JimGant

From the US Embassy site. Can be accomplished by mail. See here: https://th.usembassy.gov/u-s-citizen-services/local-resources-of-u-s-citizens/notaries-public/certified-true-copies-of-u-s-passport/

No, disproportionate to the overall amount of economic crime being committed. Obviously, if such crime is being committed by Chinese, their ethnicity is newsworthy. Where are you from? If from the US, you're a card-carrying ACLU member. And thus divorced from reality.

So, if a disproportionate amount of economic crime is committed by the Chinese -- you're saying this is not newsworthy?

Well, duh -- take a situation where a series of street muggings and robbery have taken place. I'd sure like to know what groups to avoid on the street. If reported as Thai, that would be a non-starter. But if reported as Nigerian, then I'd cross the street when approaching a group of blacks, assuming the worst -- which most likely wouldn't be the case. Blatant prejudice? Indeed. But humans can't evaluate every individual, thus we're dependent on making decisions about groups. Political correctness necessarily takes a back seat to self preservation. And I'd want the press to give me a 'heads up' on who I should consider avoiding, if I'd evaluated the situation as not being an isolated situation by a certain nationality (or race, on a broader scale). Try living in Wash DC. The Wash Post has for years refrained from reporting the race of all the street crime perps. So, of course, we know who they are -- 'cause if a white dude is involved in a street crime, the Post jumps all over that. As it should, as this is 'news' in Wash DC.

Which is good -- everything else being steady. But my 800k here for retirement was brought over from the left side of my balanced retirement portfolio, namely, the preservation of capital side. A few years back, this FDIC side of portfolio had some 5% CD's; but mainly it was lower paying savings and checking accounts, where I had flexibility in withdrawal without penalty (i.e., CD withdrawal penalty). And I really didn't care what they were earning (as long as capital was preserved), because my earnings were on the right side of my balanced portfolio, namely, the 30% of portfolio in equities. And this is why I said earlier "everything else being steady" because today my equities on some days lose what I would annually gain by moving my 800k back to an Amex 4% savings account. So, things not being steady, is why it's not terribly important to consider "opportunity cost" with keeping 800k here in Thailand -- if your balanced retirement portfolio has equities approaching the old rule of thumb 'age from 100' percentage -- 'cause history says equities will eventually trump that opportunity cost (of course the overall size of your retirement portfolio needs to be a lot larger than that 800k in a Thai bank). Anyway, we seem to visit this subject fairly frequently. Why folks with a fair amount of equities in their portfolio need to nickel and dime lost income with 800k in Thailand -- is beyond me.

Why not? Sounds straightforward to me. Why so sensitive about procedures to identify overstayers?

The Thai banking system has shown misunderstandings about joint accounts, from several directions. The most ominous, in my opinion, is that upon death of one owner, the other owner (in an "or" type account) is not allowed access to the account -- and it is frozen. This is contrary to Thai law, which treats joint accounts like the West. But, individual bank managers often march to their own drum (ah, that feeling of superiority). Thus, as I don't want my joint account frozen upon my death -- and have it tied up in probate for 6 months and high fees -- wife has been instructed to go online and transfer all but a few thousand baht into her individual account. This instruction precedes the instruction about arranging my barbecue.

Yes. Since the treaty explicitly states only the US has tax authority over gov't pensions and Social Security, there would be no reason to include it in a Thai tax return, since being non taxable, it would not count against your Thai tax exemption, i.e., that first 150k tax band.

Can't find that. But, the treaty, as most are, is explicit on eliminating double taxation, in this case, with a credit for Thai taxes (from Article 23 of Treaty): Not sure how that squares with a UK State pension....? If the Brits don't tax your State pension, but the Thais do, the credit is meaningless. But, my expertise is with the US tax code, and related treaties. I've already exceeded the boundaries of thread creep, so I'll let the Brits further discuss this issue, if any are interested. Sorry for the waver.

Does the UK-Thai treaty address the UK State pension at all? Or does silence on the matter mean it is not exempted from Thai taxation? Just curious.

OK. Please explain this quote from the UK-Thai tax treaty: Sounds like the Brit tax treaty with Thailand is similar to most OECD treaties, namely, gov't pensions are only taxable by the country paying them. For sure, my US Air Force pension, plus social security pension (which, I guess, is like the UK state pension) are exempt from Thai taxation. Only Norway allows Thailand to tax its gov't pensions paid to Norwegian residents of Thailand (but this tax is credible against Norwegian taxes on same income). Best advise yet, unless you've got millions earning interest in Thailand. And for Yanks -- you can take a tax credit on your US taxes for Thai withholding taxes. Of course, if you're not wealthy enough to pay US taxes --maybe you do really need whatever satang you can manage...

The Immigration Orders are understandably broad -- why waste several pages of paper dictating precise orders? Yes, standardization would be nice, for the customer. But why tie the hands of the IO honcho who allows 45 days in advance of an extension application -- when this probably makes the lines shorter and manageable. Telling him it has to be 30 days makes no sense. Or it has to be 15, not 21 days remaining for in-country visas. No, the fiefdom mentality of the individual IO honchos suggests good management from above doesn't make them automatons. The most curious case is Phuket, who grandfathered some long-established OA visa holders, so that they didn't have to adhere to the medical insurance requirement. How did they manage that? Ah, maybe they reached back to a 'case law' equivalent on grandfathering, and applied it to the OA insurance requirement..... Who knows, as this appears really to be an "in your face" violation of an Immigration Order. Maybe the Phuket IO honcho meant it to be "in your face" -- realizing it was a stupid directive. Anyway, standardization doesn't appear to be on the horizon. Big Joke has bigger fish to fry -- not IO honchos interpreting the best way to implement Immigration Orders.

From the IMF, not Fox News. Yeah, they could have done better, given a crystal ball. But, compared to China today, looks good to me. Too bad we can never know what a democratically elected gov't would have done..... Considering that clowns often get elected by voters without smarts or knowledge -- I can only imagine such a gov't wouldn't have been more successful in governing. Anyway, the current gov't has done a credible job, all things considered. And this assessment by "fair and balanced" world organizations. Do a Google -- it's not just the IMF article, above. Not really concerned about who governs Thailand going forward, as it certainly won't measurably affect my retirement life in Thailand -- nor probably the life of the average Thai. A benevolent dictator would be ok, as would a democratically elected clown -- as long as she or he is surrounded by competent advisors and cabinet. Thailand always seems to muddle forward toward 1st world status, regardless if the leader is a coup general -- or a sister of a drug dealer exterminator.

Then why do you bitch so much about the current gov't? Would we have been better off under Yingluck, or whatever other popular flavor-of-the-month PM? Of course, we'll never know -- but Prayut has certainly not been dysfunctional, and even with certain missteps with Covid, overall Thailand has navigated that horror much better than, say, China. And, now, the economy seems to be coming around, with projections in the positive column. Prayut certainly hasn't been perfect -- but I think he's done as well as any politician could have done in these trying times. Of course, you could never see that, knowing he came to power in a non-democratic manner -- which somehow negates his ability to govern. Anyway, I'm glad you're "a very fortunate escapee from the US," with no better place to be than Thailand. Just not sure why you concentrate on the glass being 10 percent empty......

Dyslexia can be problematic in financial planning......:)

Actually, if you renew in February, 3 months is 90 days, and change -- except in leap year, when 3 months is exactly 90 days. Nevermind.

Interesting. Re-entry stamps aren't required for re-entries using an unexpired visa. So, technically, with a 10-year LTR visa, you shouldn't need a re-entry stamp..... But, since it really is a 5-year visa, renewable for another 5 years -- what's the poor airport IO supposed to use for guidance in stamping you in? Ah, as he's conditioned to look for a re-entry stamp, then to use that stamp's "until" date for the new stamp's "until" date -- bingo. Takes the guess work out of trying to figure out how to treat a 10-year visa, with maximum 5-year permissions of stay. And if no re-entry permit stamp? I guess use the "until" date on the last (or only) permission of stay stamp.... And if no last permission of stay stamp -- well, we've seen that they give you a 5-year period, beginning at today's date, not the date of issue of the LTR. Not sure that is what they envisioned, as they probably wanted your first 5-year permission of stay period to be "until" you're due to renew your bonafides for the second 5-year permission. Interesting learning curve.

That's nuts. Many of us reading this came into the country years ago on 90-day Non Imm O visas, or 365 day Non Imm O-A visas. Those visas allowed us to enter Thailand, as long as we did that before the "until" date. What we got was a "permission of stay" stamp, which would expire after 90 days, or 365 days, depending on whether "O" or "O-A" type. If we wanted to stay after the expiration date of the permission of stay stamp, we'd go to Imm and apply for an extension stamp of that permission stamp. Ad infinitum, year after year, a daisy chain of extension of stays. Meanwhile, the original visa had long ago expired. So how could anyone realistically ask if your visa is still valid? Anyway, shorthand language for this daisy chain was "visa extension." Even the embassies use this term. But it's not literally a visa extension, because all visas have finite expiration dates, and CANNOT be extended. But, in essence, it IS an extension of the original visa, or at least an extension of the original visa's initial permission of stay. Bottom line: If you have an extension of stay that hasn't expired, the visa this extension emanates from is still "alive," as long as that daisy chain of extensions is not broken by exceeding expiration dates before renewal. Back to the beginning -- bank should only be interested in your current extension of stay, ie, your so-called "visa extension." If they really want to see that long-ago expired visa in that expired passport in your closet -- they need professional help.

Well, actually, they're checking my "permission of stay" for expiration, not my "visa," which did expire 10 years ago. But, most of us know what you mean (but some don't, as this continues to be a point of confusion). Anyway, yeah -- the recent crack down on overstayers has seemingly lead to the gov't asking banks, when they check passports, to take a glance at the permission of stay stamp. Not a law, so some banks/branches may not be taking this request too seriously. And what happens when an overstayer shows up at the bank counter? Are they installing trap doors? No, but your name will probably be forwarded to Imm. Actually, this policy may be more of a deterrence, making it more difficult for overstayers to do business -- and thus overstay -- in Thailand. Let's just hope they restrict this policy to situations where passports are normally asked for -- as I'd hate to have to carry my passport to the supermarket. No big deal -- for those with valid permissions of stay.

My reference, giving you, the spouse, only one/third derives --if she has two living children -- from the actual code language of section 1635: Thus, from para 1, above, if wife died intestate with children, her property is divided into equal shares between spouse and children. One kid, you'd get 50%; two kids, you'd get one/third. From para 2, involving parents and siblings (and no children), you'd get 50%. From para 3, involving half-blood siblings, grandparents, aunts and uncles -- you'd get two/thirds. And from para 4, you'd get it all if no statutory heirs other than yourself. Bottom line: There are references out there that don't agree on who gets what in intestate situations. Solution: Don't die intestate, i.e., write a Will.

Usufructs, like 30 year leases, are drafted at the land office and become part of the chanote. The amphur does not, and need not, get involved.

Some confusion on this. Here's another interpretation: Having a Will will negate any such confusion.

So, if your plan, upon wife's death, is to sell the house, and move on, then, as you say, the wife will not go along with this, as she wants her relatives ability to still live there. Without a Will, her property would go one/third each to son and daughter, and the last third to you (as a statutory heir). Kinda messy, but at least you'd get one/third, assuming you could find a buyer for your share..... (not a great market for part ownership of a property). Now, if you want to remain living on the property, the only way to go is either usefruct or 30 year lease -- which means, whoever owns the property, cannot throw you off the property -- and maybe that, and not ownership, is your end goal. With either of these endorsed on the property chanote, it really makes no difference to your legal ability to reside on the property whether or not the wife has a Will, as you state her wishes are the kids will get some ownership -- and they will get at least two/thirds ownership of the property without a Will -- or maybe all, if she does have a Will and indicates accordingly. If you're not worried about getting any money for your one/third share -- which would probably only come from her kids buying you out (good luck, unless they're of means) -- having her make a Will would be a lot less messy than settling intestate. Anyway, a lawyer probably needs to be involved, although usefruct/lease situations can be dealt with directly with the Land Office without a lawyer (at least that was my situation).

Last time he tried to clean up the Imm Police, he was mysteriously removed from office. Then, his car was peppered with eight gunshots. I guess some folks just don't like their gravy train messed with. Hopefully now he has a large security detail, to include a food tester.

For leg men, winter is very depressing....