JimGant

I don’t see a lie there. The Ministerial Regulation of 2002 does not list the wife of a retiree as qualified for a dependent extension,

An obvious oversight. Dependents of all other classifications of visas are allowed to extend as long as their sponsor is granted an extension. Thailand is NOT anti-family. So, precluding a spouse because she's -- gasp -- not yet 50 (or independently wealthy) is ludicrous. And, thus, an obvious mistake in the Ministerial Regulation -- even more obvious because it's a mistake of omission.

And just what Ministry are we talking about? Is "Ministerial Regulation" a blanket phrase for a parliamentarian legal decree -- or is there a particular Ministry (like, Foreign Affairs) involved here?

Certainly, with the horsepower this subject has gotten, folks with the power to correct mistakes are, at this very moment, talking over cocktails about remedial solutions...........

But, geez, why do I keep hearing the phrase "TIT"...........

Insane.

Kindly show me where it says "Embassy" in the rules. It says "Proof of Income".

My apologies. I guess I have logged on to this forum too many times -- and have seen where "embassy/consulate certification" of income is required. And that appears to be the case based on experiences posted here. But just where this is officially stipulated, I don't know.

So, per your experience, even more reason for our resident expert, Lopburi, to pin a DUMMIES 'must read" to preclude having to wade through all this muck to ascertain 'what is what' on the reality level. (Or to preclude asking the same question -- and getting the same answer -- time after time.)

Uh, what guidelines were you following when you initially set off for Immigration? That they didn't mention you needed an Embassy certification of income is curious.....

That you've posted here 28 times before now -- and also didn't know about income certification -- is also curious. But, in fairness, there is a lot of wading through required here to cut to the chase.

Maybe Lopburi will eventually get tired of answering the same questions repeatedly -- and pin a FOR DUMMIES guideline at the top.

When you lease a property you are going to pay basically what that property would cost [if] purchased freehold. If you do this when you are single and stay single, it is not that bad of a deal. Things change, that's the major problem. What if you get tired of it and want to move. You will NEVER get your money back, PERIOD. You have NOTHING to leave a loved one.

Even if you get an extension, how do you protect yourself that the landlord is not asking a ridiculous price?

The above quotes point out the duality of this thread, namely: Are you married to your lessor or not. The quotes would indicate the "not" and point out the financial pitfalls of an arms-length commercial lease.

But if you're leasing from your wife, most likely there is no rental cash flow involved, either with the original lease or with a renewal. The Land Office will assign a rental value as a baseline for taxes -- and this can be ridiculously low, as we found out when we asked our Land Office clerk to provide an acceptable figure. (A neighbor used a lawyer -- we didn't -- and the lawyer provided a rental figure ten-times that of ours, for about the same sized property )

The downside of renting from your wife:

Under Thai law the lease can be terminated by the Thai spouse without reason. A lease or usufruct does not offer security for the foreign spouse paying for the land, if the lease or usufruct is set up to protect in a divorce or separation. Do not think I have a registered 30-year lease so I am secured for 30-years (this quote from Khun Jean's Samui link)

Hmmm. Sounds kind of drastic. Plus, usufructs sound as tenuous as leases -- and I thought I'd read on this forum that usufructs provide added security to the lessee. But maybe not from a pissed-off spouse. Comments, Siam Legal?

Siam Legal said:

there is no ban on succession clauses under Thai law, and that a rent free clause for lease renewals can be included in the contract as long as the Lessee agrees to pay stamp duties and taxes as consideration for the lease renewal.

Are you saying that the renewal clause *can and should* be registered on the Chanote? If so, how would "stamp duties and taxes" be determined, since, as I understand it, these are a percentage of ascertained rental value - and you're talking about a "rent free" clause?

And how do you square the above with the following (from the Samui link from Khun Jean, above):

Pre-paid and pre-signed 30-year leases with pre-specified dates of execution are considered void or voidable as this is an avoidance of and in conflict with section 540 Civil and Commercial Code, the lease cannot exceed 30 years. Even if in some cases a second lease is registered at the Land Office simultaneously with the first one the Land Office official is not liable for registering a voidable act (Section 73 Land Code Act). If not considered void or voidable, the leases together will in line with Supreme Court judgments be considered as one lease and the total term will be reduced to 30-years (section 540).

Does your "rent free" somehow trump "pre-paid?" (But, in any event, the above quote's bottom line is: it all becomes "one lease....reduced to 30-years.")

Don't get me wrong, Siam Legal. You've caveated your lease renewal suggestions appropriately. But it's nice to see how your logic squares with that of others. (And it's also nice to have some legal input here in addition to Sunbelt's. Just hope you're thick-skinned enough to ignore the pings....)

Long term property leases in Thailand can legally be registered for an initial thirty year period with contractual options for two thirty year renewals.

I didn't think the renewal options could be endorsed on the chanote. At least our Land Office wouldn't do it (or maybe advised against it) since he said the renewal options weren't enforceable.

Essentially, you can have two contracts. One with the lessor that can be as flowery as you want, with clauses about renewal, subleasing, blah blah blah. The second contract is the one endorsed on the chanote, which simply says you've got lessee rights for 30 years from the date of endorsement. If, per the flowery contract, you're allowed to renew 30 years down the road, you once again go to the Land Office and get a new endorsement on the chanote. (Again, because endorsements can only be for 30 years -- not 60 or 90.)

But, I'm no legal expert. Just going with my personal experience/understanding.

An honest man will tell you : yes you can on... paper, but unfortunatly this scheme was never proven legal inside a thai court...

As I understand it, if the original lessor still owned the land at renewal time, any contract you had with that lessor about renewal should be valid. But, if the lessor has died or sold the land (ie, new land owner/lessor), there is now no enforceable 30-year renewal clause, as this orginal contract has no carryover value with a new owner.

But, have not heard of any test cases concerning 30-year lease renewals.......

My Honda jazz has a heater

Are you sure? The analogue temperature selector is completely blue (there would be a red zone if heat was available), plus I see no plumbing coming into the cab.

Civics on up *do* have heaters in Thailand.

actually, that means no need to leave every 90 days

Correct. As the parent of a student here on an extended ED visa, you qualify to extend your visa too (which means no visa runs). Requirement: 500k baht in the bank for 3-months.

(See the Police Order found in one of the pinned messages at the top of this sub-forum.)

Anyway, I no longer need to worry, having never reported, as I only bring in 10k at a time

But, if your account has anything in it when you wire that 10k (or you have any other active accounts), then you're supposed to file with the Feds. Wiring chunks of 10k or less does not avoid the criteria:

Each Unites States person, who has a financial interest in or signature authority, or other authority over any

financial accounts, including bank, securities, or other types of financial accounts in a foreign country, if the aggregate value of

these financial accounts exceeds $10,000 at any time during the calendar year,

But, as PTE says, this requirement is certainly a means to snag the real crooks, not us little folks.

Having said that, however, I *do* file, since the Feds do have the ability to see my wire transfers -- plus, the following really got my attention:

Civil and criminal penalties, including in certain circumstances a fine of not more than $500,000 and

imprisonment of not more than five years, are provided for failure to file a report, supply information, and for filing a false or fraudulent report.

And, filling out the form (TD F 90-22.1) is no real hassle. So, why take the chance some hotshot, snot-nosed Fed gets a bug up one of these days..............

Have read a lot of replies and i must say that what as been suggested is right why should someone who is under 50 be allowed to piggy back staying in thailand without a retiremnet visa the rules are quite straight ,over 50 800,000 baht in thai bank or 65,000 baht a month pension.This as been the norm for a long time as it was stated previosly not many people who are affected have actually placed a reply most are from people who are not affected and WILL NOT BE.

You're joking, right?

To say one's dependent spouse should have to meet *THE SAME* requirements laid on the sponsor is ludicrous. Should the spouse and children of someone here on a "missionary" or "expertise" visa also have to meet the missionary or expert criteria to get a one-year extension? Thailand isn't 'family unfriendly,' so it's hard to believe this new ruling, when finalized, will be anything like we're discussing here. Yes, there may be a new financial requirement for dependents of retirees (similar to what "dependent" parents of ED visa holders are currently subject to). But to dictate that your spouse must be over 50 just doesn't wash.

And the rush to implement such a new policy is perplexing. Has Immigration, in their war against 'keynok farangs,' detected that the 'two for one' policy has cheapened the farang community, apparently with urchin, child-brides?

No, this policy is so wrong-headed there's no way it will stand as presented here (he said hesitantly.......).

Thailand's immi regs say that the 65k/month must be from govt pensions or other "embassy certifiable incomes" (which means investment and rental incomes don't qualify, ask your embassy).

Where did you find the "embassy certifiable incomes?" The Thai reg (Police Report 606/2549, para 7.21) says: "Govt Pensions, interest, dividends, etc." To me, that "etc" covers a large area, to include rental income (British Embassy even allows it to be gross rental income); and, obviously investment income is included under "interest, dividends."

And, the US affirmation statement says: "He affirms that he receives in amount of US$__ every month from the United States Government and/or other sources."

So, with "etc" and "other sources," I would think you could be very creative -- and legitimate -- in arriving at a cash flow that equates to 65,000 baht/mo. Have your sister, brother, friend, whatever gift you the required amount (with a notarized document as proof, should such be asked for). I believe gift amounts, for tax free purposes, are now $22,000 (24?) per person. Then, give the money back, with interest -- but no notarization required You could do this every year, if needed, right before Embassy letter day -- until your sister, brother, friend whatever no longer were amused.

However, I'm serious. The wording (in the Yank affirmation) says "every month," but this certainly is not meant to punish those who receive uneven cash flows; so dividing annual amounts by 12 seems kosher (and I doubt the subject would even come up). And if the rumor about not needing annual income certifications is true -- once MFA certifies the original -- selling investments (and using principal towards that 65,000) would also work (but, on an annual basis, could be troublesome).

Anyway, for those on the border line of new Immigration money requirements, there are ways to navigate.

Quite right, Mobi. I included the bit about maps to your office as an example of a sort of increased 'geographical awareness' required by Immiration. It applies, of course to Type 'O' or 'B' residents, with a work permit..

The requirement for a map to your place of business is not a new requirement. See para 7.1 of Police Order 606/2549, found pinned at the top of this forum.

And while fumbling around in this Police Order, look at para. 7.10. Here's an example of dependents of a sponsor who holds a one-year extension of stay (in this case, a student sponsor, parent dependents) being required to have "500,000 baht in a Thai bank account for 3 months." So, the idea of having dependents showing fanancial means is not a new one.

Why the rush now to tackle retiree dependents? Someone must have detected an inflood of dirt poor dependents -- and I suspect the sponsor of these dependents was Asian, not Western (but look who's getting snagged). So, to stop this lowering of per capita income in the foreign retiree/dependent communities, the rush to change the law -- with no safeguards for all the unwashed who got through.

but i still can't believe that a wife who does not qualify age wise for the retiree status will have to do visa runs. for once it turns out that i am lucky that my old lady is older than 50.

This is the real quirk. The original para 7.19 says nothing about the age of the retiree's wife. Ok, it's probably fair (and precedented, as pointed out) to now require dependents of retirees to demonstrate financial means (it would be better for the sponsor's ante to be upped for each dependent, which would accomodate children easier; doubling this ante to cover a wife is a little over the top, however.) But to now require your spouse to be over 50?! Are they really trying to ban 20-year old blond trophy wives -- when they know the beer-bellied sponsor has got to be rolling in dough to win the trophy? And the 49 year old missus -- why force her to do border runs. Besides, she's no longer hatching dependents.....

Which leads to either: this age requirement being a mistake (to be rectified in the final publication); or to Grandpa Kim, with his 4 fertile wives and 25 children, nieces, nephews, godchildren, whatever. Requiring an age 50 cut-off certainly would affect the fertility problem.

And banning children (or parents) from dependent extensions totally (as Sunbelt's report is currently worded) seems overly drastic. Just require the sponsor to meet higher financial goals for each dependent (as I beleve Dr Naam reported is Brazil's policy).

Anyway, currently a lot of smoke..........

Out on the highway, I drive in the passing (righthand) lane most of the time, as the left lane is just too crudded up (with motorcycles, noodlecycles, junkers, and, most especially, vehicles entering the highway without a clue). Most of the time, this appears to be the safer option (plus, at about 115kph, I'm pretty much not causing a problem for other traffic, tho' I keep an eye out for the yaba head approaching in afterburner, then slide left accordingly).

Now, the wife keeps preaching to me about articles she reads in the papers concerning all the tickets given out to folks lingering too long in the passing lane.

But, I've never been pulled over, PLUS, I've never ever seen anyone pulled over for any reason -- just the seatbelt/helmet checkpoints.

Is Chiang Mai an ok-rightlane-all-the-time kinda place? And, what is the speed limit on the highway -- and is it ever enforced? Oh, and if it is enforced, is there a particular style of cop car I should be on the lookout for (the Brownie on the Honda Dream doesn't worry me too much)?

Thanx.

(I already have a multi-entry stamp, so leaving and coming back is no problem from a re-entry standpoint).

Too bad your Non Imm O-A was a 'single entry,' not a 'mutiple entry,' as you could have then restarted your one-year clock anytime before visa expiration date. (By the way, where did you get your O-A -- and was the multiple entry option available?)

my only viable options are to either return to Thailand not more than 30 days before my current permission to stay expires and do the extension, or obtain a new Non-OA visa

Unless you still have $24,000 in a US bank account, and the Embassy/Consulate will let you re-use the medical and police reports, getting another Non Imm O-A doesn't seem to be worth the hassle. Besides, it sounds like you have all your requirements met -- except presence -- for getting an in-country retirement extension. So, just get a Non Imm O while you're back in the US (piece of cake, since you're married to a Thai -- and can easily be done by mail). Then, apply for your extension when you finally return to Thailand. The only added step by *not* being in Thailand during the renewal window is in having to get a Non Imm O visa. (And even here, you could come in on an exempt stamp or tourist visa, and get the Non Imm O in Thailand. But, since you'll be in the US anyway, getting the Non Imm O there avoids any potential quirks with Immigration over in-country visas.)

And, if you're unsure of a return date to Thailand, get a Non Imm O mutiple entry, which is good for a year. The single entry is only good for 3 months.

In case it is lost in the 'cut and thrust' of this thread, I wanted to re-iterate that Filer is wrong on this point. I use the NW card regularly and the Visa exchange rate is close to the onshore rate.

Nationwide (and CapitalOne, unless it's recently changed) are certainly the way to go for using plastic in Thailand, as they're as close as you're going to get to getting the premium Interbank Exchange Rate, which is 20+- satang better than the Telex rate, even before wire fees are factored in.

Several months back, Nationwide (or at least one of its Visa cards) *WAS* charging the offshore rate. It turned out this was because it rides the Cirrus network, not the Plus network (Visa and MC sometime ride the other's network, as there is nothing in concrete about the Visa/Plus and MC/Cirrus relationships). And at the time, the Cirrus network was apparently charging the offshore rate, for whatever reason (Plus never did, which is maybe why this noncompetitive move by Cirrus quickly ended).

Anyway, if you have Nationwide -- and can avoid the DCC ripoff -- you're sittin' pretty.

If you check the travel forums, DCC is *NEVER* a winner, regardless of where you are. Yes, the offshore anomaly in Thailand has provided a smokescreen to allow widening the gouge. But if and when this anomaly disappears, you'll still be overcharged using DCC, since, by definition, they have to build in an artificial 'spread' to make a profit.

And don't be fooled that you're eliminating the "foreign conversion fees" charged by Visa/MC (1%) and your issuing bank (2% by most large banks). Visa/MC now call these 'interbank transaction charges,' meaning you'll be hit by them even if the conversion is done at the servicing bank end (i.e., DCC). Yes, some banks don't charge, plus eat the Visa/MC fee, e.g., Nationwide and CapitalOne -- but even here, you're hit with the DCC spread. Plus, on your credit card statement (in the US anyway), with DCC you'll no longer get a second line entry showing the conversion fee, as required by law. Why? Hey, your bank didn't convert anything (the servicing bank did), thus nothing, by law, to report. Be assured, however, those fees were included in that instantaneous conversion that took place at the check-out counter.

Nok Air has apparently joined the crowd that automatically uses DCC, hoping the customer is no more the wiser (as most aren't, and would even shrug if offered "baht or home currency?"). A few months back, Nok Air automatically (for me anyway) charged the more favorable "baht rate," even tho' they had the DCC option, as evidenced by the credit slip that showed "I chose to use baht" (merchants without the DCC option show nothing on their credit slips about currency selection). But, while they gained my gratitude, they lost money, as did their servicing bank (Bangkok Bank). I guess now, Nok Air clerks are instructed to always punch button #2, the DCC option, unless otherwise instructed. This, anyway, is how it works at Home Pro.

Filer's example of when DCC *could* be more advantageous is plausible. A few month back the MasterCard/Cirrus network, or at least some of its member banks, was charging the offshore rate. In this situation, yes, the DCC conversion rate could be superior to the offshore rate. However, MC/Cirrus appears to be in line these days with Visa/Plus in charging an onshore wholesale rate. However, as memeber banks are free to choose whatever exchange rate they want, there may be a few rogue banks charging the offshore rate. But such banks certainly aren't competitive, and it would be ridiculous to stay with them using the DCC rate as an excuse, since switching banks would trump both the offshore and DCC rates. Visa banks could do this too, of course (but no reports to indicate). Just another reason to check your monthly or online statements to see what rate you're getting (And, keep your credit card slips, because if you get sucked into a DCC transaction, those slips will be the only source of how much baht you were charged. On your monthly/online statement, you'll only see your home currency charge, thus being unable to see how much you were gouged in the exchange, unless you kept the credit card slip.)

Think Visa, MC and your issuing bank have clean hands? Their fees are percentages -- so they love your larger charge.

Gordon Gecko said, "Greed is good." He would of loved DCC.

Using the same card via a Bangkok Bank ATM or SCB results in the more favorable onshore rate. Seems inconsistent, but true.

Most ATM machines here in Thailand, at least the ones I've used, don't charge a fixed fee for using a foreign ATM card. But they exact their pound of flesh by fiddling with the exchange rate -- and some aren't too kind. So, if you thought this "no fixed fee by the ATM owner" makes Thailand look like a good deal compared to your home country, forget it. Your home country has no exchange rate to fiddle with, thus the fixed fee by the ATM owner for unrelated card activity.

Generally, credit cards, ie cards that invoice you monthly, use the offshore rate.

Usually, no. Here is the rate Visa offers its member banks: Visa Baht Rates

It's definitely the "onshore" rate, approximating the Interbank Exchange Rate, which, at 10-20 satang above the Telex rate, is the best rate you're going to find. Unfortunately, Visa's (and Mastercard's) 1% Foreign Transaction Fee (they now call it the "International Service Assessment"), plus the 2-3% extra being tacked on by most of the big banks, makes wiring money -- and using in-country plastic -- a viable alternative. Nevertheless, some financial operations (notably, Nationwide and Capital One) don't pass on the 1% Foreign Transaction Fee. And some smaller banks/credit unions don't add anything to the 1% Foreign Transaction Fee -- and some offer a 1% cash reward on purchases, which then brings you back to the Interbank Exchange Rate. Obviously, shopping around can pay off -- and the small guys would seem to get the nod.

If you click on the "questions" link found in the Visa Baht Rates link, above, you'll find a lot of good info. One quote should get your attention:

Visa makes this rate available to issuing banks, which may adjust the rate in billing cardholders.

So, if your issuing bank wants to ignore Visa (and Mastercard) rates -- and gouge you with the offshore rate (or some rate in between) -- they can certainly do it. (And a few months back, Mastercard/Cirrus appeared to be using the offshore rates. But it was never certain whether it was some member banks -- or the Cirrus network -- that was at fault.)

Because of a recent court case, US financial institutions are supposed to divulge foreign transaction charges. So, on most monthly statements, you'll see and extra line with foreign charges, indicating the fee(s) charged. But, you won't find anything about the exchange rate used -- this you'll have to root out yourself with a calculator and known rates. And good luck trying to get a straight answer if you ask them how they figure their exchange rates. Most don't know what you're talking about -- or are fantastic tap dancers.

Debit cards and ATM cards, ie cards that debit each transactions immediately to your account, generally use the onshore rate, but there may be exceptions, particularly by banks who realise that they can make extra money by using the offshore rate and decide to take advantage of this.

Yes. And so too with credit cards.

If you have a hearing profile and docomented with the VA, all you need to do is make an apointment with the nearest VA hospital audio clinic, get tested and fitted for free hearing aids, they have several differnt types, I retired from the air force in 89 and got my aids in 1998.

Thanx, Skip. Guess I need to go find the retirement physical papers from 1987 -- or hope the VA still has it on file.

Hope the VA's budget allows for more than analog........

Why did you pay an extra 2000 baht??

If you haven't been caught up in the DCC scam yet, it's probably hard to realize how it works. You hand over your credit card, and the charge comes back in dollars (or whatever your home currency is). And unless you carry a calculator -- and know your bank's exchange rate for the day -- it all looks kosher. This is particularly true if you've a whole cart full of items. It's only when you get home and do the math, that you find you've just bent over.

Went today to Home Pro. Yep, it's still bend over time there if you don't say "Thai baht" when you hand over your foreign bank plastic. Interestingly, at cashier position #1, they have a copy of a Singapore newspaper article on DCC. The first highlighted paragraph explains how tourists find DCC nice, as they get a feel for the "real" cost since it's in their home currency. But the last highlighted paragraph warns that the "up to 4% commission" (more like 8% in Thailand) makes DCC financially unsound. Why Home Pro has this article taped up, who knows. Maybe this is so they can say "you've been warned." (Again, it's only at cashier postion #1.)

So, 'heads up' shoppers.

Thanks, FolkGuitar.

Obviously, with all that you point out, a professionally run operation is called for. And, therefore, the reason why I'm trying to find some first hand experience in CM.

Cost is rapidly *NOT* becoming a factor. Plus, when I retired from the Air Force, this hearing loss was documented on my final flight physical -- and with the VA. Guess I need to run my options down next time I'm in the States.

Any vets here been able to get hearing aids out of Uncle Sam many years after retirement?

Where are they? You said you saw 2 vendors at Panthip Plaza so it seems that's where they are.

Yeah, and both are closed on Sunday mornings, about the only time I visit downtown. And they're new, so was actually looking for more about the longer-established, better-known spots (which I haven't seen).

Perhaps if they wrote the price for you you might have seen it or do you need glasses as well?

Yeah, can't see or hear. But, I can certainly tell a buttbreath from his written words.

Anybody bought hearing aids in CM?

I said, ANYBODY BOUGHT HEARING AIDS LATELY

The price of decent hearing aids in the US makes saying "huh?" very cost effective. But, what are the prices here in CM? And where?

I saw two hearing aid vendors on the ground floor of Panthip Plaza. Anyone know anything about them?

I don't understand most of what's being said around here, so not hearing it is probably a plus. However, for trips back to US, I found not hearing very well becoming a problem.

Thanx.

rito,

I assume your Tricare Overseas is the "standard," not "prime" variety?

As such, are the charges you've filed for reimbursement been within the "allowable charges" range? (With lower health costs here, I would imagine so, unlike in the States, where Tricare allowable charges are way too low for non network health providers.)

Any problem with non hospital pharmacy reimbursements? Since most drugs here are non prescription, I could see this as a problem for reimbursement(?).