JimGant

Ah, yes: two. I think you can rest your case now.

What realistic threat is RTAF modernizing against? Obviously you could name several threats, e.g., the US or China -- but the operative word is "realistic." And neither of these threats meets that characterization -- unless Thailand stupidly got into a security pact with either of these countries. And it's doubtful that they would. A key point from the article ozimoron introduced is this: Ah, when you analyze cost effectiveness, the US realizes the F-16s are still an effective fighting force -- air-to-air or air-to-ground -- against most imaginable enemies. Thus, they'll remain the bulk of the US air assets for the foreseeable future. But, they are being slowly replaced by F-35s..... .... and those replaced F-16s are heading for the boneyard in Arizona. And these are late model F-16s. Thailand's F-16 fleet are worn-out A/B variants. Wouldn't it make sense for Thailand to buy some of these boneyard aircraft to replace its A/B fleet? And maybe buy more to replace its worn-out F-5Es? Hey, the RTAF would already be fully trained on these newer F-16s, except for the more modern avionics. But that's a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of full up training, ground and air, for F-35s. Anyway, the "toys for the boys" argument seems to resonate. And when the PM is part of that 'old boys network,' wasteful military spending is par for the course. No, given the threat, current or projected, there's no logical 'cost effective argument' for buying F-35s -- especially if it's only two you can afford up-front.

Ah, to make sure there are enough crash trucks to handle collapsing nose gear.

....which means I could accomplish everything here in Chiang Mai, which means never having to go to Bangkok, which means they'll get at least one more customer.

Nope. You can do it online from wherever you are. Need a certificate of residency or a utility bill to show proof of your foreign address. Plus, you'll need to be able to wire or ach $25k to the newly established account. See here: https://international.schwab.com/open-account-intro

If you have $25k why not open a Schwab International Account? You don't need to actively trade, or to even hold securities. Just use it as a bank, with your deposits and wires. Also, you can get a checkbook and the famous Schwab Debit/ATM card.

IAM, could you provide the "following ways." If they require a utility bill, drivers license, or the like -- having a mail forwarding address or using a relative's address ain't gonna hack it.

You must have individual stocks. I have mutual funds in my IRA.

Slamming my brakes on at the yellow light, so that I don't get caught in the intersection with a red light (and have my picture taken for a ticket) -- is a real conundrum. 'Cause, there's usually someone on my bumper determined to make the light -- and if I'm not in compliance, good chance he'll drive up my tail pipe. Thus, I'll usually chance the red light cameras in this situation. Sometimes result: A ticket in the mail with a nice photo of my wife's car. Worst case: Several nights of getting my own dinner, as wife ponders her chances of going to jail. Sigh.

My traditional IRA is with Schwab, and my address on record with them is my Thai address. The only downside of not having a US address is that I can't trade online, as I found out last year when I tried to sell some shares in the IRA account to cover my RMD (required minimum distribution). Instead, I had to call their international number and do the trade via phone. And I had to pay $25 for the inconvenience of not being allowed to trade online, again, due to having a foreign address.

Pib, maybe I missed it in this long thread, but did they completely shut down the option to use Tricare? If so, what was their reason(s)?

If I recall correctly, you got a reentry permit stamp when you went to BoI to get your LTR visa. And Imm is programmed to look for a reentry stamp, then use its "until" date as the same "until" date on your new permission of stay stamp. Misty has no reentry stamp (or any stamps), having gone the out-of-country route. Thus, Imm reaches for the stamp commensurate with type of visa: Non Imm O, 90 days; Tourist, 60 days; Non Imm OA, one year. Thus, as long as visa hasn't expired, Imm has a rote procedure. Now added to this procedure is a five-year stamp for a non expired LTR visa. Now, there might be some head scratching when the IO sees both a non expired visa AND a related reentry stamp. I guess in Ryan's case, the reentry stamp took precedence. But I could see where the other way might prevail.... Anyway, more a curiosity than a problem, as I'm sure whatever permission of stay stamp is in your passport at the 5 year point, you'll still need to show up somewhere to validate your bonafides. Hopefully by then they'll have satellite offices scattered around Thailand, particularly in Chiang Mai, in my case.

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.