Northwest87

WP appears still a valid option for me, barring any surprises but so far the income requirements documentation is not very clear, so let's wait and see. It would be by far the best option of all, probably for you too. My fallback option is a regular retirement visa. Anyhow, when that LTR thingy was announced, they were going to bring...what was it? A trillion baht or some such. I don't think it will fly, at least for remote workers.

For the WTP option, I thought (yes, the past) at one point that this was a second solid option for me, but it's like they keep dropping grand pianos on my head ????. I agree with you on the unrealistic, embarrassing idea, especially coming from a contractor, who is essentially a disposable non-employee. I also "thought" that it made no sense that you'd be taxed for work online for a foreign firm abroad, but there is talk of a "digital work permit", so who knows? It's weird in any case... If your country has a tax agreement with Thailand, this becomes a moot point though. So the company-vetting thing is kind of a non-starter unless it's listed on a stock exchange. And I don't know about you, but if you qualify under the terms of the WTP contract requirements (contract for a guaranteed yearly or monthly salary for the duration of the contract), and that employer lets you work from abroad, more power to you ????

Item 5 applies to the WP option only if income is in the $40k-79.9 range, not above. If someone can qualify for the WP option, why would they go through with the WGC option? I'm not sure because I don't see where/how the latter confers any substantial advantages over the former, especially since you need on top of other things to prove the 2 previous years at 80K income, while the WP option ask for proof of 80K income only for the year immediately preceding the application. I see a problem of logic here, and so potentially a clue as to why option 15 appears fuzzy (gross/net? Pension income?). We simply need clarifications here. For the criminal check, I think that this will be an exceptional requirements and I wouldn't even worry about it. Not that it's difficult to get it done but nowadays, with basic passport information Thai police can electronically get plenty of info from their police counterparts abroad on whether or not a person is on the radar and needs to be double-checked. NW

Further to the discussions in this thread, I got some additional info from the BOI via email ([email protected]). It is a good sign that they replied quickly with detailed information, and I have attached the PDF file I got from them to this thread: it's a July 2022 draft as per the file name. Some of the fears expressed previously in this thread about unrealistic or self-defeating requirements may have been justified, at least for now, but again, it's a draft and things don't become official until next September. Taking into account possible future adjustments, some requirements are a bit fuzzy or downright disheartening, such as Working from Thailand Professionals contracts requirements guaranteeing that at best only a minuscule amount of freelancers/contractors will qualify (frankly: if any, since requirements are essentially for full-time salaried contract-protected employees), at least from the US. The financial justification of income requirements for the Wealthy Pensioner option is fuzzy (item 14), and I don't understand why it appears quite different from item 15 (for Wealthy Global Citizen), at least for proving the basic 80K minimum level. Item 15 is not clear if we are talking gross or net income after tax because of the type of justification required (bank statements usually reflect net income, not gross, unless your income is way above minimum requirements and it doesn't matter), and whether or not the sources of income are more narrowly defined. Definitely a spot where interpretation may play a role, and that is never good. NW LTR_Documents_required.pdf

I'm no expert on this, but I think I can answer a couple of your questions. The highly skilled professionals category, that's for working in Thailand for local companies "in targeted industries" or educational institutions. I assume it could be for a foreign company located there, as long as it fits one of the "target" industries. If you work in Thailand online (under the highly-skilled professional category or so-called "internet nomad") for a foreign entity located outside Thailand, Thai taxes and immigration simply do not care; technically, its akin to surfing the web as far as they're concerned; other than that, you cannot legally work in Thailand without a work permit, even as a volunteer. You can also elect not to work under that visa, or to work part-time; nowhere does it say (so far) you absolutely have to work and generate income under that visa, and it's foreign income anyway. My take but I have been wrong before... ???? I know they talk about a digital work permit and the like for the LTR visa, but this is useless and even laughable if none of your income is derived from Thai sources locally or abroad. Why you would go and declare that income in Thailand makes no sense, except to make your life miserable with paperwork that local authorities would probably not even know what to do with since it is not taxable in Thailand. This said, Thailand does honor tax treaties; when I worked there I paid the tax in Thailand on my job because taxes were deducted (with my Thai Social Security contributions) out of my paycheck; under the treaty with the US I didn't declare them as income in the US. I got it all back at the end of the year from the Thai taxman because he is not greedy and my salary was small. So the thing to do if there is a tax treaty with your home country, is to simply to pay your taxes there as usual. If you are ever questioned on your income by the Thais, it is more likely to be whether or not any of it originates in Thailand, rather than whether or not you earn income outside of Thailand: you're not a Thai citizen.

Thank you for that; I wasn't aware of this file.

The economics and very rich people's attitude is pretty much the same the US: 80K is a huge pension income, top executive level I would say; the top US social security pension you can get is currently around $3400/month, so you would need to double that with a private or government employee pension. However, for the LTR wealthy pensioners it is not clear from the rules that the 2-previous years 80K income must be derived from pension income, although it would make sense in term of proving continuity of future income levels. This in itself would be illogical because it would bar people who have been retired for less than 2 years, or are about to do so. So, hopefully people who are and have been making income at that level and are about to retire might be able to qualify. That's my hope, otherwise it's the "work-from-thailand professional" thingy, and that comes with its share of fuzziness too.???? To sum up, we'll know more in a couple of months when the LTR is implemented and the rules clarified. Until then, I would not discount anything.

If you qualify as a "wealthy global citizen", you presumably qualify without problems under "wealthy pensioner" and don't have to go through the investment rigamarole or proving $1M in assets. That part of the rules is puzzling, as it seems that people making them shot themselves in the foot. Some say that the target group are the wealthy Chinese, so maybe there is more logic there than meet the eye.

I don't anticipate any problems proving past income. The iffy rules are those that pertain to proving contractually guaranteed future income/employment with foreign employers. I have worked on contracts longer than 12 months but that was for the government and yes, the usual length is also 12 months in the US. This raises the question of whether or not an annual check-in will be necessary, and this is not clear yet, at least to me.

It's more expensive, obviously, but whether the benefits make it worth it or a ripoff are pretty much a matter of opinion based on personal circumstances. When I look at a normal retirement visa (my main plan until the LTR implementation becomes clearer), I know in advance, because I lived, worked and paid taxes in Thailand before, that I will gladly pay an agent to take care of 90-days and annual renewals. That is well worth it to me based on my personal experience, but it adds at least 100K baht over 5 years, and that's very optimistic. So even at 100K I would sign up for the LTR it it turns out to be a valid option. Now, if we were making a value comparison with the Elite Visa, I would adopt your reasoning: a one-time 600K fee vs 100K agent's fee over 5 years. $17K is not much in the US nowadays, but I know the value of 500K baht in Thailand.

The jury is still out for the LTR, but you have a very good point. Smart Visa for instance as per its own web site, has delivered on average 50 or less visas per month in the last year under the scheme, and in some months less than 20; this implies rules that are very restrictive, whether or not this was by design.

Because you didn't spend enough time hanging on for dear life from the rear platform of a chock-full 100 km/h speeding songthaew coming and going from/to the local immigration office ????

I am in a similar situation, and interested in this visa type, so I'll throw my hat in this ring. I think I might (and I stress "might") qualify under option 2 wealthy pensioner and 3 digital nomads, and from the info you give I think that you might yourself also fit these options if current publicly available info is correct (for option 2 US$80K income in the last two years at the time of your application, which does not trigger the minimum investment in Thailand rule). The English wording does not say the income has to be from retirement sources, only that it is dated from the time of the application filing. If this is the case, what documents will have to be submitted to prove that income? This has not been confirmed as far as I know; and will work income be satisfactory or subject to interpretation from embassy or whatever agency will run the show (the Board of Investment?) since option 2 is for "pensioners". Hey! is this pre-tax by the way? I will optimistically assume it is for the time being. ???? This is the no-pain option, with only the income having to be justified. I agree about the devil being in the details: that may screw up everything, but especially when it comes to work contracts under option 3 (remote work). Here too, I am in a somewhat similar situation as yours (easily employable remotely in my industry, fits the experience requirements, and have a Master's degree). For instance, the company size of allowable foreign employers is clear enough, but what justificative paperwork will be accepted to prove that the company has made $150 million (or whatever the requirement will be) the last 3 years? If it's a listed company, then the listing should be easy to prove (in principle), but justifying the income for non-listed companies is tricky for the smaller ones, precisely because they are private, and public sources such as Dun and Bradstreet are only indicative in those cases. Also, what constitute a "work contract" for the purpose of the visa? I don't know about other countries, but in my contractor's experience in the US, and I have an extensive one, I'll get a contract every time I take on a contractual job (remote or not) because "cover-your-ass" is a way of life in the US, but it won't guarantee me a job for a finite period of time. Typically, a contract of this type is essentially a non-disclosure agreement that protects the employer, and not much else aside from the duration and the type of work to be performed; it may mention the pay rate, but not always when the jobs vary and the pay rate varies with it: often, you get a duration and a rate guarantee when you work on-site, but this combination is not the norm in many other situations. I can get employed all year long remote, but my employer(s) may not necessarily know at the beginning of the year what the jobs available will be (especially in government contract work) . So the fact that you have a contract on hand is not a proof of guaranteed income of length of employment. This is where I see the biggest question mark in term of what will be left to civil servants' interpretation; the generic wording of the rules is worrisome and may indicate a lack of understanding/research into foreign contractual practices, at least in the context of using them as proof of guaranteed employment. That was my 2 cents... NW