POS cash withdrawal with a debit card. The former is where they charge the usurious DCC rate. The latter, they don't -- possibly because at least one of the majors (Visa or MC) has said "no DCC" allowed with their debit card.

See HERE for same discussion on another thread.

You can fly in to Thailand on a single ticket with any kind of visa as long as it is valid.

As far as the airlines are concerned......

But the following is a quote from the Thai Embassy Washington website re tourist visas:

A copy of round-trip ticket or itinerary paid in full

So, if the airlines don't give you a 'gotcha,' the Thai consulate just might.

And I know from a friend that Washington *does* indeed ask to see your airline ticket when applying for a tourist visa -- along with proof of money in a bank account. Wonder if they want to see multiple round-trip tickets if you apply for a 2 or 3 entry tourist visa.......?

Chou,

Ok, got it. You had assumed the $150.11 charge had contained the 1% foreign transaction fee (thus the assumed fee-free 33.64 fx rate) -- but it hadn't. It was just an initial 'placeholder' until the 1% Visa foreign transaction fee was passed on by Fidelity (resulting in the final figure of $151.47). So, yep, no 'sweetner' for you.

USAA does something similar. One to two days after I use their ATM card in Thailand, I get a .8% added charge to the initial charge that had shown up on-line nearly instantaneously. This is a Cirrus transaction. Now, nothing ever changes between the initial charge -- and the always .8% later add-on. So, why they can't roll all of this into a single transaction is beyond me (and beyond anyone I've talked to at USAA).

Anyway, I don't use them anymore, preferring to ACH money. However, I need to get off my lazy butt and get one of those purely fee-free cards -- as a previous analysis shows I'm losing thousands of baht in beer money.

Chou, I don't quite follow your math. Assuming the following quote is correct.......(and this also works the same for your ATM transaction, once you subtract out the $4.50 baht equivalent ATM fee)

Next made a 5000 baht cash advance at the bank counter.

The online charge was 150.11; subtract the 1% fee and the exchange rate here was 33.6428

Divide 5000 by 150.11 and you get 33.30. Pretty close to the advertised IER for that time period - upon which you could not do better (33.64 is nonsensical). Meaning, you had no 1% Visa foreign transaction fee being passed on by Fidelity (meaning, they're offering you a 'sweetner,' like they -- and their competitor brokers -- have been doing for quite some time now). When -- and if -- the bottom falls out is the pertinent question.....

he explained that it's not fidelity, but the visa company that imposes the fee.

visa does the currency conversion, adds the 1% fee, and passes that number on to fidelity.

Right. This is the 'sweetner' I'm talking about. Fidelity (and its competitors) are eating the Visa foreign transaction fee as an incentive for your account -- and anticipated activity within it. However, I can't see how this can go on if you turn out to be just another account holder parking his money. And this seems to be the case with many here who have these "golden" fee-free cards. But, enjoy while it lasts.

We were using SCB to do counter withdrawals a few times this summer and the exchange rate matched what I got with my ATM card. The withdrawal was delayed, but as an example, we took out money that posted a few days later and the same day that we performed a withdrawal at a 150 baht fee-free ATM in another province and the exchange rate was identical.

That would suggest their advertisement for "cash advances" with the usurious DCC rates are strictly for credit cards.

As previously pointed out, an ATM/Debit counter transaction is not a 'cash advance' (since you're not 'advancing' anything, as this is just a debit to your existing funds). So, in your case, your debit card transaction was treated appropriately, i.e., not as a 'cash advance' but as a Point of Sale transaction.

Which is not to say they couldn't, in the future, apply their DCC rates to all plastic counter transactions.

JFC,

Yeah, you're 'right on' with the reimbursement of the 150bt ATM fees -- I'd overlooked that. But not all of the fee-free cards apparently do this. Didn't someone say Fidelity won't reimburse foreign ATM charges? Again, hit or miss.

But for those cards who do reimburse, this is still the unbeatable way to get cash in Thailand.

I thought I remembered one example some time back where one of the banks was charging a separate, lower rate for that kind of transaction..

Yeah, that was SCB. (SEE HERE)

This is a Dynamic Currency Conversion (DCC) rate for a 'cash advance' -- about 3.3% below the TT rate! Pure dog shiite.

But, by defintion, a cash advance is using a credit card, where the 'advance' is actually a loan. SCB actually alludes to this.

So, if you were to walk into SCB with an ATM/Debit card, and go thru the 'cash advance' procedure at the counter, what, indeed, would happen? It's not strictly a 'cash advance' -- it's money directly drawn from your home account. Can they apply DCC to such a transaction?

JFC, YOUR MISSION, SHOULD YOU ACCEPT, IS TO PROCEED TO SCB WITH YOUR DEBIT CARD. THIS INSTRUCTION WILL SELF-DESTRUCT.......

Good analysis, JFC. Now, for the quack doctor........

It costs me NOTHING to get money from my TD Brokerage to my Bkk Bank account.

It's nice TD charges nothing for domestic ACH transfers. Some, like Bank of America, do charge, mainly because they have a middleman, who also slows down the process.

But most don't charge for a domestic ACH. So, for most here, getting your money to Bangkok Bank New York is free. Then, however, we all pay to have BB NY remove the money from the ACH pipe and put it in the pipe to Thailand. For $2001 to $50000, it's $10 (here's the link showing all the variations Click Here)

Now, by example, say you sent $5,000 via ACH to your Bangkok Bank account. In reality, only $4,990 of that would leave New York for Bangkok. Once it got to Bangkok, you would receive the TT exchange rate (the same rate you'd get for a SWIFT wire transfer). And a further fee of .25% would be assessed.

So, assuming a TT rate of 33.33, your fee on the Thai end would be 416baht. This, added to the $10 front end fee, means about $22.50 in total fees. And your effective exchange rate would be 33.18.

But, there's a further cost.

If you used one of those completely fee-free cards (like Schwab, E*Trade, etc), you would get the Interbank Exchange Rate (IER), assuming a counter transaction, or no 150 baht ATM charge. And this rate is consistently about .33% better than the TT rate. So, in this example, that rate would be about 33.44.

Meaning, you lose about 1300 baht by using the ACH method for obtaining $5,000 worth of baht compared to a fee-free card. And if you did this 4 times per year, that's a 5,200 baht cost -- real beer money. Now, you could send a single $20,000 chunk, which would only cost you 3,053 baht by comparison (due to the nature of fixed cost amortization). Or, 8 x $2,500 amounts -- which would cost you 6,544 baht. When you factor in exchange rate risk, how large or small the amount you send can add further cost (or reward). If you're not a gambler, this is one more reason to go the fee-free card route.

And if you're having your pension ACHed thru Bangkok Bank New York, the above comparison holds equally true.

Also, if somehow you can SWIFT for free, you're still better off using a fee-free card. Why? Because even with no front-end fee, you still have the back-end fee -- plus the less attractive TT exchange rate.

Now, if they start charging for counter transactions........

Or, if all ATM machines begin charging (or it's not convenient to find one that doesn't)........ Lemme see. At 25000 a pop, to get my $5000 out of the ATM machine, I'd need 7 trips. 150 x 7 = 1050. Wow, I'd be 150 baht better off compared to sending $5000 via the ACH method........

Nevermind.

Depending on where he is he may not be allowed on plane if they look close.

That's the downside. Otherwise, assuming everything was in order for an extension renewal -- except his timing, a visa exempt entry, a Form TM87 (to get an in-country Non Imm O visa), and a visit to Immigration within the first 9 days of entry into Thailand should close the deal.

chou,

Your Fidelity brokerage account must be waiving the 1% foreign transaction fee, as there's no way you could have gotten an exchange rate of 33.6 on or around Oct 12th. With the waiving, you would have gotten pretty much what X-rate com has for the 12 Oct IER (33.33). And as Vagabond points out, the X-rate info is pretty much right-on with their Interbank Exchange Rate (IER) as a measure of what the best Debit/ATM cards are giving. And these cards are the brokerage cards -- such as E*Trade and Schwaab. Your Fidelity, then, must be waiving to stay competitve. (And I believe another poster here has indicated Fidelity is not charging the foreign transaction fee, at least for now.)

Anyway, a counter operation is certainly the way for you to go, as even with your front-end wire fee being waived, you still have fees on this end -- plus you only get the TT rate, which averages 10-15 satang less than the IER. As long as Fidelity keeps eating the foreign transaction fee..........

Interestingly, although the Fidelity representative I spoke with said that this 1% fee is included for ATM withdrawals from a Fidelity core account I have made many withdrawals and there is no fee. Is this a mistake? Probably not. Perhaps it is related to the type of account, such as a Premium Services account.

The above from HERE

Jim, I'm not sure I understand any of that announcement you posted above, or what implications it might have for us folks in the U.S. to Thailand ACH business.

It really is a big, confused situation (Google on 'international ACH transactions' if you want an earful).

This new rule applies to all ACH participants and will simplify the process of identifying international transactions by requiring that International ACH Transaction (IAT) entries include specific data elements defined by the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). This will make it easier for depository financial institutions to comply with U.S. laws, such as requirements by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). The new rule will also define new parties to the IAT entry and re-define gateway operator obligations.

Picking the above quote apart, a couple of things stand out. First, this is governed by law -- and there are some pretty stiff fines involved for non compliance. Second, the "re-define gateway operator obligations" probably will impact Bangkok Bank New York -- and your ACH transfer through them will now contain all the information currently required for SWIFT transfers, so called "Travel Rule" information (i.e., originator name/physical address/deposit account number, originator’s depository institution name, payment amount, receiver name/address/account number, and the receiver’s financial institution).

Now, how all this will be implemented -- and will it be transparent to me -- I don't know. For example, my bank (USAA) gets my request for an ACH transfer to Bangkok Bank New York. It looks just like any other transfer to a domestic ABA address. But now some new data elements (the "Travel Rule" stuff) need to be included. How will USAA know they need to do this? Or will Bangkok Bank New York do it on their end (or message USAA to do it on their's -- thereby slowing the process)? Anyway, sounds like a goat rope. I'll find out soon, as I just fingered in an ACH transfer to Bangkok Bank.

Now for Chase:

We have added language to clarify that it is prohibited to use our bill payment and/or transfer services for International ACH transactions.

Prohibited, ok. But maybe not mechanically preventable, so this message maybe is a legal CYA.

Now, the following from this Chase link: Click Here

* IAT transactions are prohibited on Chase Commercial OnlineSM, PayStream, JPMorgan Insight and JPMorgan Treasury Workstation. If your company uses one of these platforms and needs to make an international payment, please use International Wire Transfers or contact your Chase Commercial Banker to discuss other options for transmitting these transactions.

* PaySource users will be able to schedule IAT ACH transactions beginning September 18, 2009.

* JPMorgan ACCESS users will be able to schedule IAT ACH transactions later this year.

* If your company will use PaySource or JPMorgan ACCESS to submit an IAT ACH transaction, you will be required to revise the data file that will be used for IAT transactions.

Ok, so Chase does have one network (PaySource) up and running to accommodate IATs -- and another one being modified to do so later in the year. But, obviously, at some expense -- probably why not all networks are being modified to the new guidelines for IATs.

And, for those who want to send IATs, you need to modify your applicable ACH data file to comply with the new regulations.

So, I guess when USAA figures all this out, I'll hear from them about some kind of modification/flagging on my 'send' link to Bangkok Bank New York. Or maybe it will easier just to follow Chase's example -- and prohibit IATs.......... Barf!

Clear as mud, no?

I have been saying this for a long time. Those of you who depend on schemes to avoid using the SWIFT system for transfers to Thailand should not assume this is going to last. The US government wants these transfers to be SWIFT. They keep an eye on all SWIFT transfers and they like it that way.

ACH is not an illegal "scheme" of sending money to Thailand. However, as it was set-up for US domestic electronic funds transfers, its involvement with international funds transfers, using US based foreign banks or US correspondent banks, precluded adequate tracking. So, we have the following:

Effective September 18, 2009, the National Automated Clearing House Association (NACHA) will require a new format for certain ACH transactions. ACH transactions that are part of a payment chain that begins or ends in another country outside of the U.S. must be formatted as a new ACH transaction type, IAT (International ACH Transaction). Transactions that begin as ACH payments destined for other countries will also be classified as IAT transactions. Please note that this change does not affect international wire transfers.

The new IAT format is designed to help law enforcement agencies detect, investigate and prosecute money laundering and other financial crimes by creating and preserving an information trail of entities sending and receiving funds through U.S financial institutions' monetary systems.

Chase -- and probably several others -- are dealing with this by simply saying their BillPay systems are not meant for international transactions -- and, as such, they're certainly not going to reprogram their ACH software to accept the IAT code.

I use USAA, and it's a simple ACH transfer action on-line (it's not a BillPay) to send money to Bangkok Bank New York's domestic ABA address, for forwarding to my Bangkok Bank account in Thailand. As far as the system knows, this is strictly a domestic transaction. And I'm sure I could send money right now, without having somebody, somewhere, insert the new IAT code. But, I'm now not in compliance with the new law. Same for folks having their pension and Social Security checks direct deposited via Bangkok Bank New York (unless the check issuers know the money ends up in Thailand, which is doubtful, unless so told).

Maybe Bangkok Bank New York will insert the code....... (although everything I've read says this has to be done with the initiator of the transaction).

Anyway, this will all sort out -- eventually. And the Feds now have, in theory at least, a method to keep tabs on international ACH transactions.

But I really dislike spending $35 for a SWIFT transfer (vice $10 for ACH), and having to make a phone call (vice doing an ACH on-line).

Phuck it. Maybe I'll just ignore the new guidance -- as the mechanics for a "domestic" ACH are still in-place....... (What! Ignorance of the law is no excuse! Really? )

Perhaps I don't understand the terminology being used here, is Federal retirement the same thing as Social Security payments made by the government at age 62?

Government pensions are set up similar to private pensions, in that they adhere to insurance and annuity principals. As such, you can opt for a 'survivor option,' which means you'll get a smaller paycheck while you're alive -- but your designated survivor will continue to get a paycheck after your death. The amount of that paycheck depends on what you opted for initially. The bigger the survivor's paycheck, the smaller your paycheck before you kick off. Since this is all done using actuarial tables, payouts, with or without survivor options, should all even out amongst all the participants. So, the fact that your 'survivor' is a Thai, who's never been to the land of the big BX, doesn't bother the actuaries.

Social Security, however, is not actuarially sound. Example: If you're single, and paid in xx dollars during you're working years, the magic formula will designate an xx dollar payout at a certain age. If you're married however, you still get the same xx dollar payout -- but your wife will get again another half of this amount (assuming she's SS age eligible). And when you die, your wife will now get the amount you were receiving at the time of your death -- even tho' you didn't take a pay cut for her right to do so. No, not even close to how real pensions work.

So, as the name suggests, Social Security is largely a social program -- overly generous to spouses (and other dependent survivors), as well as to po' folks (that's another story).

As such, Uncle Sam wants to make sure this over-generosity only goes to those who've seen the big BX.

Non-Imm 'O' has to be applied for outside Thailand while extension can be done at Chaengwattana....?

Non-Imm O visas *can* be obtained within Thailand -- as part of a package deal leading to a one-year extension of stay.

Because This Page suggests police clearance and health clearance are required for any application for this kind of visa.

No wonder for the confusion. The link is a direct quote from the MFA website -- and is full of errors. That it's repeated on Thaivisa as kosher is additional travesty.

(Sorry for the following repetition. But maybe by explaining it one more way will prevent some newbies from getting tripped-up -- especially when they're getting mislead by seemingly valid websites......)

For some reason, MFA believes that "long stays" received within Thailand are exactly the same as those issued by MFA in their consulates abroad, namely: Non Imm O-A visas. So, by extension, MFA assumes police and medical requirements are also needed, just as with their O-A visas. All the above premises are wrong.

MFA is completely out of the loop in their assumptions on how "long stays" are issued within Thailand. As this function is not handled by MFA, but by the Immigration Police, it's possible (albeit minutely) to see their confusion.

The Immigration Police don't issue Non Imm O-A visas as the vehicle for allowing "long stays." Instead, they grant 'one-year extensions of stay." And the initial "one-year extension of stay is obtained by having a current "permission to stay" obtained while having a valid Non Immigrant visa. Subsequent renewals of 'one-year extensions of stay' can be obtained indefinitely, as long as the particular monetary, marriage, etc. requirements are still met -- and if accomplished before the previous 'one-year extension of stay' has expired. This procedure does not require that one has a valid Non Immigrant visa. In fact, if the chain of annual extension renewals has not been broken, one's original Non Imm visa could have expired decades ago. It's validity is no longer required.

The Non Immigrant visas that eventually lead to initial "one-year extensions of stay" are, for the most part, obtained abroad from MFA at a Thai embassy or consulate (or by an MFA-chartered Honorary Consulate).

But a few years back, for whatever reason, Immigration began issuing Non Immigrant visas in-country to those who could qualify for one-year extensions of stay. These are not "long stay" O-A visas, but are of the variety that allow a '90-day permission of stay,' during which you apply for your one-year extension of stay. As such, you're in the same position as one who enters Thailand on a Non Immigrant visa obtained abroad that affords a 90-day permission to stay period. This also means that the methodology leading to a one-year stay in Thailand is governed by Immigration criteria, not MFA. Thus, no need for a medical or police report.

Two ways to obtain an in-country Non Immigrant visa: Form TM86 to convert a Tourist Visa to a Non Immigrant visa; Form TM87 to convert a 30-day entry stamp to a Non Immigrant visa.

Both methods require 21-days remaining on your permission to stay period. So with the TM87 method, you've only got 9 days to get your requirements in order -- and visit Immigration.

Per usual, consistency among the Immigration offices is -- inconsistent. Some, if you arrive with all your requirements needed for the one-year extension, will issue you both your Non Imm visa -- and your one-year extension -- the same day. In another example -- maybe isolated, I don't recall -- the applicant had the income affidavit from his Embassy, they issued the Non Imm visa (good for 90 days), kept the affidavit, and said, 'come back during the last 30 days for your extension -- with a new affidavit from your Embassy.' Ouch.

Anyway, strange things can happen. (Some offices, we've heard, won't even entertain the TM87 route.)

And, per a post above, there's the chance that some Immigration offices/officers won't require the two month bank account seasoning just to obtain the Non Imm visa (only for the subsequent extension). That would be nice. But, for the bloke who goes the TM87 route, and who gets the 'come back when the money's aged' routine -- that could be inconvenient, to say the least.

So, beware potential minefields. And don't believe everything your read on Thaivisa -- even if it looks official. (Jeez, if you can't believe Thaivisa....... )

The money must not go below 800K for two months before application date.

I've nothing definitive to base this on -- just a very hazy recollection of something along these lines discussed here a year or so ago.........

.....but it may be possible to not have the two month seasoning when you submit your form TM86 to convert your TR visa to a Non Imm O (since seasoning requirements seem to be for extensions, not in-country visa conversions). Instead, just showing that you have 800k in the bank *may* be enough -- since in most reported circumstances they tell you to come back 60+ days later to apply for your one-year extension. And, of course, '60+' days later will then give you the necessary 'two months' in the bank.

The other side of this coin is...if you do have all the requisite requirements, including a two month seasoning, some Immigration offices/officers will do same day service, giving both a Non Imm O visa conversion -- and a one-year extension at the same time.

Certainly worth a try -- particularly if you don't already have an 800k account established when you enter Thailand for 60 days on your TR visa. Otherwise, you'll need to leave and re-enter Thailand -- or flop down 1900 baht for a 30-day extension -- in order to have two months seasoning for your Non Imm O application. Shame to actually go through this -- if it turns out you didn't have to.

My experience with the honorary consulate in Coral Gables Florida contradicts that of the original poster. I had paperwork prepared in Bangkok by a lawyer for a non-Imm B visa. (I registered my own company in Thailand through this lawyer.) These supporting documents were all in Thai. I sent these docs, along with the visa app, photos, a $175 money order, and a prepaid, pre-addressed Priority Mail envelope to return the passport to me. I got it back with a 1 year visa after about 5 business days of processing time.

Your mailing address was in Florida somewhere, right? ( I ask because this Consulate has been reported as not servicing requests nationwide, but only from within Florida.)

I am wanting to obtain a 1 year Non-Immigrant O visa on basis of visiting friends in Thailand, from the honorary consulate in Houston, Texas (U.S.).

Save yourself the time and effort of the end-run. Houston ain't Hull -- and doesn't give Non Imm O visas for the purpose of visiting friends in Thailand (unless that Thai friend has a marriage license attached).

However, as I was not working during visa renewal this year this source of income was not accepted by two different immigration officers each of whom explained Thai based income is only accepted when you hold a work permit.

As for the letter from the embassy, it seems illogical that I'd have to take my Tax records translate them to English then go to the embassy to have the embassy approve this, then take it back to immigration when the original documents themselves are in Thai for them to see.

Interesting. You took your income documentation directly to Immigration, with no embassy verification letter? That must have piqued their juices -- and given them a power shot to turn you down.

Yeah, it does seem illogical to take Thai income records to your embassy. But some embassies don't even look at this documentation (US and Aussie, for example). But the fact remains -- the guidance for extensions based on income requires a document from your embassy. Most of the time, this does the trick. Immigration is impressed with the official document that says you meet the such-and-such income requirement. Sometimes (not often, apparently) they'll ask for supporting documentation. But what might happen after that, I've never heard ("You and your imperialist embassy lie!!!). Nah. The official verification of your income normally does the trick.

Now, if you want to sidestep instructions, and plead your income situation directly with Immigration, well, you show what can happen.

Personally have seen no evidence of income statements relating to marriage extensions being specifically targeted more.

Yeah, me neither -- unless there's no embassy verification letter associated.....

Pension/salary from abroad/property rental income/bank interest/dividends etc are generally regarded as acceptable sources of income by non 'sworn declaration' embassies .....

Would that be gross -- or net -- receipts?

The British Embassy, a non 'sworn declaration' embassy,' does accept "gross receipts", probably because they realize it would be too easy to not present all the other related documentation that nets out related expenses. So, in the end, Immigration may not be getting anything more substantive from the British than they're getting from the 'sworn declaration' embassies. At least in terms of disposable cash flow available to the expat in Thailand.

The process of verifying income is the same whether for retirement or marriage extension.

Ok. But it just sounds like Immigration is verifying income statements more often for marriage extensions vice retirement extensions. And, I guess I would too, if a person's relative youth raised a flag as to income sources.

I was informed that no other income e,g. an investor / business owner / rental from investment properties is not acceptable.

Is proving income for marriage extensions different than for retirement extensions? In the latter, you have your embassy verify your "cash flow." In most cases, Immigration accepts this without further justification of source. Isn't this the same as for extensions based on marriage -- or is Immigration asking for source justification?

And it really isn't "income" you're justifying. The US statement verifies that you receive X amount of dollars monthly from "US Government and/or other sources." Nothing about 'income' is verified. So, your "other sources" could be milking down your savings account -- or living off loans from Aunt Martha. And, actually, if this is getting you by, until Social Security and/or a pension kicks in, this seemingly would perfectly satisfy what the Thais really want -- which is a designated positive 'cash flow' that meets their standards.

To limit cash flows to 'income' could really get into a fur ball with Immigration. "Would that be 'gross income, net income, earned or unearned income' officer?"

Over the years here on this forum we've seen that gross income is acceptable by the Thais (and also by no less than the very-thorough British Embassy, where showing receipts for gross rentals, for example, would qualify). I'm sure also that you don't have to cross your fingers when you attest to the US authorities that the monthly dollars you receive are gross dollars.

But, somehow, it must be a minor footnote that after paying taxes, upkeep, the mortgage, insurance, alimony, whatever -- your disposable cash flow in Thailand is zilch. Fortunately, probably too tough a nut to crack -- allowing creative financing to exist.

Unless -- back to my original question for marriage extensions: Is Immigration demanding to see source documentation for your stated 'income?' And even worse -- are they somehow deriving "take home" values?

If someone were really clueless (or devious), and decided to stay longer than 90 days in this situation, how would they be 'found out' by Immigration at the airport when they eventually departed? Or would they?

I've never seen Immigration cross check the 'permitted to stay' stamp with the source visa/re-entry permit -- a waste of time, since 99% of the time this would check-out 'ok.' Would something in a database sound an alert?

Just curious (As obviously this is not a frequent situation, open to exploitation.)

In both the Visa and Mastercard contracts with banks it is clearly stated that loading the invoice amount to cover the usual 3% charge is not permitted.

However, Catch-22 says merchants may offer "cash purchase" discounts. So, if the merchant tells you that prices reflect the discount cash purchase price, which is 3% less than the non-discount credit card price, what's to argue?

Even some airlines will add a credit card surcharge -- if you're buying a discounted ticket -- as the understanding is you're buying a 'discounted for cash customers' ticket. They can't do this with full-fare tickets.

Sneaky, yes. Not sure I'd want to waste the time arguing the point. But, yeah, the cost of convenience can add up.