Australia joins the UK and USA with withdrawal of income verification

[Hoppyone]

On 11/2/2018 at 10:34 AM, GarryP said:

 

AUD 849 x 2 = Baht 40,270, which is under the threshold. 

 

Yes you are correct

[tropo]

10 minutes ago, sambum said:

"In fact the common belief from most posters is that people will need to show 12 x 65k transfers not 3  65k as you suggest."

 

Which would be impossible to do if your extension is due in July! 

I'll have an income letter to show them for a July extension application... one obtained in the last week of December. The question remains, at Jomtien, will they accept this? I won't have enough time to show a year's worth of 65k deposits, as I'm only going to start that this month and of course we still don't have a clue if 65k deposits will be accepted at all. Right now it's more a matter of finding out what individual Immigration offices will accept. The "Phuket-experience" yesterday was a nasty wake up call for anyone becoming overconfident.

[offset]

9 minutes ago, Will27 said:

Australia does have a retirement visa.

It's a subclass 405 visa.

 

If you're going to compare apples and oranges, at least once a partner gets a spouse visa in Oz, it allows them to work,

have access to Medicare and pretty much lasts forever with no such things as 90 day reports etc.

 

I reckon heaps of expats would gladly pay the 165 680 Baht for an extension if they received the same deal that Thai's get

in Australia.

when I did that we had to put 250000 pounds sterling into the state for 4 years do you still have to do that?

 

[tropo]

10 minutes ago, Will27 said:

Australia does have a retirement visa.

It's a subclass 405 visa.

 

If you're going to compare apples and oranges, at least once a partner gets a spouse visa in Oz, it allows them to work,

have access to Medicare and pretty much lasts forever with no such things as 90 day reports etc.

 

I reckon heaps of expats would gladly pay the 165 680 Baht for an extension if they received the same deal that Thai's get

in Australia.

Yes, but the spouse in Australia becomes a permanent resident and IS an immigrant. We are constantly reminded in Thailand of our non-immigrant status.

[Pattaya46]

33 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Maybe you should re-read the OP info from the Australian Embassy at the top of this thread, //

I did, and they speak about the "Thai bank" only for the 800/400k, not for the monthly income I was replying about.

But yes, let's wait to see if and how things may change from TI...

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

5 minutes ago, Pattaya46 said:

I did, and they speak about the "Thai bank" only for the 800/400k, not for the monthly income I was replying about.

But yes, let's wait to see if and how things may change from TI...

 

No, if you look at the Australian and British Embassy announcement, there is an initial reference in both to needing to put money into a Thai bank account, BEFORE they then proceed in the case of the Australian announcement to talking about the income method vs the bank deposits method.

 

You're reading a meaning into those two announcements that the actual wording of them doesn't support.

 

This part below of the Australian Embassy announcement that comes first is all-encompassing, not only pertaining to the bank deposits method. And they're clearly saying the funds must be in a Thai bank.

 

 

Edited November 3, 2018 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Pattaya46]

39 minutes ago, elviajero said:

If over 50 and under state retirement age can only get a non 'O-A' or 'O-X' visa. This is from the London Embassy website:

"O"	To visit Thai spouse, children, parents, voluntary job, retirement (with State Pension)

This thread being multi-national, I thing good to mention that it's a requirement of the UK Embassy (only?). This is not a worldwide requirement. No pension requirement in France by example to get a Non-O for Retirement.

[mfd101]

57 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Maybe it's different for Australians, but for Americans, it's perfectly possible to have significant sources of income that do NOT count toward one's taxable income, and don't get reflected in those figures on one's national tax return. It's the difference between taxable income and non-taxable income.

 

Same for Aussies. I have non-taxable income from the lump sum I received when I retired at 55 and, since I turned 65, no longer have to declare it on my tax return each year.

 

The key point here is that, not only is net [post-tax] income different from gross [pre-tax] income, but taxable and non-taxable incomes are different too. So what shows on your tax return/statement etc is not necessarily the whole story. Of course, if you're well over the minimum Thai requirement, then it's not a problem. But those who are close to the margin need to think through carefully what the various documents of verification are going to show. Some will carry you over the line, some will not.

[jesimps]

1 hour ago, marcusarelus said:

Not at all.  Just Americans, Brits and Australians.  Who can blame them?

If you aren't one of those natonalities, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you ????

[poanoi]

2 hours ago, giddyup said:

Try getting a visa to retire (or even a tourist visa) in my country, Australia by a Thai national, and I imagine that there are many countries that impose far harsher and more restrictive immigration practices than Thailand.

the difference is that in your country, the government and more importantly the tax payers, will pay all the bills and on top of that give social security to the thai national, should the need ever arise,

and it just so happens that the need almost invariably arise.

 

for us here, the thai government wont ever hand out squat,

but are on the contrary squealing if we die without having paid 

hospital & cremation fee first

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

13 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

Same for Aussies. I have non-taxable income from the lump sum I received when I retired at 55 and, since I turned 65, no longer have to declare it on my tax return each year.

 

The key point here is that, not only is net [post-tax] income different from gross [pre-tax] income, but taxable and non-taxable incomes are different too. So what shows on your tax return/statement etc is not necessarily the whole story. Of course, if you're well over the minimum Thai requirement, then it's not a problem. But those who are close to the margin need to think through carefully what the various documents of verification are going to show. Some will carry you over the line, some will not.

 

Thanks for elaborating on that from an Aussie perspective...

 

But what I think folks ought to note about the Australian and British and U.S. Embassy announcement is a TOTAL lack of any reference to income folks in the future being prepared to provide any kind of income source documentation. Nothing about tax returns or government pension statements or bank statements -- Nothing!!!   The only reference in any of the three embassy announcements related to Thai bank deposits.  That ought to be at least a reasonable signal to where this is likely going.

 

On the tax returns subject, keep in mind, while Americans will be familiar with their forms and the Aussies theirs and the Brits theirs, the Thai Imm officers certainly aren't going to be familiar with ANY of them, not to mention all the countries where their forms aren't even in English.  So the speculation by some that we'll all be able to provide some kind of home country income source documents that Thai Immigration officers are going to be able to understand and digest is, I think, a bridge too far to cross.

[giddyup]

1 hour ago, Will27 said:

Australia does have a retirement visa.

It's a subclass 405 visa.

 

If you're going to compare apples and oranges, at least once a partner gets a spouse visa in Oz, it allows them to work,

have access to Medicare and pretty much lasts forever with no such things as 90 day reports etc.

 

I reckon heaps of expats would gladly pay the 165 680 Baht for an extension if they received the same deal that Thai's get

in Australia.

I came to Thailand 9 years ago knowing exactly what the criteria was, and that included paying for my own medical treatment should the need arise. I didn't emigrate here, so there are no benefits other than being given permission to remain, and like everyone else free to leave at any time if I don't like it.

Edited November 3, 2018 by giddyup

[ubonjoe]

12 minutes ago, giddyup said:

It seems reading these pages there's a lot that can't come up with the 800K.

Or don't want to put the money in the bank since they can meet 65k baht income requirement without a problem.

I do my extensions based upon marriage and have a easily provable income (including it going into a Thai bank) well above the 40k baht income requirement. Why should I have to put 400k baht in a bank account.

[giddyup]

9 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

Or don't want to put the money in the bank since they can meet 65k baht income requirement without a problem.

I do my extensions based upon marriage and have a easily provable income (including it going into a Thai bank) well above 40k baht income requirement. Why should I have to put 400k baht in a bank account.

Because that's what Thai immigration ask for, did you not know that before you came? I have 800K sitting in an account here untouched, year in year out, it doesn't bother me because that's what I had to do to comply. That 800K is willed, as is all money in the bank here, to my well-deserving Thai partner, so it will go to a good cause.

Edited November 3, 2018 by giddyup

[Psychic]

3 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

Or don't want to put the money in the bank since they can meet 65k baht income requirement without a problem.

I do my extensions based upon marriage and have a easily provable income (including it going into a Thai bank) well above 40k baht income requirement. Why should I have to put 400k baht in a bank account.

That seems to be the main issue here Ubonjoe.

 

You, obviously, know much more than most.

 

Am I wrong in understanding that there is no provision for using bank deposits rather than embassy letters in Thai law?

 

Since the clock is ticking on those using monthly income to meet the requirements I assume, perhaps naively, that there needs to be an official change from TI to allow bank statements to be used in lieu of letters.

 

As I've mentioned before if that requires 12 months of deposits that is going to be impossible for those who used ATM's or credit cards instead of depositing cash. Plus, off course, new applicants.

 

Any idea how long it would take, realistically, for TI to come up with needed changes? Assuming, of course, that they want to.

[Psychic]

8 minutes ago, giddyup said:

Because that's what Thai immigration ask for, did you not know that before you came? I have 800K sitting in an account here untouched, year in year out, it doesn't bother me because that's what I had to do to comply. That 800K is willed, as is all money in the bank here, to my well-deserving Thai partner, so it will go to a good cause.

Um, no.

 

That was NOT what Thai Immigration asked for.

 

It was one option.

[giddyup]

1 minute ago, Psychic said:

Um, no.

 

That was NOT what Thai Immigration asked for.

 

It was one option.

 Things change, roll with the punches.

[HappyAndRich]

4 hours ago, jimn said:

If that is the case then fine. This could indeed be true, at this point in time everything is speculation without any clarification from Thai Immigration. However whilst it is true that the rule is 800,000 for the bank deposit method there is no guidence other then comments from the 3 embassies that bank transfers of 65k are acceptable. In fact the common belief from most posters is that people will need to show 12 x 65k transfers not 3  65k as you suggest. Great if thats the case but no one knows. Thanks for your comments.

Doesn´t matter! You will need 800K to live in Thailand every year, anyway.

[HappyAndRich]

5 hours ago, Kelsall said:

bragging, are we?

No, just barely surviving.

[Psychic]

5 minutes ago, giddyup said:

 Things change, roll with the punches.

Hope they don't decide a good change is to seize your 800K.

 

Yes it's wildly unlikely.

 

But if arbitrary, unappealable decisions are good with you then keep rolling.

[HappyAndRich]

5 hours ago, JackThompson said:

There is "insurance" for that.  It's something people get who cannot "self insure" with a pile of cash.  With "insurance", one only needs "cash" to cover the deductible.

 

I hope we are not confusing "total assets" one might have, with "spare cash to put in a Thai bank, because immigration won't accept our incomes, any more."

Take your BS somewhere else. It just don´t work with me. Hit the sack, Jack, and don´t ………..

[Hoppyone]

19 minutes ago, giddyup said:

Because that's what Thai immigration ask for, did you not know that before you came? I have 800K sitting in an account here untouched, year in year out, it doesn't bother me because that's what I had to do to comply. That 800K is willed, as is all money in the bank here, to my well-deserving Thai partner, so it will go to a good cause.

Unfortunately giddy up every ones circumstances in this world are different,and most people I know would rather be using there 800k rather than looking at it in the bank until the day your no longer here

[onera1961]

21 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

do my extensions based upon marriage and have a easily provable income (including it going into a Thai bank) well above the 40k baht income requirement. Why should I have to put 400k baht in a bank account.

Agreed. I earnestly believe TI will accept regular deposit of 40 or 65K every month in a Thai bank for the full year. This may eliminate people who are coming here for the first time (like me). But then they have the option of getting an O-A visa from their home country for first two years. For combo (income and bank deposit), they can use monthly deposit and fixed balance. Is it going to fix people lying on their income letters? We don't know but it will be difficult. 

[HappyAndRich]

6 hours ago, OneeyedJohn said:

Your reply confirms exactly what I stated above.

Rolling Stones? Really? Now I do know why I disagree with you. You just put a bad name on the band.

[EricTh]

6 hours ago, JackThompson said:

How do they eat and sleep indoors, here?  I haven't seen them out begging in front of 7-11 with the Thais (whose job-opportunities immigration is busy taking away, by keeping their customers out of the country).
 

 

What I actually meant is those people have some money but not as much as 800K.

 

Believe it or not, I saw a retiree (and even non-retirees) stealing drinks and food from a volunteer restaurant. I'm not going to name that restaurant to prevent more such people going there to get free food and drinks.

 

Edited November 3, 2018 by EricTh

[ukrules]

2 hours ago, wharria said:

I only got my last visa in March 2018, as I stated check the Thai embassies website.

You're not in your 50's any more, this is where the difference lies.

[tropo]

27 minutes ago, giddyup said:

Because that's what Thai immigration ask for, did you not know that before you came? I have 800K sitting in an account here untouched, year in year out, it doesn't bother me because that's what I had to do to comply. That 800K is willed, as is all money in the bank here, to my well-deserving Thai partner, so it will go to a good cause.

(You seem to be using this thread as an excuse to gloat about how much money you have on Thai bank accounts. Good on you. 5 stars!). Most people who post here ARE concerned about the changes because they DON'T have 800/400k deposited and have used income letters. If you do, what's the point of posting here?

 

Monthly income has always been accepted, so what was the need for your first sentence? As far as we know, the income method will still be allowable moving forward, or do you know something the rest of us don't. Either way, it doesn't concern you, so there's no need to belittle people who don't have the required funds on a Thai bank account.

[tropo]

10 minutes ago, onera1961 said:

Agreed. I earnestly believe TI will accept regular deposit of 40 or 65K every month in a Thai bank for the full year. This may eliminate people who are coming here for the first time (like me). But then they have the option of getting an O-A visa from their home country for first two years. For combo (income and bank deposit), they can use monthly deposit and fixed balance. Is it going to fix people lying on their income letters? We don't know but it will be difficult. 

It will be nice if they do accept regular deposits of 40/65k, but what about all the people who won't be able to get a full 12 months of evidence together before their next extension. I for one lived on a combination of ATM withdrawals, debit/credit card spending and bank wires. Only on rare occasions have I wired 65k or more in 12 years here.

[Peterw42]

6 hours ago, Ozfatboy said:

The Australian Embassy went down this track about a year ago then reversed its decision but I don't think that will happen this time. It is disappointing that the Australian Embassy has made this decision and I question their right to actually take this action.

 

The Attorney Generals Department Of Australia authorise Consulate staff to witness the signing of a Commonwealth Statutory Declarations under the Statutory Declarations Act. Their duty is not to verify the content of the declaration but to follow the procedures required as a witness to the signature.

 

As they are duly appointed by the Attorney Generals Office, I personally don't believe they have the right to refuse witnessing the document once the identity of the person has been confirmed. To the best of my knowledge (coming from a legal family) I don't know any duly authorised witness who has refused to sign. 

 

Whilst I understand that some people may provide false or misleading information it is not the job of the Embassy to be prosecutor, judge and jury. This decision effects everyone that uses this method. In addition, no thought has been given to Australian citizens who get these declarations for other purposes such as income and life insurance companies that request this information as mine does.

 

I personally believe the Australian Embassy should re-instate the issuing of these declaration and Thai Immigration should request further supporting documentation (if required) as sometimes happens at several Immigration offices.

 

Perhaps a second option for Thai Immigration would be to let a Notary Public witness these Statutory Declarations and supporting documents as they are empowered to do so by the Attorney Generals Office.

 

Either way, I think its time the Australian Embassy support Australian Citizens and our the expat community that is here in Thailand. They obviously do not understand the consequences of what their actions could cause in the future.

Yes, I agree and share your thoughts. I am surprised only a couple of others appear to have picked up on this. If the embassy witnesses statutory declarations they cannot refuse to witness a statutory declaration based on its content. A stat dec can say you are in fact an alien from the planet Zarcron, the embassy just witnesses the signature.

The cleaning lady in a legal practice could challenge this and win.

The original embassy statement doesn't say they will not be doing stat decs, only stat decs that mention income.

 

Forget Thai immigration, this is an issue between Australian citizens and the embassy, 

 

The Australian embassy absolutely cannot refuse to do a stat dec based on what the stat dec contains.

 

Maybe the Australian media would like to hear about the breech of the statutory declaration act ?

 

 

 

[tropo]

2 minutes ago, HappyAndRich said:

If you don´t have 800/400K. Easy, then it´s just to go home. Oh, I forgot. You sold everything to be able to live before?

What are you on about? 

 

Even now, the monthly income method is not off the table, so take your personal baiting somewhere else. Maybe you could start a new thread: The "I have 800k on a Thai bank account party thread" and compare bank balances. Another member said he has 3 million on Thai bank accounts - can you beat that?