With Some Foreigners Leaving Due To Visa Rules/other

[Firefan]

With the many recent changes to both visa rules (not just the 90/180 day rule), business requirements, land ownership rules, investment rules (withholding tax) Etc. I have both here and elsewhere heard of several foreigners leaving Thailand for brighter shores.

Was wondering whether the exit would be good or bad for the ones of us that stay in Thailand.

Less foreigners at first sound like an advantage for us, could be through less competition, lower prices, less "bad image"(if overall number of foreigners drop there will be less incidents where foreigner misbehaved - I do not believe that the new changes in any way clear out more "bad" than "good" foreigners ).

On the other hand; less foreigners overall leads to less foreigner oriented businesses supplying services we want(international foods/magazines Etc.). Or businesses relying on foreigners (be it tourists, long-stay tourists or working/retired people) close down, creating more unimployment and thereby an overall worse enviroment to live in (Incl. more crime/theft Etc. - with the fewer foreigners being the obvious targets).

I am just brain storming here and am sorry to see some of my friend having to leave. Any comments/thoughts on this?

Cheers!

[keenok]

personally,i dont think the numbers will decrease. people will leave ,yes ,for sure. however they will be replaced, asia is becoming a very popular place to stay long term.in the 5 years that i have been living here as opposed to just travelling in the region ,the numbers staying long term have definately risen.im sure the old hands who have been here a long time must really have noticed a huge change in the numbers.

[GuestHouse]

If the number of foreigners living in Thailand halved, you'd probably still have more foreigners living in Thailand than there were five of six years ago.

The question you should be asking is not 'what is the impact of these people leaving?', but 'what is the continuing impact of changes on you staying?' - Or more precisely:

To what extent can things change before you yourself would have to leave?

And even more importantly:

If you had to leave, are you able to do so?

There is a trap between these two questions, which we might call the "risk of staying". That is, do the changes in Thai policies place an individual in an ever worsening position?

An example might be, if the enforcement of the land laws (which have not changed by the way) caused an individual to have to move his land/property ownership from the illegal company route to place it in his wife's name but he found that his 'Nominee Thai share holders' suddenly wanted their cut - Would he then have the financial means left over to support himself outside of Thailand?

Clearly, if your life's savings are tied up in Thailand then any changes need to be closely monitored. But the risks have not suddenly appeared, they are simply in a different guise.

The advice has always been 'Don't invest in Thailand that which you can't afford to loose'. In that sense people who leave may be acting in their own best interest - But of course you'd have to ask them to find out.

Edited February 6, 2007 by GuestHouse

[Acquiesce]

An example might be, if the enforcement of the land laws (which have not changed by the way) caused an individual to have to move his land/property ownership from the illegal company route to place it in his wife's name but he found that his 'Nominee Thai share holders' suddenly wanted their cut - Would he then have the financial means left over to support himself outside of Thailand?

I'm sure if people who have a B2,000,000 registred Thai Ltd Company that was split in to 20,000 shares with five of the nominee share holders only holding one share each, the other nominee (wife) holding the remainder of the 51% and the Farang with the other 49% stake they would quite easily find the B500 to buy the nominee shares. Or maybe they would only have to find B125 if only 25% had been paid up.

[keenok]

If the number of foreigners living in Thailand halved, you'd probably still have more foreigners living in Thailand than there were five of six years ago.

The question you should be asking is not 'what is the impact of these people leaving?', but 'what is the continuing impact of changes on you staying?' - Or more precisely:

To what extent can things change before you yourself would have to leave?

And even more importantly:

If you had to leave, are you able to do so?

There is a trap between these two questions, which we might call the "risk of staying". That is, do the changes in Thai policies place an individual in an ever worsening position?

An example might be, if the enforcement of the land laws (which have not changed by the way) caused an individual to have to move his land/property ownership from the illegal company route to place it in his wife's name but he found that his 'Nominee Thai share holders' suddenly wanted their cut - Would he then have the financial means left over to support himself outside of Thailand?

Clearly, if your life's savings are tied up in Thailand then any changes need to be closely monitored. But the risks have not suddenly appeared, they are simply in a different guise.

The advice has always been 'Don't invest in Thailand that which you can't afford to loose'. In that sense people who leave may be acting in their own best interest - But of course you'd have to ask them to find out.

wise words!!

[keenok]

An example might be, if the enforcement of the land laws (which have not changed by the way) caused an individual to have to move his land/property ownership from the illegal company route to place it in his wife's name but he found that his 'Nominee Thai share holders' suddenly wanted their cut - Would he then have the financial means left over to support himself outside of Thailand?

I'm sure if people who have a B2,000,000 registred Thai Ltd Company that was split in to 20,000 shares with five of the nominee share holders only holding one share each, the other nominee (wife) holding the remainder of the 51% and the Farang with the other 49% stake they would quite easily find the B500 to buy the nominee shares. Or maybe they would only have to find B125 if only 25% had been paid up.

and what if its the wife who wants her share???

[Acquiesce]

An example might be, if the enforcement of the land laws (which have not changed by the way) caused an individual to have to move his land/property ownership from the illegal company route to place it in his wife's name but he found that his 'Nominee Thai share holders' suddenly wanted their cut - Would he then have the financial means left over to support himself outside of Thailand?

I'm sure if people who have a B2,000,000 registred Thai Ltd Company that was split in to 20,000 shares with five of the nominee share holders only holding one share each, the other nominee (wife) holding the remainder of the 51% and the Farang with the other 49% stake they would quite easily find the B500 to buy the nominee shares. Or maybe they would only have to find B125 if only 25% had been paid up.

and what if its the wife who wants her share???

Then it's just like back home where you would have to give her half anyway.

[keenok]

An example might be, if the enforcement of the land laws (which have not changed by the way) caused an individual to have to move his land/property ownership from the illegal company route to place it in his wife's name but he found that his 'Nominee Thai share holders' suddenly wanted their cut - Would he then have the financial means left over to support himself outside of Thailand?

I'm sure if people who have a B2,000,000 registred Thai Ltd Company that was split in to 20,000 shares with five of the nominee share holders only holding one share each, the other nominee (wife) holding the remainder of the 51% and the Farang with the other 49% stake they would quite easily find the B500 to buy the nominee shares. Or maybe they would only have to find B125 if only 25% had been paid up.

and what if its the wife who wants her share???

Then it's just like back home where you would have to give her half anyway.

as guesthouse points out though,many people who are here long term may not then have the financial ability to have a decent life if they return to where they came from. i personally would not wish to have to live in the uk with the price of property there now.

[Acquiesce]

I never disagreed with this and it's a very serious point. What i did disagree with was his talk about 'Nominee Thai share holders' suddenly wanting their 'cut'.

A load of nonsence and anyone who knows how these things work will know this.

[GuestHouse]

I'm sure if people who have a B2,000,000 registred Thai Ltd Company that was split in to 20,000 shares with five of the nominee share holders only holding one share each, the other nominee (wife) holding the remainder of the 51% and the Farang with the other 49% stake they would quite easily find the B500 to buy the nominee shares. Or maybe they would only have to find B125 if only 25% had been paid up.

This calculation is simplistic and ignores the value of "the deal".

You need to make the deal, and the start price of the share may not be the sell price.

Shares, as we are oft reminded, are a real good investment.

[Acquiesce]

I'm sure if people who have a B2,000,000 registred Thai Ltd Company that was split in to 20,000 shares with five of the nominee share holders only holding one share each, the other nominee (wife) holding the remainder of the 51% and the Farang with the other 49% stake they would quite easily find the B500 to buy the nominee shares. Or maybe they would only have to find B125 if only 25% had been paid up.

This calculation is simplistic and ignores the value of "the deal".

You need to make the deal, and the start price of the share may not be the sell price.

Shares, as we are oft reminded, are a real good investment.

Not when the company has made no real profits.

[keenok]

I never disagreed with this and it's a very serious point. What i did disagree with was his talk about 'Nominee Thai share holders' suddenly wanting their 'cut'.

A load of nonsence and anyone who knows how these things work will know this.

i have no idea how it works and no wish to (as i have no intention of buying property here). i know that if you invest here now under the current rules ,you are not definately protected in the future. things are just too uncertain,especially when it comes to trying to get round the law regarding property ownership.this could leave many people with problems if they have to go home. as you say a very serious issue.

[GuestHouse]

I never disagreed with this and it's a very serious point. What i did disagree with was his talk about 'Nominee Thai share holders' suddenly wanting their 'cut'.

A load of nonsence and anyone who knows how these things work will know this.

How it works is this.

When the law says you have to get someone to sign a piece of paper - The price of the signature goes up.

If the law is framed such that you have only a limited amount of time to get that signature the price is now time dependent.

And if the law is framed such that you have little or no rights then the price is really out of your control.

Nothing to do with the agreement you made when you set up the share structure, nothing at all to do with the trading profit of the company.

Everything to do with the capital investment and the fact that you can't move it without the signatures.

[Jet Gorgon]

I hate to see people leave that were living in Thailand on their own money and being forced out because they do not meet requirements for retirement or other visas. But, I know many people that have lived here ten years or more and work out of their bungalows as alternative medicine practitioners and make Bt2,000 or more an hour (easily Bt200,000 a month with no expenses). Many of these folks do the monthly visa run. I am not sad that they will be dispensed with. If small farang business owners must struggle and pay company dues and taxes, these shamans should be forced to set up a company and pay as well.

[Acquiesce]

I never disagreed with this and it's a very serious point. What i did disagree with was his talk about 'Nominee Thai share holders' suddenly wanting their 'cut'.

A load of nonsence and anyone who knows how these things work will know this.

How it works is this.

When the law says you have to get someone to sign a piece of paper - The price of the signature goes up.

If you have been in Thailand for any length of time the signature should be without fee.

If the law is framed such that you have only a limited amount of time to get that signature the price is now time dependent.

If there is no fee to begin with then there is no scope for increase.

And if the law is framed such that you have little or no rights then the price is really out of your control.

There is no fee to go out of control in the first instance.

Nothing to do with the agreement you made when you set up the share structure, nothing at all to do with the trading profit of the company.

Everything to do with legaly binding contracts drawn up at the time of set up. Everything to do with trading profit when talking about increase in share worth.

Everything to do with the capital investment and the fact that you can't move it without the signatures.

I don't know who gives you advice like this but i would not pay them. You dont need the nominee signatures to do anything, you could even disolve the company without consultation.

[Acquiesce]

Duplicate post deleted

Edited February 6, 2007 by Acquiesce

[GuestHouse]

Everything to do with the capital investment and the fact that you can't move it without the signatures.

I don't know who gives you advice like this but i would not pay them. You dont need the nominee signatures to do anything, you could even disolve the company without consultation.

Tak it as read that I am not relying on advice from anyone that previously advised that the land laws can be circumnavigated by owning land through a company.

That advice was always clearly wrong - Now the question is how are those company set ups going to move to be within the law.

If that comes without significant risk, then it will be one of the few things in Thailand that does.

[meadish_sweetball]

I hate to see people leave that were living in Thailand on their own money and being forced out because they do not meet requirements for retirement or other visas. But, I know many people that have lived here ten years or more and work out of their bungalows as alternative medicine practitioners and make Bt2,000 or more an hour (easily Bt200,000 a month with no expenses). Many of these folks do the monthly visa run. I am not sad that they will be dispensed with. If small farang business owners must struggle and pay company dues and taxes, these shamans should be forced to set up a company and pay as well.

Or they could start to offer visa runs by drum journey. Haiya-hey haiya-hey, haiya-hey, multiple non B, 9000 baht, thank you very much, haiya-hey, haiya-hey... done.

PS. Do not try this at home.

[Jet Gorgon]

That is a wonderful solution, MS.

[mumbojumbo]

I agree with Bogart, never spend more than u can afford to loose. The English teachers that

are surviving on 20-35k that are dissapearing because of visa problems, i disagree. They are

still contributing to the Thai economy and want to live here. Just had a friend move to Viet,

because of the recent bullsh*t regs.

[Francis Maube]

The advice has always been 'Don't invest in Thailand that which you can't afford to loose'. In that sense people who leave may be acting in their own best interest - But of course you'd have to ask them to find out.

Very wise thinking but considering the number of people that have left the country with not a lot more than their shirt, it seems to be a serious shortage of wise thinker .

Yes the number of foreigners has dramatically increase over the past 25 years, is it a good or bad? I still cannot make up my mind.

[lannarebirth]

I disagree with the topics title. I do not see people leaving. I see more and more arriving every week.

Those that have left have no affect on my stay here, but if the pace of those coming stays the same or increases I may move farther away from the city

[PeaceBlondie]

If I may get this discussion back on topic, please:

I can only speak about a few teachers who have left. There was the guy whose wife and kids are still in Isaan, and he's in Korea. The guy from California that I encouraged to come; he taught at Hat Yai, caught shrapnel in the bombing, and went home. I'm still here, but the chances that I (or the farang who replaced me) will ever teach for a school again, are mighty slim. But these are just random anecdotes, not a statistical sample, so there may be as many staying/leaving/arriving now as there were x number of years ago.

If thousands more farang teachers flee Thailand than ever fled in the past, and if they are not replaced, will it raise wages? No; Thai schools don't do that. Will it result in better, more qualified teachers and fewer criminals? There's no reason it will. Farang have little or no effect upon how education is managed here.

This is a great place to retire, if you have millions of baht in reserve, are over 50, aren't married, don't need to own land, don't operate a business.

[ollyrosee]

those leaving will soon be replaced by wet behind the ears newbies so it evens out in the end ,then they wise up and start a new cycle again with another round of wet behind the ears .

[warriors]

.

This is a great place to retire, if you have millions of baht in reserve, are over 50, aren't married, don't need to own land, don't operate a business.

Heard of a few so called Teachers that have left, In my thoughts, Thailand is better off with out these people. I only mean the ones that I have met briefly. I also understand we are losing some good people aswell over the changers.

Sound just like me. Yet my millions of baht in reserve, is not, or will never be in my life time working for me in Thailand. Only been Retired in Thailand 2 years so I am not an expert here, re living here. But I have had 25 years in Finance which has taught me well.

Do not Invest in Thailand more than you can afford to walk away from.

[britmaveric]

Firefan - think in the end it will be a very small % leaving. So doubt there will be any advantage and be quite honest I think they will reverse themselves sooner rather than later.

[Phil Conners]

Yes the number of foreigners has dramatically increase over the past 25 years, is it a good or bad? I still cannot make up my mind.

Yes that is the case all over the world. It's called globalization. Why is that a problem? Are you Xenophobic ?

[dog412]

Firefan - think in the end it will be a very small % leaving. So doubt there will be any advantage and be quite honest I think they will reverse themselves sooner rather than later.

i have met a good many considering their options. for my own simple example, while at this point it is still a good deal for me to continue renting my apartment for the considerable future, time seems to be telling. my future beach "trips" will now be to Sihanoukville, lovely beaches and lots of them. Thailand has some competition , and it's not far away. if i was a young man, Thailand would not be my best choice.

[steveromagnino]

This is a great place to retire, if you have millions of baht in reserve, are over 50, aren't married, don't need to own land, don't operate a business.

No idea about teaching, but I would add that this is a great place to live if you have the ability and means to start your own business of size and operate it.

Sad thing is...... most people think they have the ability and means, and they don't.

nice place to retire too.