cusanus

20 hours ago, JimGant said:

Bottom of TM7: WHETHER PERMISSION IS GRANTED OR NOT, APPLICATION FEE IS NON REFUNDABLE UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES

Kicking myself for bothering with this. I've never been charged the fee until the application was approved and completed (that I can recall). Twice over ten years ago I went for extensions without the necessary qualifications and was given polite and uself advice on how to correct the situation without being charged a baht. I'm sure the fee is non refundable. Perhaps lately they have been charging in advance, I just haven't noticed. So what?

48 minutes ago, chingmai331 said:

I did get my $$ back from Immig when i asked for a multi-entry stamp (3900? baht). 2 months prior i went in, with all the paperwork for a Non-O visa and requested one year based on retirement.  She blahblahblah and gave me a stamp, Non-O.  I did not look closely but later learned it was only for 90 days, not the 365 days. 

As I recall both times I got the non O visa, it was good for 90 days and nothing has changed as far as I know. The 365 days is the one year extension, not the visa. Some folks erroneously think that the extension is a visa, but it's an extension, not a visa. 

8 hours ago, Thailand said:

Anybody get the feeling that Chiang mai Immigration are kicking back at the expats because of the kicking BJ gave them and some of the other offices earlier this year? His directives seem to be flying in the wind as well.

Really haven't much of a clue as to what this BJ is about and afraid to ask. I do get the feeling that Immigration could be kicking back at the expats because of the attitudes people demonstrate on this forum, but I really don't have much a clue about that, either. I think it more likely it's just a result of being a sort of military minded government. Someday maybe someone could explain this whole BJ privately. He really shook them up is that what happened? Because they deserved it? And that's why there's more efficiency now? But that stepped on bigger toes? Or maybe just forget I asked.  Why do I need to know about that? 

35 minutes ago, Mapguy said:

The post really reveals the obvious common-sensical way of going about the business of showing your financial wherewithal if you follow the "800k Thai bhat annual plan." No fussing around. Consider for a moment what might happen, if (or when!) you go balmy, and you haven't used the basically "fail safe method" in which a Thai bank fixed deposit is rolled over automatically annually (or perhaps longer). Two months, three months there....one day here, seven days there... chasing investment return rates and parsing opportunity costs (with, of course, a perfect knowledge of changing international exchange rates!)....et cetera, et cetera!  Hey!  You're supposed to be retired and enjoying life!

Ain't it the truth! All my life chased pennies and duked it out to save a buck. The statistician gives me seven years more to live, but I've got enough for an eternity without the need to bang 65,000 baht 12 times a year to a Thai bank at $100 a pop. The $1,200 expense far exceeds any safe return I could get on 800,000 baht less the 1.5% for a fixed account. I'm sure there are cheaper ways to transfer, but they may or may not tickle the IO and I've got to change banks to do it. I tried that a few times, but since I no longer have a US address, I can't get an account. Now, my dad is in his nineties, I'm better looking than he ever was, so I'll probably live past 100 like all my uncles. As for the few thousand I might be able to save over the next 30 years, none of my heirs will miss it and I'm pretty sure my two kids won't live that long. If you've made it this far, you should easily be able to set aside 800,000 baht. If not, don't feel so bad, there are several other countries with a lower COL, good looking women and easier visa requirements. If Thailand prices us out, we'll go elsewhere and live just as well. Meanwhile, an asteroid may be coming and it's time to bend over and kiss yer keester goodbye anyway. 

6 hours ago, elektrified said:

Could anyone who used the Income Affidavit from the U.S. Consulate as proof of the 65K per month comment if they are asking to see receipts of the income? Or, will that practice begin in earnest later in the year? Just curious as Mod ubonjoe in another thread stated that if you have the U.S. Consulate letter you will not be asked for proof. 

My understanding is that the US Consulate ceased providing income letters at the end of 2018, though these would be good for some months (six?). My understanding was that you had to show statements proving the income and that it was transferred to a Thai bank monthly. Seems much simpler and probably cheaper to keep the 800k on hand, but everybody has different circumstances. But actually, I don't know exactly.

This may help clarify the "health insurance" requirement that we were debating earlier. This states it will be a requirement NOT for retirement extensions, but for new applications for O-A visas (which are done outside Thailand). If you already have the O-A then I guess it won't affect you. https://news.thaivisa.com/article/35298/mandatory-health-insurance-for-foreigners-aged-over-50-in-thailand-why-it-may-not-affect-you

Of course, highly recommend staying away or getting away when it's been this bad, but with the first rains coming it's history. Many of us are rooted in too deeply to get away long enough to save ourselves, so we just wonder how many years it will take off our lives. If you're not overbooked and get someone to bring your food, you can sit tight for a few months in an air conditioned bedroom with an air filter humming away.  

12 minutes ago, hml367 said:

I believe the O-A gets 1 year permission to stay upon entering Thailand.  I think one difference doing it with the O visa then getting the 1 year permission to stay is that a police report is not needed in this case. 

In other words, once you're here, there's no real difference, so why require insurance for O-A and not O? We have a consensus it seems, we'll have to wait for word from Immigration before believing anything in the news. So, I'll try to keep my mouth shut until then. 

2 hours ago, Konini said:

The more I think about it, the more I think that this will only apply to people who got their original visa from abroad. For the Non-O A obtained abroad, there is no requirement to have money in the bank in Thailand.  Those Non-O (retired) on the 800k method of extensions now have to keep 400k in the bank, which just happens to be the amount of insurance required. I was wrong, I think.  Having the 400k in the bank is equal to what Non-O A will have to have in insurance cover.  The big thing I imagine is going to be those who came in originally on a Non-O A and got extensions to it.  I think for those people it probably would be worth ditching the Non-O A and just starting from scratch and getting a Non-O (retired).  Of course we really don't know what will happen, it's going to be a case of sitting back and waiting for it to all pan out.  Thankfully, we have until January before we need to act and the new rules will have settled down by then.

Yeah, too many unknowns at this point. My friend who got the O-A in the states did have to show money in the states and for the 1st extension she did have to show 800k in a Thai bank (or bank/income equivalent). Perhaps they mean those getting their 1st extensions, not earlier ones. So, go to Immigration and apply for a new visa from within the country just to bypass the insurance requirement? Sounds goofy, but bureaucracies, who knows? I was caught off guard by the O-A vs O distinction. Just what is the practical difference mean besides country of issue? 

11 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

I agree with you 100%. Numerous Thai sites refer to "renewal" when they mean, technically, extension (see Siam Legal, for example). I believe anyone who enters in the future or entered in the past on an O-A visa and now has an extension will need to produce evidence of health insurance when they get to their next extension. The only "known unknown" is what that evidence must be, which is why they've given themselves a couple of months to figure it out

Yes, thank you. Perhaps there's a fine point I did not understand, not that it's material to the issue. The O-A is the one issued abroad or in the home country, but that's most us I believe, surely.  It wouldn't be me I guess, having gotten mine in Thailand and seeing only the O in my passport. Nevertheless, it appears to apply to all extensions for holders of O-A visas, but perhaps not the holders of simple O visas. I don't understand why this should matter. 

4 hours ago, Thailand said:

Many threads on this at the moment, it looks like it may not apply to extensions of stay based on retirement only for non-immigrant O-A visa applied for from home embassy or abroad.

4 hours ago, nichopaulcnx said:

Too much confusion,  it relates to Non-immigrant O-A long term visas only. Approved by the Cabinet last month, the new regulation will require expats on the long-stay non-immigrant O-A visa to have health insurance that offers Bt40,000 coverage for outpatient treatment and Bt400,000 for inpatient. 

From Thai Embassy: Non-Immigrant Category “O-A” Purpose of Visit: This type of visa may be issued to applicants aged 50 years and over who wish to stay in Thailand for a period of not exceeding 1 year without the intention of working. Holder of this type of visa is allowed to stay in Thailand for 1 year."

So we have a lot of experts on this forum, but... I and all my retired friends have O-A visas. The Non-Immigrant O-A is a one year extension type visa. Nor does the article say anything about visas obtained abroad or from a home country, but quite the contrary. "Current holders of this visa will have to produce proof of their health insurance for visa renewal,”... 

Now, admittedly, the article may not be accurate, but the way I read it, it applies to all annual extensions of O-A visas. Those are one year extension visas, not five or ten. Having been an insurance agent for 13 years in the states, I can't see any challenge for an IO to determine if a policy meets requirements. Repeatedly casting doubt on the intelligence of Thai authorities could very well be hitting us in the pocket down the road. 

Intermediate alert for those who missed it. According to recent news, yearly extensions require health insurance in Thailand (40,000 / 400,000 limits). The bloke who challenged me regarding unpaid bills by farangs can check the article. Looks like this will be enforced starting July.
https://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/national/30369468?fbclid=IwAR13o_EyzGHJOTEB0LnT2cIqBCu2mJQC0XEkvW6PrTxJGHu6C4qipisCEqY 

4 hours ago, Dante99 said:

Thanks for that.  I am a few weeks behing on news.  Problem seems to remain about how they will be able to verify foreign policies.

Or if they'll accept Medicare A and / or B. Probably not. Also, dependent coverage through a Thai government spouse... 

2 hours ago, Mapguy said:

It seems you are now 50. Question is once you reached age 50 did Immigration insist the “piggy-backing” day’s were over and it has been necessary for you to convert your dependent visa and since sustain an extension of your own standing financial and otherwise.

she means that she's using the spousal / dependent extension now as before. 

1 hour ago, Dante99 said:

Yes Konini is wrong about the insurance requirement as she/he was about the deposit insurance at Thai banks.

Well, yeah, I hope so, but this Nation article says otherwise:  https://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/national/30369468?fbclid=IwAR13o_EyzGHJOTEB0LnT2cIqBCu2mJQC0XEkvW6PrTxJGHu6C4qipisCEqY

52 minutes ago, Konini said:

We've got until the next extension is due to decide which way to go - there is even a third way we can go; if our current health insurance policy isn't deemed to be acceptable by immigration, we'll have to think very seriously about whether or not to stay on here.  The minimum policy for us per the government's site would be over 100,000 baht (2 x 52,000) which is more than we are paying now for an overseas policy with an awful lot more benefits and that would definitely be the straw that breaks this camel's back.  What, with the couple of months in Europe, a month in Australia, 3 or 4 short holidays around Asia every year and this year almost 3 months of unbreathable air up here, we might just be better off with a couple of tourist visas and a couple of visa exemptions on arrival.  We already have a lease and our driver's licences will be renewed for another 5 years soon, so I can't see any drawbacks to that plan (not having a Non-O) at the moment.

My understanding is that the health insurance requirement applies only to five year visas.  In any case, I'm 100% insuranced, but I have many friends who are not. 

2 hours ago, Mapguy said:

Relevant to a spouse aged under 50 being carried as a marital dependent on the other’s initial permission to stay (long stay - retirement) and extensions, has anyone encountered Chiang Mai Immigration’s policy once the dependent spouse reaches the age of 50? Is the spouse coming of age required to change status and (with financial and any other requirements) to establish independent permission to stay?

Have say not. My wife and I were both over 50 when we arrived in 2005 and we used the spousal (dependent) visa extension, 800,000 baht. Heck, I didn't even know the spouse could be under 50. 

9 hours ago, Konini said:

No problems with my extensions previously (I think I'm on my 6th or 7th), I always joke that I'm one of my husbands' goods and chattels because I don't count for anything.  He has a bank account in just his name, every year we transfer 1 million baht into that account, we make sure that it's over 800k for 3 months before the extension, and gradually transfer it over to our joint account during the year for spending money until it's time to do the international transfer for the next extension.  As I said, I'm just one of his goods and chattels.  I know a couple of other married people who do the same as us, both on 800k in the bank and usually the husband has the Non-O for retirement  then extensions of the same, and the wife is listed as Spouse on her visa extension stamp.

 

Providing nothing has changed in relation to the spouse extension, and I can't see that anything has changed, the new rules won't affect us so much; we will just have to be careful not to let the bank account we use for international transfers go below 400k after the now 6 months seasoning.  A tad inconvenient, but no biggie really.  We may change over to the income method (transferring minimum 65K here every month) I just need to know if you need a full year of monthly transfers before doing the extension (it's due in January, Christmas day is the absolute best time to go to immigration because nobody else is there).  Because we only have 7 months, we probably won't be able to do it next year, but if anyone knows differently, I would be grateful if they could share it.

Terrific! Great to know that the spouse can still piggyback on the one account, it probably can still be joint for that purpose I'd wager. But from what I keep hearing, the income must now be exactly per month, that's what they keep saying here anyway if you read earlier posts. Seems a lot easier to just keep an 800,000 (or 400,000 mid year) balance. You can pick up a bit more interest keeping 800,000 in a fixed account and a different account for daily use. Nice to know that you've been enjoying Thailand for so long. My USA wife left in 2008, but we're still on friendly terms.

5 hours ago, Konini said:

We've always had an account in just my husbands' name with the 800,000 for extensions in, over the next year I gradually move cash over to an account that we use day to day, before transferring 800k from overseas in time for the next extension (so no change for us there, providing they haven't changed the requirement to 800k each). Hopefully we'll be OK - but I do have a question.  Does anyone know if we have to have a full 12 months of transfers into the account before it would be accepted that we have this income every month?  We only have 6 or 7 months until it's due - would that be enough?  Anyone with experience of this?? No drama if not, but I'd rather be able to do it for the next extension.  Would they accept overseas accounts/statements?

Hmmm... but how about your own extension, are you saying your husband's account covers the spousal extension? I was under the impression it didn't any more, but you had to double the 800,000. Maybe you don't need to double it. All I know is that rules have CHANGED effective March of this year and you have to have 800,000 in the account three (or is  it now two) months prior and three months after the extension day, ALSO, 400,000 minimum the rest of the year (or a combination of accounts I assume in the same name). Also, depending on the embassy, you can't use income letters anymore. Once again, I suggest going in person and asking an IO these questions (then reporting back here). 

4 hours ago, Konini said:

I've always had a spouse visa, meaning I don't have to have my own 800,000 on deposit - 1.6m is not a problem in itself, but much more than we want to have tied up here.  This rule hasn't changed, has it?  

That's how I used to do it 12-14 years ago, 800,000 in a joint account was good for both myself and spouse for a retirement visa extension; however, what I've been hearing, as I said earlier, is that you cannot use a joint account anymore. And again, though I hear these are the new rules, you should go to the Immigration office and ask directly. I've done that many times over the years and never found it difficult, but then you aren't in the country right now did you say? In 2005 we brought money over in intervals bigger than monthly and it was satisfactory for all, but now it sounds like it must be strictly monthly which can be a pain.  For me, the possibility of rule changes causes anxiety. I don't want to get on the wrong side of Immigration, so it's far simpler and secure to just have separate fixed accounts with 800,000 baht each and also separate accounts for living expenses. Yes, it isn't the best return on your money, but I have a great deal more still getting great interest and if a little falls through the cracks it means very little if my extensions are safe. I'm dug in hard here and see nothing in the states but misery. 

40 minutes ago, Ozziepat said:

I cannot find an answer, so am asking in regard to required monthly deposits to meet Immigration requirements for proof of income: Can the monthly deposits be made into a *joint* Thai bank account where one name is mine and one is my wife's?

My understanding is that this is no longer acceptable. It must NOT be a joint account and both husband and wife need separate 800,000 amounts and/or incomes. I suppose if the deposits/income are double that might work, not sure about that. Can't guarantee this is right either, so suggest you go right to the source and ask the horse. He'll give you answer that you endorse.

30 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Nonetheless I enjoy the pithy way you make your case. ????

An Englishman, I presume... 

On 4/29/2019 at 1:32 PM, WaveHunter said:

Well, I sure can't argue with you on what you said.  One size certainly doesn't fit all.  I know some people in your situation, and I can appreciate you guys have more of a reason to put up with the craziness of IMM than I do.  You sound happy and and content, so I envy you for that ????.  

Thanks, but I'd like to say as I'm sure I've said many times before that working with Thai Immigration has never been anything less for me than a very special pleasure despite the temporary overcrowding the last few years. As for setting aside the 800,000 baht reserve, that places no strain on me whatsoever and will not affect the quality of life for anyone, statistics now giving me only another seven years. Some have strenuously argued that it rightfully belongs in the USA where it originated against overwhelming opposition and where my kids would express their gratitude by pissing on my grave. For now I promise the Thai government that I'll leave only a good looking corpse and no debts 

9 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Well, I think there is a lot of fact to back up my opinion, and I'm guessing more people feel the way I do than not, but yeah, it's just my opinion.  Nonetheless, when I see how much more efficiently things work in Vietnam, it makes me seriously wonder if staying in Thailand is worth all the needless effort.

You get what you pay for? I've been married to a one in a million/lifetime Thai babe for 10 years with an extended family worth dying for, a very convenient and aesthetically pleasing environment, modest COL, a most luxurious nest to live out the rest of my days. If I didn't have that, I'd pack up for Vietnam, a lower cost of living, easier visa requirements, and a hectic, unhappier culture. I need no bond to live in the USA, but I wouldn't go back at gunpoint. 

5 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

I appreciate the point you make but nonetheless I think tourist and expats account for largest portion of the country's income and should be treated accordingly instead of being subjected to ever-increasing red tape and constantly changing rules that seem totally arbitrary. Seriously, whoever the people are that are in charge of IMM, both on the regional level, and at the federal level are either hacks, corrupt, or both!  

If you're a farang, opinions are like <deleted>. Eveyone's got one.