JimGant

Sounds like a good rule of thumb is to replace your battery every two years. Period. They're not that expensive, particularly when compared to the hassle of jumping your car in a cramped, underground parking garage. I learned the hard way -- and even with my own jumper cables and hand-cleaner solution -- it wasn't much fun.

Also, get a quality battery. Someone told me the 'green colored' ones won't even last two years. I'm sure there are some others out there to be avoided....

The thought of my wife having to go thru this is what really sold me on the two year plan.

I own a 2007 Honda Jazz, with the CVT-7 transmission. I love the seamless shifting -- like a golf cart with afterburner.

Anyway, I've noted, on various international forums, that the CVT transmission needs to have its oil changed more frequently than a conventional automatic transmission (AT). I'm at the 20k mark (it sits a lot), so off to the Honda dealer. Question: I've heard, there's some kind of non-Honda additive that could -- and maybe should -- be added to the Honda CVT transmission fluid. Anyone familiar with the above?

I understand the newer Jazzes only come with the 5-SP AT option -- no CVT. Is that true? If so, how does this newer AT compare, performance wise, with the CVT transmission?

And, if no CVT option for the current Jazzes, any rumors about future CVT transmissions? (Interestingly, the new hybrid CRZs have a CVT-7 option....)

i use bkk bank- they are in new york,and transfer money from my american account(not in new york and not bkk bank!) to the bkk bank account in thailand.regardless of the sum the fee is 25 $

Cheaper than the SWIFT wire, above, is to do an ACH transfer from your US financial institution, thru Bangkok Bank NY (using their routing number), to your Bangkok Bank account in Thailand. Only $5 for amounts up to $2000; $10 for amounts from $2001 to $50,000. Same fee on Thai side as for a SWIFT (200-500 baht); and same TT rate. Most US financial institutions don't charge an ACH fee (exception:B of America charges $3); and all can be accomplished on the Internet, same as doing a US-to-US ACH transfer. While a SWIFT normally takes one business day, an ACH takes two.

Much discussion on this subject on this forum. Here's the Bangkok Bank website explaining it all:

HERE for US INFO

The Brits have a similar option, although more expensive and slower than for the Yanks:

HERE for UK INFO

Also, considerable discussion on the this UK Bangkok Bank London option on this forum.

They well give vouchers to shop in their store. 400 points get you 100 baht voucher

Did not know that (I only shop Meechok, if that makes any difference).

I guess the question now remains -- is a 10000 point item in their catalogue valued at only 2500 baht? If valued more, say 5000 baht, then it would seem worth it to *not* cash your points in for vouchers -- unless, of course, you already have enough rice cookers

Rimping gives 100 baht per every 400 points.

How do you mean? If I cash in 10,000 points for an item in their catalogue, then you're saying the item is worth only 2500 baht?

And those 10,000 points cost me 250,000 baht in purchases (thank you Joop50 for that). Which means, we're getting a 1% discount at Rimping.

If you are going elsewhere to get the letter your tax returns with w-2'S AND 1099'S attached are the standard proof of income.

Where might elsewhere be for "the letter?"

It would appear to me that, temporarily leaving the kingdom or staying in a hotel for a period of time away from your home address doesnt mean the wife or owner of the same 'home' property needs to report you again, once you return.

ND, from your experience, it would seem so. I have a feeling the fines reported here were for folks who had no TM30 on file for his/wife's home.

Which raises the issue -- will the many here without TM30's on file have some extra baht removed at their next visit to Immigration?

In past years I have attached letters from Social Security and from my pension provider to the embassy notarized statement. Last year the immigrations officer didn't bother checking, but in previous years she used a calculator to compare the total I wrote in my sworn statement with the sum of the amounts in the backup letters.

...and if you hadn't enclosed the uncalled for backup statements in previous years, what, then, would she have done.....?

I would hope that most Yanks here are ethical -- but, certainly, some aren't. Thai Immigration surely knows this -- and knows some of the income statements are bogus. But, they have, with few exceptions, honored the consular/embassy income statements. Why? Probably because, so far, this has caused no problems, indicated by no disproportionate Yank keynoke retirement population. If it's not broken..........

Maybe you've always submitted backup documentation, with the believe this is the way Immigration wants it. If so, then you now know that, per your last visit, the backup docoments need not be attached (simply in your briefcase, if ever called for).

But I hope you didn't attach the backup statements just to "look good in the shower" -- knowing they weren't required.....?

My apologies if I missed it -- but how many baht expenditure does it take for one point?

I had actually thought they had stopped the point game, as I no longer saw my accumulation on the sales slip. However, asking at the counter gave me my latest total.

The wait to get my Sony 32" telly is interesting -- but not as interesting as the wait to accumulate the points..... Sigh.

The last 2 times before signing my Income. Affidavit the US Consular Officer had me state that I was aware that the Thai IMM officer can request corroborating income documents.

They do that when you raise your right hand with your fingers crossed.....

The land lord, whether it is a hotel or your own wife, must report your stay at the house when you arrive.

Right. I'm just trying to figure out that, once you break your last established 90-day reporting cycle -- by leaving and re-entering Thailand -- whether or not the wife has to file a new TM30.......? I would hope just one TM30 on file, with same wife, same address would suffice -- even if you're a frequent traveler. Certainly, subject to individual interpretation by Immigration officers. But I have a feeling, if there's already a TM30 on file for same house and wife, you're ok (certainly, most long-stay types reading this, aren't getting hit with TM30 violations whenever they travel.....).

My wife was also fined for not reporting my stay, 5,000 baht.

Interesting. They do have the discretion to fine between 2k and 10k... Was there a TM30 already on file? If not, maybe explains why a higher fine was levied.

And if there was one on file, does your wife now trek to Immigration whenever you travel and return? (And, like hotels, wonder if you can do this via internet?)

Then she fined my wife for not reporting my last arrival.

....because your TM6 address was different from your previous in-country 90-day reports?

Or, by leaving the country, then re-entering, the TM30 process had to be regenerated?

Was there a TM30 already on-file with Immigration -- if not, was all the above because (in your estimation) there wasn't?

Confusing questions, I know. Just trying to figure out whether or not, living here long-stay, the wife will be required to do a TM30 report whenever I travel, with a re-entry permit, because the 90-day clock gets kicked down the path.....

There is definitely a separate form for Income Affidavit for Retirement extension purposes....

....which, fortunately, doesn't confuse the issue that an "oath" equates to the Embassy's "guarantee." Somebody in the State Dept was using their head when they "modified" the vanilla notary statement to accommodate the basic Thai Immigration requirement. Why muddy the water with further stating: 'He might be lying.'

Thank you, State Dept, for helping your citizens here in Thailand -- and saving the "trust, but verify" for situations where warranted.

Actually someone I know, just yesterday, was denied a tourist visa extension because their address was a private house, and the house head had not logged a TM30 with immigration. A 2000THB fine [the option is between 2000 to 10000 baht per person] was requested by immigration before they would process their extension.

Not an isolated case. Chiang Mai Immigration, awhile back, was enforcing the TM30 rule against home-owner wives whose husbands were applying for one-year extensions. Obviously, per the above quote, several situations can trigger Immigration's interest in TM30 compliance. However, if Uncle Fred never plans to extend his tourist visa during his stay with us, I can see no reason why the wife should ever bother with a TM30 for him -- at least from a "getting caught" standpoint. Having said that, I guess there is a remote possibility, since he put our address on his landing card, that TM6 and TM30 info could be married-up...... Still, not enough of a possibility to waste a trip to Immigration.

Instructions for filling out the TM30 (from the Thai Immigration website):

Please fill in all requested information according to the foreign national's passport, as often arriving passengers do not fill in the correct data on the arrival card. The form can be typed or handwritten in clear block letters. Leave a space between name, middle name, and surname.

* If the passport number is preceded or followed by a letter, fill in the letter too.

* Write the arrival card number (TM. 6) in the respective field. The arrival card is stapled into the passport. Both letters and numbers of the arrival card number must be filled in.

* Arrival date means the date of arrival in Thailand. Date of accommodation must be filled in on the front page of the notification sheet.

After the officer in charge has verified the information on the notification sheet (TM. 30), he accepts the notification and hands over the lower part of the form to the person making the notification. This part must be kept for further checking.

Presumably, once you're here long-stay, and doing 90-day reporting, doing any more TM30's is not required....

Also, I can't recall if the Chiang Mai situation involved the wives of first-time applicants -- or whether renewal applicants were also getting caught up in the "no TM30 on file" drill...

Astral, what were your particulars?

Astral said:

My wife has been fined for not reporting my arrival,

so could the up country cousins when you visit.

BTW The document that the US Embassy provides for Thai Immigration says: The (US) Embassy does not guarantee the contents of my own sworn statement.

Could you please explain that...possibly with a direct quote of what's on the latest Embassy paperwork?

No one is even going to challenge Moveon's 5 myths? They're not myths -- not even one of the five. Where to begin....

Myth #4: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs

Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn't full of IOUs, it's full of U.S. Treasury Bonds.

Jeez. Treasury Bonds ARE IOUs. All the surplus FICA taxes paid into the so-called 'trust fund' come out the other end as dollars into the general fund (you thought these dollars went under the mattress -- or bought Eurobonds -- or goldmines?). In effect the Gov't is loaning these dollars to itself, issuing Treasury paper IOUs in return. As a result, the Gov't (at least while the FICA taxes are in surplus) doesn't have to borrow as much from China. However, once FICA tax intake is no longer in surplus, well, the Gov't will now have to pay back these dollars -- from itself. The implication of that, I hope, is obvious.

Myth #1: Social Security is going broke.

Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.6 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever

Read carefully the preceding debunk. $4.6 trillion in Treasuries held by the 'trust fund' will have to be paid back in real dollars. This will mean: raising taxes, cutting programs, borrowing -- or, most likely, all three. Kinda suggests going broke to me.....

Myth #5: Social Security adds to the deficit

Reality: It's not just wrong—it's impossible! By law, Social Security's funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can't add one penny to the deficit.8

It's all one big Federal Budget. Putting a fence around one entity of the budget, and cooking the books so "show" it's not in deficit, just means other entities of the budget will reflect more deficit than otherwise. It's all one big pot, thus a zero sum game.

Myth #3: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security..... Myth #2: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer

Yes, if we're to realistically address the problem. Other aspects will have to be: Means testing; applying FICA (and Medicare) taxes to all income, not just wages; lifting the cap off FICA taxes (a la Medicare taxes); etc.

I don't really see too much gloom and doom for the future, as long as Congress appreciates the reality of the situation, and makes it a pay-as-you-go system (eliminating the myth of a 'trust fund' as a panacea). Hopefully, organizations like Moveon will be seen for what they are.

I'd think and hope you can agree about that.

You bet. Unethical crumbbumbs are at the bottom of my list.

Your "reply" seemed so off character, I guess I should have realized it was aimed elsewhere.

Cheers.

This may be a request in vain..but nonetheless... the original thread here was about qualifying for extension of stay, and the details of how to qualify for that.

Right. And information for Yanks, about how you actually have some wiggle room for getting an "income letter" seemed pretty pertinent.

However, take your RCA article and shove it seems pertinent at this point...

Thread creep, indeed.

(With apologies to Jingthing, as, with the exception of one or two, we've all gone afield of the original focus. However, sometimes tangents don't always dictate a new thread...)

...the US embassy policy is fine as is. It's certainly not anything that non-Americans have any business criticizing.

The only non-American critics allowed should be Thais. And so far, they seem content to leave well-enough alone. If other embassies want to add burdensome requirements for their citizens, apparently not requested by the Thais, so be it.

And, realistically, how close can the Thais scrutinize that 65k figure? Reportedly, "gross" is the figure the Thais will accept (if they ever bother to ask for substantiation). But after taxes, child support, alimony, blah blah, the Thais will have no real idea about how capable the farang is in supporting himself in Thailand. Positive cash flow, available for spending in Thailand, is the figure they're really interested in. And if eventually they feel they're getting snookered on the sustainability issue, well, minimums in the bank, and proof of inflows, will become the only option.

The US statement neatly stays away from "net," "gross," and even "income" issues. It merely states: "He affirms that he receives in amount of US$ xxxxx.xx every month from the US Government and/or other sources."

So, drawing down your Stateside savings or IRA accounts -- or borrowing from Aunt Tilda -- makes you ok with this sworn statement. And no where are you stating -- or implying -- this cash flow is "income."

Now, I guess some could take issue with the term "receives" when applied to drawing-down existing accounts. However, my take is, drawing down my savings account is self-annuitizing, much preferable in these times of low interest rates to going out and buying an immediate-pay annuity. The latter, of course, would be the same as a pension, certainly meeting any "receives" criteria that anyone could establish. Self-annuitizing, therefore, is not a stretch, IMO.

Anyway, the current 'cash flow' criteria, per the sworn statement, certainly allows some wiggle room for the Yanks, allowing more "spirit" than "letter" (if there is one) to the Thai "income" law. However, I just hope there aren't too many unethical Yanks jerking this around. But, I'm sure -- unfortunately -- there are some.....

Yesterday, the wife and I had lunch at Green Valley in CM. Afterwards, I went to get the car, while the wife waited at the 'bag drop' area. A farang drives up, drops his bag, and says he wants caddy number 310, "Noi," then drives off to park. The in-charge guy is told by the caddies milling about that, yes, Noi is here and available. However, the in-charge dude says to get the next caddy in line.

The wife, no shrinking violet, queries the i-cg about this, and is told that you have to phone ahead to reserve a caddy, otherwise you get the next in the queue. And the head caddy in the milling-about group confirms this. "But what will you tell the farang....?" He says he'll just say that Noi is not available today. I drive up, she hops in, and, unfortunately, we don't get to witness the caddy situation being explained to the farang.

I don't play enough golf to have established a cadre of favorite caddies. However, I hope to some day -- to at least be able to ask for one amongst several alternatives, without making a phone reservation. But, based on Green Valley, I'll get the next in the queue (but, would be interesting to see how they explain away that all four of my choices are not available.....).

Anyway, is this standard practice in Thailand? If so, I guess phoning ahead makes sense if you really want a particular caddy -- or to at least narrow your choices to known quantities.

Ah, more mystery......

Perhaps he re-entered Thailand in June -- without a re-entry permit -- thus getting a 30-day stamp, and thereby requiring a new Non Imm visa to start the retirement extension drill from scratch?

Well, so much for my theory. I don't know if I'm now routing for CNX to be incompetent -- or corrupt.....

TM, out of curiosity, when will your last one-year extension expire? And, you imply, you've done these retirement extensions for several years -- so your original Non Imm visa expired several years ago, correct?

Nowhere does the OP indicate that he entered Thailand with his new passport and received a 30 day visa exempt stamp in the new passport.

Right. But he didn't say where he renewed his passport. If in Canada, well then, he did re-enter Thailand on his new passport, as his old one would have been canceled. And if he hadn't presented his old passport -- and had his re-entry permit number as his visa number on the landing card -- then we have a plausible explanation as to what's going on.....

If he has then that is an entirely different story altogether. IMO he would therefore be ineligible to transfer his retirement extension of stay into his new passport.

Right again. As said, the 30-day stamp would have trumped any validity left in the one-year stamp in the canceled passport. But Immigration in CNX, nice fellas that I've found them to be, could be leaning over backwards to get back on track towards TM's latest, albeit sidetracked, retirement extension.

Slow day, so this mystery has been interesting to ponder. But, I'm just hoping CNX comes out shining, not tarnished, on this event....

TM, my apologies for all the inconvenience you're experiencing. However, this really is a fascinating mystery, involving an Immigration Office that has always seemed above-board.

Out of curiosity, have you traveled on that new passport? (Which, of course, you would have if you had renewed back in Canada.)

Assuming "yes," above, then:

I was shocked when I was told I could only be issued an extension of stay ( 30 days for 1900 baht), because I was too close to the expiry date on my [last permission of stay]..

That makes sense if you entered on your new passport,forgot to point out the valid permission of stay and re-entry stamp in your expired passport, and got a 30-day visa exempt permission of stay stamp (and trumping the old one-year stamp) -- but were well past the 21-days remaining that is normally required for conversion to a Non Imm visa. In fact, the offer for a 30-day extension was a real nice gesture, since this is usually only available for extending tourist visa entries, not visa exempt entries. However, the officer was doing you a favor (assuming, of course, your new passport *didn't* contain a tourist visa), knowing this was just a practical matter of adjusting the rules when everything else showed ok for conversion and subsequent retirement extension.

Anyway, I may be way off base here -- and something more sinister is going on. However, something about this happening on 20 July -- and your return date for conversion being [no later than?] 29 July, meaning you're at the 21-days remaining threshold needed for conversion (albeit now waived at some Immigration offices, but maybe not CNX....)

Question for Lop: You're home in Farangland, renew your passport, old passport is cancelled -- but still has valid permission of stay stamp and re-entry permit. Of course you haven't had a chance to transfer stamps to the new passport (assuming this is something not readily available at Thai consulates abroad). When you next enter Thailand, you of course present both passports to Immigration, with re-entry number from old passport as your visa number on landing card..... Any reported problems with this? Will Immigration at the airport transfer any stamps for you -- or will this have to wait until you can get to your local Immigration Office? Thanx.

I am going in for an extension of stay next week and will have the old and new passport (new one has the new visa).

Your new passport actually has a "new" visa -- why?

Whoops, disregard. Had not seen Lop's post.