JimGant

There is no foreign-ATM charge for a debit card purchase. If anyone is paying one you should get a new bank, but I have never paid that type of fee ONCE.

Most do, at least, pass on the network foreign transaction fee of 1%, unless they're Schwab, Etrade, or Fidelity, where the network fee is absorbed, for both ATM and Debit transactions. What is your bank/financial institution?

You just slide your debit card through a small machine and enter your 4-digit pin-code and press OK. At the same time the money is deducted from your bank account (if there's enough money, of course and you're not surpassing the limit if you have one... tongue.gif )

Well, if you choose 'credit' when you swipe your debit card, no pin required -- it becomes 'signature mode.' And that's why credit cards are safer than debit cards -- your bank account can't be cleaned out with fraud. If you can easily pay off your credit card in full every month (you're not a too-much-credit junkie), a credit card is far superior to a debit card.

From the CNN Money article, above:

Despite what you may hear about the system going broke, the funds from workers' payroll taxes will cover all retirees' payments until 2016 even if no changes are made to the current program. After that the Social Security Administration can cover full benefits until 2037 by cashing in its Treasury bonds from the Social Security trust fund.

I can't believe they threw in that baloney for after year 2016...

When surplus payments end in 2016, the Social Security Trust Fund's Treasury Bonds aren't exactly the same as having Eurobonds, AAA bonds from corporations, or anything redeemable from outside the Federal government. Lending to yourself from within the same business (in this case, Uncle Sam Inc.), builds zero wealth. This quote says it better:

As the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) explains, "While the Social Security Trust Funds' Treasury Securities [bonds] are assets of the Social Security program, they are also liabilities for the rest of the federal government that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing other federal expenditures."

And that's what faces us after the FICA surplus collections end -- with, of course, a reduction in benefits too.

The Social Security Trust Fund is an accounting gimmick. And no gimmick will make the forthcoming problems go away. Why not just incorporate FICA into the overall income tax structure, and play with the income tax rates to get to the financially solid ground needed. Yeah, the better off will then most likely pay more for less. But, since they can afford it, good!

As my rent is due, I wanted to withdraw some money with my international credit card...................

Have you done the math to see what you pay when you use a credit card (vice ATM/Debit card) to get cash from an ATM machine? Usually, it's a hefty flat fee, plus interest on this 'cash advance loan' kicks in immediately. And this is in addition to the fees you would pay were it an ATM/Debit card.

Not something recommended, except in an emergency (which maybe was your situation).

Any 'notarization' required of any of the documents? Copies, vice originals, allowed?

Thanx.

I am offended by the comment that there is something shameful about a janitor getting a minimum benefit.

I'm offended you can't read any better than you do.....

I'm glad Social Security is a 'semi-welfare' program, whereby low wage earners are subsidized by the "haves." This is akin to our progressive income tax system, which is also a system (completely fair, IMO) that redistributes wealth. Whether or not the term 'semi-welfare' fits taking from the rich and giving to the poor, I don't know. But, I certainly have no problem with the concept, even if the term may be a hot button item to some.

The point you missed was that someone could work the minimum 40 quarters -- at or near max Social Security wages (vice low, unskilled wages for a lifetime) -- and be treated to the same subsidy that these low-wage earners appreciate when they start drawing a Social Security check. A loophole, in my opinion. It's been partially plugged for those who, for example, have 40 quarters of SS earnings, but then work for a State government or a Thai employer, where FICA taxes aren't assessed. However, for those who only worked the minimum 40 quarters -- but are wealthy by other means (investment income, inheritance, etc) -- they get an unwarranted subsidy. Some form of means testing needs to intervene in situations like these.

Why does the rich person get a maximum benefit when many don't need a penny of it? Welfare program my arse.

Maximum, in absolute dollars. Far from maximum as a percentage of dollars contributed. Again, the well-to-do subsidize the less-so. Again, no complaints.

But, more needs to be done. The cap on Social Security taxes should be lifted (as it already has for Medicare taxes). In fact, Social Security taxes should be levied on all income, not just earned (wages) income. But even with this, we're going to be in deep kimshi soon with our pay-as-you-go system. Means-testing (already done for Medicare premiums) will also be necessary.

Yeah, you need the 40 quarters to get your foot in the door. But, today, a lot of nice semi-welfare subsidization can take place afterwords. Tomorrow, some of this subsidization may need to migrate to the middle earners, just in the name of fairness.

If it is less than 35 earnings years, a few years of no earnings will lower your benefit by some,

As will earning extremely low wages in any of those 35 years.......

If your grand sum includes a few low years -- or years of no earnings -- it still gets divided by 420 (35 years x 12 months).

The best you can do -- in terms of a max dollar Social Security check -- is have at least 35 years of earnings, with each year having maxed the Social Security cap. However, as a semi welfare program, you only get pennies back on that last dollar you paid into Social Security. On the other hand, if you had many zero earning years, giving you the same number as a janitor who worked 45 years, you'll reap the same welfare return (unless you also earned wages in a Social Security exempt job).

It shouldn't be a problem getting a letter from the Embassy, AS LONG AS you can show them that you are paying UK Income Tax on the rental income.

Don't know if the Brit Embassy asks for tax receipts.......... but you're allowed to use *gross* receipts towards the 65k requirement. Same, too, if you were using a pension statement, from which deductions for alimony, insurance, taxes, whatever were deducted.

While, I'm sure, the Thais are really interested in your disposable income/cash flow, gross income is what has historically been certified by one's embassy -- at least from my years of reading Thai Visa.

I don't understand. She won't discuss it with me and she claims it is for the best.

According to my wife, her sister, after obtaining a divorce from her Thai husband, had to carry paperwork with her that noted the divorce was final, and that she could now make certain decisions without needing the endorsement of her ex-husband.

This was decades ago, so I don't know if such is the case today. But, it wouldn't surprise me that, for at least ongoing marriages in Thailand, certain actions still require the husband's approval -- that wouldn't be the case in the West.

So, I can see why Thai gals might look at official marriage as causing more potential problems than it's worth.

Now, from a husband's point of view.........

But you must have your marriage registered in Thailand at the local Amphurs office in the province in which you live for your marriage to be legally recognized here in Thailand.

What are the advantages of having a legally recognized marriage -- other than maybe being needed for extensions of stay based on marriage (my extensions are due to retirement)?

Been married for 30 years. Wife kept her Thai name. She's never registered the marriage at the Amphur.

I'm sure if push came to shove, our US marriage certificate would validate our marriage.

But why should anyone care? The wife, because of the old law, masqueraded as a 'miss,' and still does when the block options are only 'miss' and 'mrs.' (Believe 'ms' is now allowed, which says 'none of your business as to my marital status.').

What's the downside to this? She's leased the land to me -- whether we were married or not didn't seem to alter anything. Her Will leaves everything to me, "her husband." (Again, marriage certificate would seem to trump any non-registration at the Amphur.)

Maybe masquerading as a 'miss' all these years could be considered fraudulent. But in no context can I imagine would this have caused any damage -- so why would this ever be brought up?

Maybe I'm missing something. Anybody see something I don't?

I withdrew money from GSB yesterday (Sept 4) using my Fidelity VISA DC and got 34.0426 which was 99.91% of that day's xrate IER.

Sorry to hear that. And all along I'd thought Fidelity was a stand up operation........

Oanda showed the interbank rate conversion rate to be 33.14. The Kasikorn TT rate was 33.19.

Oanda was showing IER of 34.14 on Sep 4, not 33.14. And while I can't find Kasikorn online, Bangkok Bank was showing a buying TT rate of 33.94 -- Kasikorn (and all Thai banks) would be showing in the same ballpark. A 33.19 buying rate at Kasikorn doesn't compute (the selling TT rate was 34.19 -- did you drop a baht here also?).

The conversion rate I received on my withdrawal was 33.70 baht to the USD.

Using the X-rate IER for 4 Sep of 34.07, you lost about 1% on the deal, which is par for many cards that pass on the foreign transaction fee levied by Visa and MC.

It's normal that banks give lower conversion rates on international ATM withdrawals than published Oanda interbank and bank TT rates,

I assume you're talking about the banks who own the ATM machines..... These banks don't establish conversion rates, unless 'dynamic currrency conversion' is involved. Otherwise, it's your issuing bank that determines the exchange rate, to include whether or not it passes on the network's foreign transaction fee.

Google on 'ccu-680' for info on the hardware, as well as some discussions related to the service provider, CAT.

were foolish enough to buy land in a Thai's name against the governments' interpretation of the law.

Possibly applicable to a real 'nominee' situation, where an unrelated Thai personage buys land for a foreigner. But, for a married couple -- one of whom is Thai -- this has no reality. In my case, the wife did have enough of her own savings to honestly say she bought the land with her own money. But even if she didn't, as US citizens, married in the US, I can give her unlimited gift amounts that legally become hers under US law. For the Thai government to say otherwise would make for an interesting court case.

I would imagine most Western countries have similar laws on gifting within marriages.

Besides, we know who this law is aimed against -- and it's not us small fry in the bungalows.

CAT has a CDMA EVDO option -- plugs in to the USB port. I use mine only in CM, and believe it will NOT work everywhere in Thailand, due to some proprietary issues.

The 'Stickman' Will example forces you to rewrite it everytime you renew your passport, move to a new address, or girlfriend/wife renews her ID card.

Not too efficient.

It would be rather difficult to write a definitive glossary of terminology when even the Immigration Bureau, on its website, uses "visa extension" when they mean "extension of temporary stay in the Kingdom", for short "extension of stay".

Well, the pinned 'Nomenclature' article (in 'Useful Immigration Information.....') is pretty definitive -- but it *is* tucked away from anyone who might take the time to read "PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE POSTING!! As said, it needs a little scrubbing (it, too, uses the inaccurate phrase 'This visa can also be extended..). So, if it could be revised -- and included in the '...READ THIS...' entry, you just might get fewer confusing newbie questions.

And, protect your regulars from carpal tunnel syndrome ........

We spend half our time on here trying to work out what questions new posters are actually asking.

The pinned "Read Before Posting" needs to be updated, to include correct terminology, as well as an explanation of common, but technically incorrect, terminology.

The pinned, but somewhat hidden, "nomenclature" article, with a little scrubbing, would suffice -- but needs to be included with the "Read Before Posting" so that new posters can be chastised if they ignore this step.

Who's in charge around here?

If I get my usual 4 re-entry Non-Imm "O" visa in the States

Is this really a Non Imm O visa restricted to 4 entries -- or is it a multi-entry visa?

Also, what consulate do you use -- and what criteria do they require to issue your Non Imm O Visa?

Thanks.

I received my RV in Thailand -- actually in Thai Immigration-speak, it's an extension of an "O" or "OA" Visa based on meeting RV qualifications.

Actually, it's an extension of a valid 'permission of stay.' Visas all have finite expiration dates, which cannot be extended.

But, then, this discussion can be regurgitated many times over using the search function.

An O-A single entry also permits a 12 month stay in Thailand upon arrival.

Yes, as said above: the visas are either good for 3-months (a single-entry O-A) or for 1-year (multi-entry O-A). Both visas, while valid, provide for an authorized stay of 1-year upon entry.

Well, if we're gonna be picky...........

Applicant must be a foreigner residing in Thailand

True. In order to 'apply' (thus being an 'applicant') you must physically be in Thailand -- in order to physically approach the Immigration counter. And you must NOT be Thai, thus you must be a foreigner, otherwise you cannot be an applicant for a visa extension, because if you were a Thai............ . And once you're no longer an applicant, i.e., you've received your extension of stay, then, of course, you're free to leave the country for as long as you like (if this were not the case, then Thai law would not obviate the need for 90-day reporting when out of the country).

These visas are valid for one year and must be obtained in your home country."

Actually, the visas are either good for 3-months (a single-entry O-A) or for 1-year (multi-entry O-A). Both visas, while valid, provide for an authorized stay of 1-year upon entry.

recommended that I buy a Thai non-immigrant "O" Visa with a two entry provision and then obtain my RV in Thailand--

Unless this were ages ago, a Non Imm O visa only has two flavors: single entry or multiple entry. Specific number of entries is peculiar to a Tourist visa.

A retirement visa (RV) is a generally accepted euphemism for a Non Imm O-A visa. It cannot be obtained in Thailand.

But, I know you knew that. Just having fun with the terminology that we all seem to get wrapped around the axle on in this forum.

USAA Federal Savings Bank is now open to all (other USAA services, like insurance, still require a military connection). They don't require a physical presence to open an account or set-up wire transfers. And since they were established to support military members, dealing with folks overseas is their forte. Most countries, including Thailand, have a toll-free number to USAA.

Don't know if you can implement a wire transfer on-line (I use ACH for money transfers, which *can* be done on-line with USAA. However, a Bangkok Bank account is a requirement). But, the toll free phone method is a snap, as you set up a template ahead of time, with all the data required. Then, you just call (or fax,email), give them your template nickname and the amount you want sent, and that's it.

Wire fees: $35. ACH fees: free (but $10, for most transactions, at the Bangkok Bank New York intermediary)

More info on USAA on Thaivisa: HERE

My current understanding is the extra "free year" for the OA only applies to MULTIPLE ENTRY O-A visas.

Yep. And that's why Yanks should not apply at the LA Consulate, where only single-entry O-A visas are issued.

Two warnings, it takes a full 30 days before those funds appear in your Thai bank account, and do not deposit more than $9,500 at a time. Deposits of over $10,000 require the bank to file special paperwork and it is a pain for them, or so it seems.

Maybe so with a check deposit. However, a SWIFT wire transfer shows up in a day -- and an EFT/ACH transfer, normally within two days (if there's no middleman involved, as there currently is with Bank of America, and some others.). Wire transfers can cost around, on average, $40 on the US end; ACH, using a Bangkok Bank account, $10. Be sure to establish the particulars of implementing money transfers with your US bank before you head to Thailand.

Amounts being deposited shouldn't be a problem. A few years back there was a cap at, I believe, $20,000. But that's been lifted.

I have a single entry nonimmigrant retirment visa from Thai Embassy Los Angeles, Its good until next July.

Sounds like you've been stamped-in to Thailand for one year, since single entry Non Imm visas, to include O-A "retirement visas," are only good for three months after issue (so, 'good until next July' would not apply to the visa).

And this once again points out that the Consulate in LA is NOT the place to get a Non Imm O-A visa, as they (and, I believe, they alone) emphatically advertise that they will issue O-A visas only as 'single entry.' So, you lose the almost one-year additional 'permitted to stay' advantage of a Non Imm O-A multiple entry visa (discussed ad nauseum on this forum).

Yes, you pay $110 more for the multiple entry visa ($65 vice $175), but if you plan to travel more than once during your first year in Thailand (i.e., during visa validity), that extra $110 equates to the extra 3800 baht needed for an Immigration-issued multiple re-entry permit should you get your visa from LA. And, again, you get nearly another year of 'permitted to stay' with the multiple entry visa.

No, stay away from LA.