bubba

8 hours ago, amexpat said:

I always bring a canvas bag but,

they weigh the tomato, put in in a plastic bag and attach the price sticker

they weigh the orange, put in in a plastic bag and attach the price sticker 

etc, etc

Very rarely does someone put several in one bag with all the stickers.

 

Maybe people who are fluent and diplomatic could suggest this at weigh stations?

 

If it's something you can stick a sticker to, like a tomato, I just ask them to stick it directly on it with no bag at all.

What happens if he is released and then deported to Australia? Can he be arrested and charged there on these offences?

Be aware that she cannot collect your survivor benefits as your spouse if she is a non-US citizen not residing in the USA.

Since you mentioned Pai, yes it does get warm there since so much of the area has been deforested and the elevation is lower than other places you could visit. You might want to consider Soppong which is about 45 kms further on from Pai,. Soppong is higher in elevation and still has lots of jungle on the hills, and is usually 3° - 5° cooler than Pai.

Here is a Weatherunderground station located in Soppong where you can see current and past temperatures:

https://www.wunderground.com/personal-weather-station/dashboard?ID=IMAEHONG2

1 hour ago, yankee99 said:

All i can say is the thai banks charges are very expensive for the merchants. When i inquired with bangkok bank and they wanted 100,000 deposit and 5%. 

It’s not just the bank commission chrarged to merchants, which is very high for small businesses. The banks also charge them a monthly rental on their credit card machine. 

Providing credit card service costs small family businesses significant money, while they are already operating on a thin margin. I have no problem at all having the option of card or cash, and compensating them for their added cost of providing that service. I think it’s the banks who should be getting the heat in this thread. 

28 minutes ago, ThaiBob said:

This email was received by Democrats Abroad Thailand members :

=========================

Dear Americans Abroad in Thailand,

Happy belated Thanksgiving, I hope you all had a chance to enjoy the holiday with family and friends.

As a service to our members and their American friends, DA Thailand is providing a report compiled by our DAT Vice-Chair Gary Suwannarat, who recently attended a town hall organized on November 20, 2018, by the US Consulate in Chiang Mai.

Please note that this is provided to alert members to upcoming changes but does not constitute legal advice; questions about your particular situation and circumstances should be addressed to Thai Immigration officers or to immigration lawyers.

This affects those living in Thailand on retirement visas. US Consular Offices (as well as those of the UK and Australia) will no longer notarize income certifications after December 31, 2018.

Gary Suwannarat’s report is as follows:

Chiang Mai US Consul General Jennifer Harhigh and overall Thailand Consul General Timothy Scherer spoke to some 200 Americans concerned about this upcoming change in income certification procedures for Americans applying for retirement visas, or renewal of an expiring retirement visa. This impacts many of the estimated 70,000-75,000 Americans on long-term visas in Thailand, some 20,000 of whom are served by the Chiang Mai Consulate, covering the CM Consular District from Chiang Rai in the north to Pichit, Pitasanuloke and Tak in the south.

Scherer indicated that there is no change in Thai law. However, as part of a global review of US consular operations, it was found that US consular offices in Thailand issue an unusually high number of income affidavits. This was raised in consular dialogue with Thai authorities, who then realized that the notarized affidavit affirms only that the named citizen appeared before a US Consular officer, but does not constitute proof of income, as required by Thai law as detailed in Police Order 777/2551, which governs visa approvals. (See partial translated text below.) Similar changes are reported regarding the UK and Australia, and in the offing for citizens of other countries who have significant populations of retired persons living in Thailand.

The US Embassy and the Immigration Division held discussions regarding how to ease the transition to new regulations, resulting in the Thai Immigration Division extending the validity of notarized income certification for 6 months from date of notarization. Notarization obtained by December 31, 2018 will be accepted until end-June, 2019. (Note: the Consular calendar in Chiang Mai is filling up fast.)

Follow-up comments indicated that the Chiang Mai Immigration Office earlier this year instituted a requirement of proof of income, supporting the Consular-notarized income affidavit. (Note: My contact with Chiang Mai Immigration officials indicates that they want both the Consulate notarization and back-up documentation.) Scherer acknowledged that Immigration Offices around Thailand exercise discretion in applying regulations, so there may be some inconsistencies.

One commenter said he had asked his US bank to provide a statement which summed his variable income for the year, reported as average monthly income, which was accepted for retirement visa purposes. Scherer stressed the importance of obtaining bank documents that, like this case, indicate as clearly as possible that income meets the Thai criteria.
Scherer further indicated that Embassy officials are working with Thai Immigration officials to familiarize them with financial reporting formats of the Social Security Administration, Veterans Affairs and major firms managing IRAs. The value of using standard income and retirement income reports (1099 and 1099-R) was mentioned.

Audience members applauded the suggestion that the Embassy work with the government to get acceptance of forms with personal identifying information not required for visa purposes redacted or blacked out as protection against identity theft.

The "combination" method (including both monthly income and Thai bank deposits) will still be accepted for justification of individual retirement visa extensions. For spousal visa extensions, inquire of Thai Immigration authorities or an Immigration lawyer.

Questions and discussion indicated that ANY source of income could be considered, not just pension income. In meetings with Thai Immigration, the U.S. officials have stressed that Americans have many sources of income (many not at regular intervals) to support themselves in retirement -- rental income, investments, withdrawals from trusts, and much more in additional to traditional government pensions like SS and VA. There was one report of someone in Chiang Mai receiving income at irregular intervals, so he printed out all deposits to his U.S. bank account over the course of a year and showed Thai immigration how it was more than 800,000 baht a year and this was accepted.

There was concern from several expat-expat married couples who each have been maintaining individual retirement visas, where one receives less than 65,000 baht and the other more than 65,000 baht, but the total exceeded 130,000 baht. Would it be possible for the wife to obtain a dependent or "family" visa? U.S. officials were unable to answer this question about how Thai immigration will handle dependent visas going forward. Again, speak to a Thai Immigration official or immigration lawyer.

Thai Police Order 777/255: Unofficial translation (available online):

Retirement visa application requires proof of income of not less than 65,000/month OR
Thai bank account deposit of baht 800,000 at least 2 months prior to INITIALLY applying for a retirement visa; at least 3 months prior to application for retirement visa renewal OR
Annual income plus bank account deposit totaling not less than baht 800,000 as of the filing date for retirement visa.

Thank you to Gary for volunteering to go to the meeting and file this report to share with the DAT membership. So, to summarize, the only real advice that DAT can provide to you is the following:

Get the income affirmation notarized by the Embassy before year end if your visa expires before June 30, 3019. (Note that appointment slots at the consulate are filling up fast.)
Ensure others you know are also made aware of these changes.
For advice about specific cases, either talk to a Thai Immigration officer or an immigration lawyer

I hope that this is helpful to our members who have retired in Thailand on a retirement visa and will be affected by this situation.

With best wishes,

Phil Robertson
Chairperson, Democrats Abroad Thailand (DAT)
Email: [email protected]

Democrats Abroad Thailand
http://www.democratsabroad.org/

Many thanks for posting that, Bob.  This seems to answer one nagging question that I had: Will TI accept an averaging method for those of us who have irregular income rather than monthly pension payments? To quote those parts:

One commenter said he had asked his US bank to provide a statement which summed his variable income for the year, reported as average monthly income, which was accepted for retirement visa purposes. Scherer stressed the importance of obtaining bank documents that, like this case, indicate as clearly as possible that income meets the Thai criteria.

Questions and discussion indicated that ANY source of income could be considered, not just pension income. In meetings with Thai Immigration, the U.S. officials have stressed that Americans have many sources of income (many not at regular intervals) to support themselves in retirement -- rental income, investments, withdrawals from trusts, and much more in additional to traditional government pensions like SS and VA. There was one report of someone in Chiang Mai receiving income at irregular intervals, so he printed out all deposits to his U.S. bank account over the course of a year and showed Thai immigration how it was more than 800,000 baht a year and this was accepted.

Elekrified: Did your radiologist happen to mention where in Bangkok an in-bore MRI biopsy is available?

Also - 

Every biopsy should have a Gleason score. I am surprised the pathologist in your case did not provide one.

Both radiologists gave you a PIRADS 4 for the lesion they observed. PIRADS 4 is defined as highly suspicious with clinically significant cancer likely. So it seems that either the radiologist's interpretation or the biopsy was misdiagnosed, or perhaps you underwent two very unpleasant and unnecessary biopsies. Similar to your case, the hospital radiologist in the USA who interpreted my MRI gave me a PIRADS 4. The second opinion I obtained from Dr. Busch, who specialises only in prostate imagining, very frankly told me that the hospital radiologist was wrong, didn't know what he was doing with prostate MRIs, told me I didn't need a biopsy and he would not perform one for me even if I asked him to. You may want to consider investing in another opinion.

What was your prostate volume? Did you calculate prostate density?

Update after I posted this: saw your PM and replied.

24 minutes ago, tideout said:

Some people have doctors or research hospitals. We've got bubba. ????????????

Thanks, Tideout. Having been on the active surveillance route for more than five years, undergone two MRIs, consulted with several different urologists and radiologists and spent a lot of hours researching the subject, I hope I can share some information that is useful. 

1 minute ago, elektrified said:

I may fall into this category. My PSA has been rising for years as high as 13.4. MRI shows a lesion 1 cm X 0.5 cm and 2 biopsies (2nd one was 26 cores) have been negative for PCa. CMU did call and request authorization for additional investigation of the cores from the suspect area and detected "chronic inflammation". The doctor said it is possible there may be a lesion so small and so non-aggressive that in 5 years it hasn't grown or affected surrounding tissue. Or it could be chronic prostatitis. I complete a 30-day course of Levofloxacin and will check PSA again in January.

A few things you might want to consider:

1. Doing an ultrasound guided biopsy is almost like throwing darts. There could be a small lesion, but none of the cores hit it, and especially with a small lesion such as yours. The gold standard now is in-bore MRI biopsy, where the radiologist visualises the lesion real time and has something to aim at. As I mentioned earlier, some radiologists can get what they want with just two cores. I really feel for you having done 26 cores. Did they actually hit the lesion with any of the cores and provide you with a Gleason score?

2. How experienced was the radiologist and how good were the images? Did he/she provide you with a PIRADS score for your lesion? You might want to consider getting a second opinion from a specialist radiologist. It is easy to do, obtaining your images on a DVD, uploading it to something like Dropbox and then the radiologist at the other end downloads them. That's what I did and it saved me from a biopsy, plus I learned a lot in the two hour consultation call. I consulted with Dr. Joe Busch in the USA for this, who is generally considered to be a recognised expert in the area. His fee was US$200 and well worth it. Dr. Busch is very frank and will inform you if he thinks the imaging is of inadequate quality or if he disagrees with your radiologist's assessment. If you are interested in this approach, PM me and I can provide you with more details and contact info.

3. Dr. Busch also considers prostate density in considering high PSAs. Did you get an estimate of prostate volume from your MRI? Have a look at this recent journal article regarding PSA density:

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density in the diagnostic algorithm of prostate cancer.

Yes, but is that not the point of this thread and the US consular meeting as well? "What about me" is certainly something on many of our minds with the cessation of income verification letters. Yes, there are those of us who are not yet receiving any kind of government pension but still have substantial income from dividends, capital gains and other revenue streams. Verifying those forms of income is a grey area and we need some sort of guidance and clarification soon now that the income verification letters are gone.

11 hours ago, JimmyJ said:

 

I have no signs of it.

I suppose anyone who hasn't taken the PSA test for years could have PCa since you mention there are almost never signs of it until it is too late.

(And some or many who take the test also could have it without the test indicating it based on what I've read).

 

 

I'm interested in treatment options because as I've mentioned previously I feel it would be pointless and counterproductive to take the test if I'm not willing to accept any of the treatments.

 

I last looked into it 11 years ago, and you are well informed on the current state of treatments, so wondering what is new.

 

 

 

 

I think the point is that there are many different treatment options, and those all depend on the diagnosis and nature of the PCa. In some cases, urologists are now recommending active surveillance with no treatment at all for small, low-grade lesions. 

If you do not engage in any kind of PSA screening with follow-up diagnostics, then it is sort of pointless to spend a lot of time researching the many currently available treatments since you will not be diagnosed. As time goes on, more treatment options will no doubt become available. Statistics show that one man in 40 will die of PCa, more than that for men in a high risk group, so just taking your chances with the odds is certainly one approach. 

JimmyJ - a course of treatment recommended by the urologist would of course depend on many factors including the Gleason score grading of the lesion(s), how many lesions, whether the tumour has become extracapsular and the degree, if any, or metastasis. In my father-in-law's case, which was not diagnosed until distant metastases had already occurred, the decision was made because of his age and the metastases to only treat with hormonal therapy. Some tumours are very responsive to that, others become refractory and begin to grow again. In his case, the therapy probably only extended his life for a year or so. 

Just curious – with all your questions regarding treatment options, while deciding against any screening by way of PSA tests, are you interested in treatment options because you suspect you may have PCa?

Form 1099 shows a lump sum, annualised income, correct? So TI would use an average that shows in excess of 65K/month since the 1099 does not show monthly income?

If that is the case, then apparently TI do accept a 12 month average of annualised income.

2 hours ago, JackThompson said:

My suggestion is to keep proceeds out of the country in a "buffer" account, and use that acct to seed the Thai account at or above the minimum required monthly level.  In my case, that means not sending "too much too soon" to retain sufficient funds for "lean" months - so sending money to Thailand is delayed, not accelerated.  In the past, when my business did well, I'd send over a larger chunk, then draw it down over time - not anymore. 

 

This may not be enough, of course, given the income is not from a govt-source with some sort of letter - but it is the best I can do.  Hopefully a year of transfers - or several, if I continue using Non-O-ME Visas (married to a Thai) - will provide a track-record sufficient to satisfy a measly 1-year extension at some point in the future.  I could back this up with the associated university degrees and a CV, if they are worried the business could fail - proving I could easily take a Thai's tech-job here, if I was so inclined (I'm not, unless forced to do this by immigration as a last-resort).

That seems like a good idea, Jack - not keeping 800K tied up in a Thai bank account for three months, with no way to grow it. The problem now is that with the elimination of consulate income verification, it is already too late to show an entire year of 65K monthly income.

As you mentioned, I keep hearing that TI want to see some sort of monthly government pension income. TI really do need to establish guidance regarding income for those of us who have not yet reached pension age.

58 minutes ago, Mark1066 said:

You have no idea if that’s what happened or not. Senior immigration officers have the authority to waive the seasoning requirements.

Do they? Has anyone ever heard of an immigration waiving the seasoning requirement?

28 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

I would agree and the point being that what needs to be 'proved' is that one has 65K per month each month and the stream will  remain  relatively stable for the year.  This can be attained several ways- pensions-  both government and company;  a home rental  generating income;  a  business (not working) investment generating the required income; stocks that  show an ongoing income stream/

 

How one spends their income in Thailand is inconsequential- some rent some buy; some have  cars others use taxis etc.  No one lifestyle fits all. Some will spend much more than 65K per month- others much less. Everyone needs a place to sleep; food; and  transportation and clothing.

 

While I do not have a business or stocks; I would hope that when the dust settles there will be enough in the system to accommodate those who  actually have the income and can  provide documentation showing it and not focus on the type or how they spend it.

That's a good point, Thaidream. Income is income, and not only monthly pension payments. My whole question is: will Immigration interpret the guidance as at least 65K/month each month for a total of 780K PA or will they allow for averaging?

As Sheryl pointed out earlier, dividends are typically paid out quarterly, which could mean big chunks coming in on various months, and perhaps nothing on some months. Same goes for income from asset sales. For a person with income from asset sales and dividend income totalling, say, 5M baht annualised, if a monthly 65K minimum is applied, that person could be denied their extension, while the 70K/month pensioner who is substantially less well off is granted their extension. 

This really is a big deal to many of us who derive our income that way, particularly those of us who have not yet reached pension or social security age. If I have to create 65K/month of income from share sales plus dividends, I do not want to do that, but I can; however, what we need is some clarification on what exactly will be acceptable so that we can do the appropriate planning. None of us wants the unpleasant surprise of being denied our extension next time round.

2 hours ago, rumak said:

and just how would anyone verify that the next day or two you did not reinvest (buy shares) of that or another stock.    ???    very easy to do when you have two seperate trading accounts.   

There is no way anyone could what the proceeds from a share sale are used for, whether reinvestment or spending. It is still income. For a pensioner, is there any way anyone could verify how he/she uses that income, which could be an investment or it could be spending? I see nothing in the retirement extension guidance that stipulates how verifiable income is to be spent. 

2 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

Borrowing & paying it back. The shonky types would be more likely to do that with an averaging system that allows them to borrow & pay back, say, once every 4 months, than with a monthly minimum system (because of the credit costs potentially involved).

Not sure what you mean here with regard to share sales. Do you mean borrowing the funds on margin to buy the shares? That could get very expensive, including the margin interest and the potential for substantial losses.

2 minutes ago, rumak said:

bubba, cmon, dodgy or not what the point that many here on this thread are trying to get across is that

Immigration does not have the time and more importantly the knowledge to interpret the many forms of income that foreigners may have.   heck, even i can't understand the US tax forms !  Last time i did tax it was something like 10 different pages of various forms i had to complete. .  SO...i would say that the many different forms from different countries are NOT easily verifiable.

 

But an investment portfolio transaction statement is quite simple - far simpler than tax returns.

If I sell a share asset, it is in English and looks something like this:

Date: XX/XX/XXXX

Sold: XXX shares at XX per share.

Total proceeds: XXXX

9 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

Most likely a MINIMUM of 65K a month. An averaging system would allow for too many dodgy work-arounds.

Why would it be considered dodgy if you have an investment portfolio and sell off assets such as shares as you need the money? That is easily verifiable and for many, it works out to much more than 65K baht/month. 

Quote

Ditto - as per complex tax-forms - doesn't seem remotely probable.  I think our only hope is that these get a cursory-glance, provided the bank-letter shows the min-income being transferred into Thailand.

Quote

I think the new 'Embassy income letter' will be the 'Bank balances & incoming letter'.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the requirement for income does not require funds being transferred into Thailand.