20 minutes ago, onera1961 said:

This may eliminate people who are coming here for the first time (like me).

If they changed the requirements there would be an allowance for the first extension application since you could not possibley show transfers for a year. I am not even sure it would require a year for an extension.

2 minutes ago, tropo said:

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.

I am not unsympathetic, and realise that many good people such as you will be inconvenienced 

But then i guess you will have to use alternate options as described in the post you are replying too. and for next year devise a banking regiment that will give you the required evidence.  

6 hours ago, Russell17au said:

Today I have contacted the Australian Attorney Generals Department who is the controlling body for the Government Statutory Declarations Act and have asked about who I can go to to have a Commonwealth of Australia Statutory Declaration signature witnessed if the notarial section of the Australian Embassy in Bangkok refuses to witness my signature. When I get a reply I will post it on here which I believe will not be before Monday or even Wednesday as everyone stops in Australia for a horse race called the Melbourne Cup which is run on Tuesday 6th.

I can predict what the response will be, they will point out that a percentage of the Australian population can witness a statutory declaration, a school teacher, doctor, policeman etc (As per the reverse side of a standard stat dec form). They will probably give you the contact details for an Australian lawyer working in BKK

Maybe a better approach would be pointing out that the Embassy is refusing to witness stat decs based on the content. Something they cannot legally do.

2 hours ago, offset said:

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

 

I've got no idea what you're talking about.

7 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I am not unsympathetic, and realise that many good people such as you will be inconvenienced 

But then i guess you will have to use alternate options as described in the post you are replying too. and for next year devise a banking regiment that will give you the required evidence.  

I don't post in this thread for sympathy. It's just a discussion and much is yet to be determined. What is surprising is how many people whom this issue doesn't concern (people using the 800/400k deposit method) continue to offer their 2 cents worth, and often in a condescending manner.

 

We don't really know if any banking "regiment" will be accepted, assuming you're talking about monthly deposits, and it's already too late to get 12 months on the books for most people. Hopefully, this will be cleared up in the next few months.

 

 

2 hours ago, tropo said:

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.

I agree with you.

 

I was addressing the poster saying it was a lot longer and more expensive in Australia than Thailand to get a spouse visa.

51 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.

The income option has been an option long before I applied for my first extension. You had the option to use it for your first extension if you could meet it or the combination option if applying based upon retirement

1 hour ago, giddyup said:

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.

Yep, but I was quoting the poster saying it took longer and was more expensive to get a spouse visa in Australia compared to a marriage extension in Thailand.

 

Like I said, it's like comparing apples with oranges.

 

As for the emigration part, I would say you have really, you just have been made a citizen or resident.

3 hours ago, marcusarelus said:

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

Your nationality is?

28 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

Sure, just leave the wife and kids.

 

You really are a piece of work.

 

Hope your wife loves all your money dearly because it seems to be your only redeeming feature,

5 minutes ago, tropo said:

I don't post in this thread for sympathy. It's just a discussion and much is yet to be determined. What is surprising is how many people whom this issue doesn't concern (people using the 800/400k deposit method) continue to offer their 2 cents worth, and often in a condescending manner.

 

We don't really know if any banking "regiment" will be accepted, assuming you're talking about monthly deposits, and it's already too late to get 12 months on the books for most people. Hopefully, this will be cleared up in the next few months.

 

 

I never insinuated that you were looking for sympathy, I simply described my attitude which is not condescending but rather sympathetic.

the bunking regiment I alluded to would be depositing , funds you acquired via the different methods you described in your previous reply and then using them from there thus having a record of your income for immigration purposes. Assuming of course that such evidence will be acceptable.

i realise that it will be inconvenient and that there might be some minor expense associated but it is what it is. 

I think this thing is a tempest in a teacup, If one has the required income , one should be able to prove it. It is only reasonable.

 

12 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Your nationality is?

I'm an Canadian by birth, American by law, French by appetite, German by genes, Irish by addictions, British on my mothers side and Thai by choice.

   2 hours 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.

 

Is this the subclass visa that you are talking about https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/trav/visa-1/405- which seems a lot more trouble than the Thai retirement and only last 4 years , this also says it is the only Australian retirement visa

 

If it is I have been through this process and it is much easier and cheaper to retired in Thailand

4 minutes ago, offset said:

   2 hours 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.

 

Is this the subclass visa that you are talking about https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/trav/visa-1/405- which seems a lot more trouble than the Thai retirement and only last 4 years , this also says it is the only Australian retirement visa

 

If it is I have been through this process and it is much easier and cheaper to retired in Thailand

I was quoting the poster who said Australia didn't have a retirement visa when they do.

 

I was not arguing about the cost or benefits.

5 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

OH Canada! You're on deck. ????

Batter up!

4 hours ago, elviajero said:

No they are not.

 

They are simply asking the embassies to validate the income rather than issue a worthless letters/affidavits. You could argue they are trying to get rid of the frauds, but if they wanted to get rid of as many expats as they can they could simply stop issuing visas/permits.

Please stop kidding yourself with allusions to their altruistic intent.

 

Even if it is only collateral damage, they're culling the herd.

17 minutes ago, Will27 said:

I was quoting the poster who said Australia didn't have a retirement visa when they do.

 

I was not arguing about the cost or benefits.

Ok my mistake

26 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

I'm an Canadian by birth, American by law, French by appetite, German by genes, Irish by addictions, British on my mothers side and Thai by choice.

Damn sporting woman, your mother.

4 hours ago, Russell17au said:

It is easy to verify your income via your tax assessment notice, this is a secured government document that cannot be altered and it shows what you taxable income is. All that is needed is for you to attach that document to you Stat Dec

But the Australian Embassy's Statutory Declaration is only a legal document in Australia. It means doodly squat to Thai Immigration and if push comes to shove, even less in Thai courts. It is not by any stretch of the foreskin the validation that Thai Immigration law enforcement has suddenly found necessary.

 

Take comfort that is does have legal status in your homeland. Apparently there's a similar disclaimer on the US Embassy's sworn income affidavit and some US embassy staffers draw the applicant's attention to it and more recently there are reports that they also highlight it. The British Embassy income letter came with an embedded notarization that it had no legal standing anywhere on the planet.

1 hour ago, Peterw42 said:

Maybe a better approach would be pointing out that the Embassy is refusing to witness stat decs based on the content. Something they cannot legally do.

Another one jousting on their legal high horse?

 

It does not matter if they are breaking Australian laws, the document apparently does not satisfy THAI IMMIGRATION. How do you think the average retired ocker from Bli Bli would feel if he paid a chunk of change for a bit of paper that isn't any bloody use? Who's he going to complain to then?

 

More important, where will he start a thread complaining about it?

3 hours ago, tropo said:

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.

I don't want to sound pessimistic, but unless you get a sympathetic Immigration Officer, I don't think your letter will be accepted - they are only valid for 6 months.

Regarding the 65K deposits, they are an alternative to the 800K in the bank, but nobody knows how long you have to have been doing this (piece of string?) Until Thai Immigration make it clearer what they will accept, we are all in a quandary, and once again, individual offices will probably  have their own way of interpreting any instructions from Head Office!

2 minutes ago, sambum said:

Until Thai Immigration make it clearer what they will accept,

After thousands of posts on over three dedicated threads on this matter, what part of 'Lump sum or bust' is too hard to comprehend?

1 hour 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?

You are fortunate to be Happy and Rich - some of us aren't but have enough to live here comfortably - probably not to your caviar and champagne for breakfast standard, though.

Our problem is trying to ignore such unhelpful comments as yours. You are one of my pet hates here - a member of the  "if you don't like it - go home" brigade. I have a suggestion for you - if you have nothing helpful or constructive to add - don't bother! 

1 hour ago, Peterw42 said:

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 that’s true. But what’s the point getting a “stat Dec” if it’s not going to be accepted by immigration.

Thailand has been a haven for low income foreigners for decades and now, it seems, it's had enough and decided it's time to thin the herd. A lot of these people who've been gaming the system get sick and place an unfair burden on the state hospitals who generally won't turn them away.

Guys with a decent income can afford insurance or at least they can put away a bit of money aside for emergencies. Guys living on a subsistence income can't. 

8 hours ago, Ozfatboy said:

 

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.

Dream on, pal.
The consular service has far more important things to do than run around providing income verification for impecunious nationals who can't stump up 800k to deposit in a Thai bank account after a lifetime of work.

It's not the embassy's fault - if you have a problem, go speak to Thai immigration; they're the ones who've insisted on income verification.

26 minutes ago, The Truth said:

Thailand has been a haven for low income foreigners for decades and now, it seems, it's had enough and decided it's time to thin the herd. A lot of these people who've been gaming the system get sick and place an unfair burden on the state hospitals who generally won't turn them away.

Guys with a decent income can afford insurance or at least they can put away a bit of money aside for emergencies. Guys living on a subsistence income can't. 

There is NO NO NO free medical care in Thailand....Sure a few farangs may beat the system if they are in a car accident or some thing and skip out,but they are a drop in the bucket.... I have no doubt 99.7% of farangs pay...

 

Hey if you can not pay in Thailand you die......NOTHING IS FREE HERE...NOTHING

Please stop repeating this poor farangs are a burden to Thai health care rubbish...

3 hours ago, The Truth said:

Thailand has been a haven for low income foreigners for decades and now, it seems, it's had enough and decided it's time to thin the herd. A lot of these people who've been gaming the system get sick and place an unfair burden on the state hospitals who generally won't turn them away.

Guys with a decent income can afford insurance or at least they can put away a bit of money aside for emergencies. Guys living on a subsistence income can't. 

Lot to learn!

5 hours ago, sirineou said:

I never insinuated that you were looking for sympathy, I simply described my attitude which is not condescending but rather sympathetic.

the bunking regiment I alluded to would be depositing , funds you acquired via the different methods you described in your previous reply and then using them from there thus having a record of your income for immigration purposes. Assuming of course that such evidence will be acceptable.

i realise that it will be inconvenient and that there might be some minor expense associated but it is what it is. 

I think this thing is a tempest in a teacup, If one has the required income , one should be able to prove it. It is only reasonable.

 

I'm not clear on this, if you need 800 k. But for example put 400k in the bank then send the required top up, would they know if was a pension or other funds, technically could you could send it in and out each month and that would pas the test as it doesn't look where the money goes once here?

11 hours 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! Which is why some clarification should be forthcoming from Thai Immigration, but don't hold your breath! 

If the rule is only show 3 x 65,000 Bt for the retirement extension, why on earth would anyone use the 800k seasoned for three months method. It isn't logical. The monthly income route will be 12 x 65,000 Bt. It's the only one that makes sense.