JimGant

Regardless, the very best Thai baht rate is obtainable in Thailand. Assuming you could exchange all of your USD for THB, and then transfer the money to the US...you'd lose money converting it back to USD. I'm not sure why you'd consider doing this.

Huh? Yes, the "very best Thai baht rate" is obtained in Thailand -- but only when you send USDs *into* Thailand and exchange at the onshore rate. But the OP wants to repatriate his money back to the US; and the most advantageous way is to send baht and have it converted to USDs on the US end at the offshore rate (he'll get one USD for less than 30 baht; converting to USDs in Thailand would cost over 33 baht for one USD).

But, as has been said, he apparently can't do this under Thai banking rules. And this is almost self-evident, because if one could do this, there would be no spread between onshore and offshore rates, as such a self-licking ice cream cone would quickly end the spread.

Out of curiosity, I sent an Email, on 7/22/07, to the Houston Honorary Thai Consulate:

Has policy on honorary Thai consulates issuing Non Immigrant O-A (long-stay retirement) visas been changed? I know at one time Houston, as well as several other honorary consulates, had issued such visas; but rumor has it that applicants now have to apply through an MFA consulate, or to the Thai Embassy(?).

Here's what I got back from Julie Richardson, the Honorary Vice Consul:

We are still issuing Retirement Visas. We have been given no instructions otherwise.

Houston is a real pleasure to work with -- I know personally, at least as it pertains to a Non Imm O (not an O-A). Read both 'retiredusn' and 'wpcoe' above. Then, seriously consider Houston as an option if what you read resonates. They're very accomodating, both via phone or mail. To contact, see:

Honorary Thai Consulates

No health check ... was required. It was my first retirement stamp ever.

Nice to hear *some* Immigration Offices aren't asking first-timers for a health certificate (as some have reported).

So, if you have Leprosy, and no joint account, CM is the place to go.

I still plan to ask some questions , though in a friendly and polite way.

Would be nice to know the official Bangkok position on joint accounts. Sunbelt? (Although showing CM Immigration that they're at odds with the official position might be akin to telling the Japanese commandant that Geneva says officers don't work... )

The reasoning was explained as Thai marriage law and that to abide by the joint property provisions the wife must sign understanding of my change of status.

Did that make any sense to you? I can't see how the justification for extension could affect joint property provisions? Does the Thai wife have a bigger hook into you when your extension is based on "support" vice "retirement?"

Didn't Peter Sellers play this guy in the movie "The Party?"

It makes sense if you look at it from the point of view that the joint funds are not truly within your sole control and could vanish without you knowing about it at the time and then you would be in Thailand without funds to live, as far as immigrations is concerned.

Most countries' laws regarding married couples are accomodating towards this institution. Thailand is no exception, as shown when a non-Thai married couple, retirement eligible, is allowed an extension of stay based on a single sum of 800k baht, not 800k each. Presumably a joint account by such a couple, with at least 800k in it, would be allowable since the bottom line of '800k total for both' is satisfied (yeah, ok, this is Thailand, and the individual steps each must take for his and her extensions might run afoul of the joint account paradox).

So, based on the above, what's the difference when a retirement-eligible farang with a Thai wife wants to extend based on a joint account with only 800k baht in it? Nothing, as far as I can see. (Hello, CM Immigration..............)

And, once again, I sure wonder if the Krabi instructions (shown earlier) are local laws -- or do they reflect instructions from Bangkok(?). And if the latter, was there a robbery of the BKK-CNX mail coach I didn't read about........

I received my "OA" from the cons. in Houston, TX

How long ago was that? I read somewhere that honorary consulates can no longer issue Non Imm "O-A" visas.

They should be enforcing the policy set by the Thai government

So, was the policy put forth by Krabi (link above) "policy set by the Thai government" or policy as interpreted/defined/created by Krabi?

In most cases they do not seem to accept a joint account if not a spouse

And even if a spouse, some offices or officers won't accept a joing account -- at least in Chiang Mai.

Hmmmm.

When I renewed my retirement visa last time in Chiang Mai, they would not accept a joint bank account , with me and my wife of fourteen years period.

I wonder if this was officer -- or office -- specific.....

The following was reported last month from the Krabi office:

Krabi Rules

3.2 Have not less than 800,000 baht deposited in any Thai bank account (savings or fixed-term account) for not less than three months before the application date. Account name must be only in the applicant’s name or may be a joint account in the name of the applicant and his/her registered married spouse only.

If the account has the spouse’s name, applicant must provide a copy of the marriage license.

Is the autonomy shown by each Immigration Office by design -- or just incompetence?

Has anyone used Bangkok Bank's Bualuang with their Thai wife? As a Thai she could get an online banking password, right?

We opened a joint account, and applied for Internet banking at the same time. Within the Internet (Bualuang) account are: the joint account; her original account; an account in her name for direct debit of monthly bills; and send-to-only accounts of folks on our payroll (to be used should we be out of the country and need to pay).

I'm sure the joint account wasn't really needed, as she could have set up the Internet account solely in her name, with me using her user ID and pin (but legal, if that's pertinent?). But the joint account, where most of the money is, was more for estate planning purposes. Plus, Immigration now allows joint accounts to function as solo accounts for extension of stay purposes -- provided you show a marriage certificate. Anyway, it was all pretty simple, and I only had to show my passport, no work permit nor residency statement.

Bangkok Bank has a branch in New York and I could do a US$-US$ in-country. She could then get the funds from our account as needed without SWIFT, TELEX, or Western Union fees.

This is a wholesale bank, and I don't believe they allow personal accounts. So, you wouldn't be able to tie in a BB New York branch account into your Bualuang Internet account AFAIK.

I show my Thai bank passbook with the letter from the bank, just to show them that in addition to living off the pension, I have cash on hand f

But did they insist on seeing both the passbook and the letter -- or did you provide it unasked?

I can show the Consulate attestment to receiving 65k/mo, so officially I don't need to show a bank passbook. But that certainly would not be a problem, with, I'm sure, enough to make Immigration happy.

But the question I have is: Do I also need to show a letter from the bank confirming the amount, plus being recently dated (what is it, one week?). I don't really want to visit the bank for a letter if it's not required for this 'unofficial' bank book requirement.

UG,

Any thoughts to becoming the 'Used Borders Books' of CM, ie, selling not only books but used CDs, DVDs, and fresh coffee? I guess the pirating taint could be troublesome, although originals (or full proof copies )might work...

Anyway, I'm still grateful to Gecko's for solving my Hornblower craving of a few years back. I found all of the series (well, one edition had to come from a compeititor), most being decade-old yellow versions, but all completely serviceable. They're all on my shelf, along with most everything else C.S. Forester ever wrote (fantastic author, in spite of not being American ), awaiting the day when Alzheimer's sets in so I can read them constantly.

Gow-sip-et, mai ow gasohon krup

Peaceblondie, I would suggest "ow gow-sip-et benzene" instead, and not using the word 'gasohon,' which may be the only operative word they understand. (This suggestion from my wife, who knows how crummy my Thai is.)

Also, PTT has color coded their pumps, with 91 red being benzene, 91 green being gasohol. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.) Have any of the other stations color coded?

A friend needs to get a Thai police report (stating that he has no criminal record) for the time he has been living in Thailand (he's a long time British Expat). He needs it for a visa application.

Presumably this is for a visa pertaining to teaching, as any other police report requirement AFAIK would be for a Non Imm O-A visa only obtainable outside Thailand, and in which case the police report would be from the cops in the country of application.

Anyway, the following link is from the "Useful Immigration Information" pinned at the top of 'Thai Visa' forum:

Thai Police Report

Uhh.... not exactly. That part of the analysis is based on the assumption that:

" The balance in the retiree’s tax-deferred retirement account at age 62 is $500,000. "

The author uses "$500,000" as an example -- to better plot his fancy graphs -- but the analysis works with different amounts too, as the basic premise is that, with certain expected returns, it is better to finance post retirement needs with early SS payments rather than drawdown retirement savings. Of course, the definitive phrase is "expected returns," which, although mathematically predictable within standard deviation boundaries, can be anything but predictable, especially in the short term, which, unfortunately, is the term entered into by retirees.

Nevertheless, with an expected return of 5% -- which could be achieved today nearly risk-free with CDs -- it would appear that taking early SS is an excellent option, even for the risk-adverse types. (But, if you plan to live past age 89, you may want to consider delayed SS to cover the cost of your Pampers.)

Lifetime benefits are not the issue for the retiree without substantial savings. Rather, available yearly income is

Agreed. But this article addresses those fortunate enough to be able to retire -- and NOT take early SS benefits, living instead off their investments, if they so opted. Even better would be the retiree having all three legs of the ideal financial situation -- a pension, investments, and SS. And if that pension is a government one, i.e., it's indexed for inflation, this retiree has many options, including being as risky or conservative as he wants with his investments, knowing that two legs of his retirement cashflow cover inflation. In this case, he could end up with the 'super good life' or maybe just the 'good life.' Nice situation to be in.

n the case of early vs. late SS payments, the marginal utility (i.e. what it means to your lifestyle) of an early payment must be weighed head-to-head against the marginal utility of extra income at an advanced age,

Agreed. The marginal 'disutility' of outliving your income, because you took early SS and your investments tanked (regardless of the 'expected return' predicted by your Quicken program) could be very rude. And being risk-adverse at age 70 seems prudent (unlike at, say, age 55). So, retiring at age 62, burning up your investments to live off of -- and before they tank -- then collecting at age 70 an SS check of 76% greater value, would seem to be a good, conservative plan. Even moreso if you're risk adverse, have a pension, and the marginal utility between a 'good life' and a 'super good life' is not really a factor. (Plus, who's to say, maybe your investments will exceed 'expected returns' and you end up with a bonus.)

Anyway, plenty of ways to skin this SS cat. In the end, however, you really don't know which model to choose -- until you know your check-out date......

A choice to retire early -- but not take social security -- doesn't seem to apply to the OP's situation, but since the subject of 'when to take Social Security" has surfaced in this thread, the following article may be of some interest to others. Basically, it says: If you can retire at age 62, but don't need to take SS early, you should do so anyway. Here's a quote from the article, followed by the link to the complete article:

A simple analysis compares total expected lifetime benefits depending on whether a retiree chooses early retirement at age 62, normal retirement at age 66, or delayed retirement at age 70. A more realistic analysis compares retirees using early Social Security benefits to defer drawing down on retirement savings, allowing those savings to build for a longer period of time.

The analyses suggest that in all cases except for those with very low expected investment returns from individual retirement savings, it is economically beneficial for retirees to take Social Security benefits at age 62 and use these benefits to defer taking withdrawals from their retirement savings.

Taking SS Early

I have been stabbed in the chest and hit in the head with a baseball bat. I have had thirteen broken bones (not counting fingers and toes) and seven trauma operations. I have had over a thousand stitches in my body.

You'll get bored in Chiang Mai. Have you considered Iraq?

So first thing I'll do is check with them about what my 90 day check-in options are.

Without getting an extension of stay based on marriage and having Embassy/Consulate paperwork indicating 40k/mo cash infusion, you have no 90 day check-in options. Your only option is a border out and back every 90 days, plus having to obtain a new Non Imm O every 15 months.

You obtain a non immigrant O visa to visit family in Thailand - the wife lives in Thailand, or so it seems, so the husband can obtain a visa to visit her. The family does not have to be Thai.

Ok. But not a whole lot of ground plowed here, so I wouldn't bet the farm that a visa clerk, used to seeing a marriage certificate plus Thai ID card, wouldn't hiccup at seeing a marriage certificate with two farang names, plus in lieu of a Thai ID, an extension of stay stamp....

Interesting soap opera. Another recent thread by sbathon has her asking advice about converting a tourist visa to a Non Imm O. Planning ahead, maybe. Which, in their situation, is prudent.

Lop, what's your take on Hull's "Application for an O-A Visa?" http://www.thaiconsul-uk.com/visas1.asp

Definitely they're not issuing actual O-A visas, which would stamp you in for one year, but are greasing the skids to enable extending the Non Imm O in Thailand. Not very helpful in the definition department by now equating O-A visas with in-country extensions. Also, wonder what they do with those in-triplicate O-A application forms? Who knows, maybe they're ahead of the pack with an MFA-sanctioned new justification of Non-Imm O issue.

A trip to Vientiane should not be that expensive; or you could probably find cheap flights to Malaysia or Singapore (although that can be expensive for hotels).

Rationale for obtaining a Non Imm O in adjacent countries might not work, as being "married to a farang" (even one with a valid extension) is not quite the same as "being married to a Thai," which seems to be the only criteria that is getting Non Imm O's these days. Certainly a grey area, which seems to have Immigration perplexed -- I can only imagine how MFA might look at this.....

We are a US retired couple who had retirement visas. My husband's retirement visa expired while we were out of the country,

Hmmm. By "retirement visa," do you mean you both had Non Imm 'O-A' visas -- the only kind that fit that definition -- with one based on O-A dependency criteria? If not, then you must have had Non Imm O's, which were extended based on retirement and dependency, hence your so-called "retirement visas" (a misnomer). In any case, you're caught in a real Catch-22 situation, worst case is a return to the States to begin again where you once began.

(Also, if the first situation above applies, i.e., you both had O-A's, then Hull's website's stating both need to meet the financial requirement is out-of-sorts with at least one other consulate/embassy -- which, of course is business as usual.

Boths our posts are to take issue with those who pick up on the wrong terminology

Huh? You're taking issue with yourselves by using the wrong terminology?

I go to Birmingham every year for my multi non imm O visa. they're always helpful and I've never had any problems.

Are you maried to a Thai? If not, what criteria do you use to secure your Non Imm O?

Kelvinj is not intentionally being misleading. It's the Hull webpage he refers to that is very curious. (Here it is again: http://www.thaiconsul-uk.com/visas1.asp )

Hull, always creative, has now redefined what a Non Imm O-A visa is. Heretofore, an O-A retirement visa could only be obtained outside Thailand. This is still the case, but Hull now advertises its requirements for obtaining an "O-A" visa -- when the reality is, it is only stipulating what requirements are needed to obtain a Non Imm O visa that will pass the extension for retirement requirements at Thai Immigration.

This is not too shabby. Why shouldn't you be granted a Non Imm O visa if you intend to retire in Thailand -- and meet all the requirements as put forth by Thai Immigration. However, many Embassies/Consulates won't grant Non Imm O's for 'intend to retire' purposes. So, hail Hull.

But they (Hull) also fold in O-A requirements that Thai Immigration won't ask for when you apply for extension:

2.5 Criminal Record – you need to contact your UK Area Police Force and request a

“Subject Access Report”. Please be aware that it can take up to 40 days for it to be

issued. Furthermore, please note it must be submitted to the Thai authorities within

three months of date of issue.

Thai Immigration won't ask for a criminal record. This is an MFA requirement for an O-A visa, which Thai Immigration doesn't ascribe to 'retirement extension of stay.' Pity two branches of government can't have the same sheet of music, but, hey, rice bowls are different. And Hull, projecting MFA requirements into Immigration requirements, creates confusion over actual requirements.

And it's not quite clear from Hull's website whether or not they even want to see your supporting documentation, including police report -- or just want you to attest that you have all the documentation set forth as required to obtain an "O-A visa" in Thailand (again, a misnomer).

Anyway, what does seem clear -- if that is possible -- is that an actual "O-A" obtained at a Thai Embassy is NOT the way to go for a two-farang married couple planning to retire in Thailand.

they always tell everyone they're Thai, and I've never heard one of them say in differentiation, "I'm Thai-Chinese."

In an interview awhile back, Tiger Woods' mom refered to herself as "Thai-Chinese." Interesting, but not nearly as much as how she would describe her new granddaughter.........