JimGant

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....

"Admitted" date is day one of your 45 day permission of stay; "until" date is day 45.

Not if he hasn't worked 40 quarters for SS covered employment. Or, if he's qualified for SSI, that's not payable unless he physically resides in the US.

That was to thwart face recognition by the Imm Police https://thethaiger.com/hot-news/visa/overstay-crackdown-uses-facial-recognition-tech

No, I'm saying there's no active dragnet in the US for overstayers; keep your nose clean, and you're probably home free. But, in this case, Thailand had an active dragnet: Apparently, this dragnet was to roll up everything they came upon, including elderly white farangs with no criminal records. Historically, Thai dragnets have concentrated on criminal overstaying elements, with Africans often of interest. The US has never targeted certain groups for random checks on overstay. It has, recently, identified which groups are more likely to overstay, and has then attempted to pass laws tightening up on visa requirements for these populations. However, this effort under Trump, ended with the Democrats, who are more emotional than pragmatic.

Eh?

How many more like him are out there -- but maybe in their eighties, and needing multiple assistant help, and in wheel chairs......? Should Thailand load him on a plane, with his wheelchair, and send him to an empty address in the US (or EU, OZ)? Or, should they just not try to uncover overstay recluses, doing no one any harm -- particularly if these recluses are financially stable. (A more difficult question if such folks become a drain on the Thai medical system...) Hey, Thailand, why not a quid pro quo for our old, sick overstayers -- for all your illegal Thais working in restaurants in Los Angeles. A little compassion and common sense go a long way, in spite of what US Republicans spout off.... If no harm, no foul -- why dig in?

The ordinary farang in Thailand should not perceive that this episode has anything to do with them. The wealthy in all countries in the world get a leg up over the less well-to-do, whether this is because they can afford better lawyers -- or the system affords them an outright bribe situation, as this case represents. Absolutely nothing that should alarm the ordinary farang in Thailand. In fact, that corruption is so naked, as this episode represents, actually shows the other side of the coin, namely, a bribe can smooth over some bureaucratic road bumps, like certain Immigration requirements. And everyone can end happily: You get the extension you need; the agent gets a fat fee; and the Imm officer gets part of that fee, so that he's now getting paid what he should be -- and the Thai taxpayer is NOT funding that pay raise. What's so bad about this form of corruption...... Why do you still live here, if they "inevitably" will try and do you over? Paranoia is a terrible disease to live with. Using this example as a warning to farang visitors *against* Thailand is baloney. Corruption has been with Asia for eons. It probably will never ever affect you here in Thailand -- and if it does, as pointed out, might be in your favor. No, corruption should not be on any visitor's radar. But, being much less likely to be mugged in the streets of a Thai city, verses the streets of Chicago or Wash DC -- might be a topic of discussion for future visitors/retirees. Corruption in Thailand will never go away. It's the way things have been done for ages -- and it greases more skids than not. Judging it by Western standards is a non starter.

Air Force in Thailand during Vietnam, at NKP, the Thai restaurant near the front gate -- site of many farewell parties and other get togethers -- every table had a bottle of Worcester sauce. Don't recall brand, but this was the preferred sauce to put on our 'cow pad.' I guess fish sauce was a non starter. Today, I still like Worcester sauce on my Thai food, at some times. Fresh fish sauce, at other times. I would imagine other US bases in Thailand during Vietnam had a similar Worcester sauce experience.

Or, adopt what the new BoI LTR visa has as an option, namely, $100k in your home country bank account, i.e., no need to bring that money to Thailand for self-insurance purposes. And no need to show proof of insurance denial to use this self-insure option. BoI's approach is rational, namely, self-insurance requirements are purely to protect Thailand from dead beats. Unlike with Police and Insurance Mafia requirements, that force buying a Thai issued insurance policy; but if somehow you can't, then you must park your money in a Thai financial institution. Either way, the emphasis is NOT on precluding health dead beats -- but on making sure the foreigner pads the wallets of self-promoting Thai entities. But, this is Thailand -- and Asia -- land of individual 'rice bowls.' You're not going to merge rice bowls in the interest of efficiency and fairness -- not if one or more of those rice bowls get broken.

But, when the machine jammed, did you hear a faint laughing? Pulling money from an ATM is one thing. Dropping my hard earned money into a slot on a wall has always spooked me (and I'm sure others). I would do it, if required -- but only at my home bank, where I could demand immediate remedy.

I've been with USAA for 55 years, and, yes, the service has shown some noticeable deterioration in the last few years. But, I've used them for international wire transfers for years, and the price has been $45 for as long as I can remember ($20wire, $25 international transfer fee). And, yes, you've always had to do it by phone -- online wire transfers are only for domestic transfers. And part of the questioning drill is "purpose of wire." This is required by anti-laundering laws -- but easy enough to state "living expenses." (Stating "funding international drug cartel" may slow down your transfer.) I haven't sent a wire in several years, as Wise is cheaper for amounts below around $25k. If they've tightened up their questioning for transfers, this would be understandable, since they were recently hit with a $140M fine for sloppy anti-laundering policies. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/17/business/usaa-fine-money-laundering.html My address with USAA is my Thai address, and when credit/debit cards renew, they automatically send by regular post to my Thai address. This, historically, proved slow -- but sure. However, last time I asked to have the card "expedited" via FedEx. No problem -- just pay a $6 fee. And card arrived in a couple of days. Last month I had a fraudulent credit card charge -- discovered, interestingly, because that online purchase attempt used the wrong expiration date of the card. Anyway, USAA security dep't was called, and they sent a new card right away -- via FedEx (by request), for no charge, being a fraud replacement. Got card in three days, and could track all the way. Fortunately, FedEx, unlike the local post office, is well aware of my location out in the boondocks, so I never have delivery hickups with them. I used to feel kinda special with USAA, being retired military (they even address you by rank -- a little corny, but reminds me of when I didn't have arthritis and other aches.) But, yeah, the last few years have shown deterioration in service. And I'm afraid that anti-laundering fine may tighten up on expats with foreign addresses. And even those with mail forwarding addresses, which they had no problem with when I used one a few years back, designating the address as both mail and physical address. No questions asked.

Which stall is Micha in?

Going to your second 5 year visa chunk, which expires on 5 Oct 2032 -- if you reenter Thailand on 2 Sep 2032, you should get stamped in until visa/permission expiration date of 5 Oct 2032 -- a 32 day permission, not a new 5 year permission. But, as we've seen, airport Imm are going (erroneously) the 5 year stamp route. So, say this still happens in 2032 for you, your airport permission of stay stamp will have a validity "until" date of 1 Sep 2037. I guess you could not renew your LTR visa in Oct 2032, but pretend your latest permission of stay stamp, until 1 Sep 2037, will get you back into the country. But, without an accompanying reentry permit for that period, doubt you'd get by even the sleepiest of IO's. Anyway, purely hypothetical, as all this will be sorted out long before you renew your LTR visa.