Australia joins the UK and USA with withdrawal of income verification

[giddyup]

10 minutes ago, mercman24 said:

i bet most of ex pat retirees, under the 65,000 baht limit spend more into the Thai economy than 20 Thais put together, and yes i am under,the 65,000 but have big savings, as i keep saying all my money is in the UK thank you

Well you better bring 800K over and deposit it into a Thai bank if you want to stay.

[Moonlover]

34 minutes ago, onera1961 said:

I wonder why other embassies are not announcing that they would stop issuing income affidavit. I sincerely believe TI would accept monthly income coming to Thai bank, at least for the married folks who may be more vulnerable than single person on a retirement extension using monthly income. How can they break up families? 

Yes, I've been thinking about that myself. If I were in the shoes of the 'other embassies' I think I too would wait a while until the backlash died down. A clearer picture will have emerged and they would be less likely to suffer their own backlash. Let the Brits and the Yanks 'take it on the chin' first, so to speak.

 

I completely agree with you that TI would not hinder the renewal of an extension from a married individual, providing they can prove they have sufficient income. And, of course a rule for one group should be a rule for all.

 

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. Those who can meet the 65k/40k income per month rule have nothing to worry about.

[HappyAndRich]

15 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

The 800k deposit is allowing guys with not enough income to live here.

That will easily get solved quick. If they scraped together 800K as the last of their saving, and as you say do not have enough income to support their monthly living.
That will only be a problem the first year, and solve itself when there is not 800K left to apply for the second extension. 

They must take the money for living from somewhere, right?

[giddyup]

2 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

 

I completely agree with you that TI would not hinder the renewal of an extension from a married individual, providing they can prove they have sufficient income. And, of course a rule for one group should be a rule for all.

 

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. Those who can meet the 65k/40k income per month rule have nothing to worry about.

But that's what these changes are aimed at, ensuring that falang retirees can meet the financial criteria and remain in Thailand. No reason for them to give anyone a hard time who can comply.

[onera1961]

2 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. Those who can meet the 65k/40k income per month rule have nothing to worry about.

I agree. TI is not in a hurry to announce their policies but I believe if somebody has the required income, they don't have to worry. I think they want to eliminate people who don't make much but get by in Thailand somehow, even working illegally at times. The other day I saw a Westerner driving a motor bike with a side car (no he was not selling anything). Another guy renting motor bikes. I understand two examples prove nothing. And scores of YouTube videos that tease people to come to Thailand because it is so cheap to live. 

[merijn]

54 minutes ago, onera1961 said:

I wonder why other embassies are not announcing that they would stop issuing income affidavit. I sincerely believe TI would accept monthly income coming to Thai bank, at least for the married folks who may be more vulnerable than single person on a retirement extension using monthly income. How can they break up families? 

Because some countries (The Netherlands, Germany an Switzerland etc) are already requiring that the papers which are supplied by the costumers are or can be verified by the tax department of that country.

In that way there is no doubt of the correctness of the income and the embassy will issue the income certificate as normal, TI will also accept those income certificates same as before.

Secondly i'm afraid that TI don't really care if this would mean breaking up families.

[AGareth2]

3 minutes ago, merijn said:

TI will also accept those income certificates same as before.

time will tell

that is what others said

[onera1961]

6 minutes ago, merijn said:

Because some countries (The Netherlands, Germany an Switzerland etc) are already requiring that the papers which are supplied by the costumers are or can be verified by the tax department of that country.

What about Canada, New Zealand, Japan? If other countries can verify, why no British, USA, and Australia? I don't buy the privacy arguments. Every bank in the US can verify your income when you give them permission. Privacy is a mute issue here. 

[merijn]

8 minutes ago, onera1961 said:

What about Canada, New Zealand, Japan? If other countries can verify, why no British, USA, and Australia? I don't buy the privacy arguments. Every bank in the US can verify your income when you give them permission. Privacy is a mute issue here. 

That is a good point and only those embassies can answer that.

I believe that they could change their procedure so they are able to verify the income certificates but decided not to do so.

[Lacessit]

36 minutes ago, merijn said:

That is a good point and only those embassies can answer that.

I believe that they could change their procedure so they are able to verify the income certificates but decided not to do so.

The last time I went the income route, I did the stat dec with the Australian Consulate outreach service in Chiang Mai. I had my annual tax return to support the declaration. The consulate official who stamped the stat dec didn't even want to look at it.

Of course they can do it. They are just lazy, useless bastards focused on the next diplomatic function.

The only way to get change is a mass write-in to your Federal MP's in Australia.

[giddyup]

36 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The last time I went the income route, I did the stat dec with the Australian Consulate outreach service in Chiang Mai. I had my annual tax return to support the declaration. The consulate official who stamped the stat dec didn't even want to look at it.

Of course they can do it. They are just lazy, useless bastards focused on the next diplomatic function.

The only way to get change is a mass write-in to your Federal MP's in Australia.

Why should consulate staff spend time checking tax returns? I for one haven't filed one for 15 years, and my income is derived from several sources, not something a Thai clerk could check in 5 minutes. Far simpler and easier for everyone to have the 800K in the bank or show the 65K paid into an account every month. If you can't manage that then I guess it won't be easy to retire to Thailand.

[cyberfarang]

18 hours ago, Russell17au said:

Sir Dude does not have any idea. There is no such thing in Australia as a retirement visa, a spouse visa can take up to 17 months for approval and it includes medical checks and police reports and the sponsor must show that they can financially capable of being able to support their spouse and with the medical checks and the police reports, even a child of the applicant who is not emigrating to Australia must have a medical check and a police report done. When the spouse visa does get approved then it is only temporary for 2 years then more paperwork must be done to change it to a permanent visa and the cost is AUD$7,000 (165,680baht) so if he wants reciprocal then Thailand needs to do away with the retirement extension and it should take up to 17 months to get a marriage extension and cost 165,680baht

Sorry, it is you that has no idea.

 

What you describe is similar to the United States system and yes, the procedures are strict. But unlike for expats wanting to stay in Thailand long term or settle here, in Australia the USA and UK applicants will if qualifying under the requirements obtain citizenships or a least permanent visas for those countries, whereas in Thailand we have no statutory rights, no status and can be thrown out within 7 days. This is why retirees and Farang spouses in Thailand are described as non-immigrants. 

 

Totally different to what you have described.

[totally thaied up]

2 hours ago, Peterw42 said:

Yes, I would advise the same, if they only have 800k in the world dont come here. However, I do know of a couple of guys that live here and do not have the funds or income to support themselves, but have spent the last of there savings to put the 800k in the bank to qualify. 

The 800k deposit doesnt always equate to having enough to live here. On the contrary, lots of Australians on OAP get 40k a month, no where near the 65k but they have managed to scrap together the 800k to qualify. The 800k deposit is allowing guys with not enough income to live here.

I am one of these guys. I have the 400K in my bank, get 32,000 a month on a DSP. I am married to a Thai, have my own health insurance and some backup cash in Australia. My current dividends would get me over the line but if they only say like Phuket Immigration would accept a Government Pension, well, I make a firm 32,000 a MONTH and that it. My wife and I would have to move back to Australia.

 

I have a very large amount of money stuck in a family trust and an inheritance waiting for me that will bring me a monthly income I have been advised of 100,000+ baht a month easily upon my families death. This will still be under trust after my father's death as I suffer bipolar disorder and it is part of the deal I have made as if I get sick, having large amounts of capital on hand is a bad idea. So, I just have to hope and hang in there until my circumstances change. Once again, the source of the income from that 100K+ will be in the form of bonds and dividends, so if Immigration wants a firm Government pension, again, all is lost for me. The 800/400K method is all I have to hang onto (which I have been using for years) and I hope that does not change. 

 

Who is going to know what is expected until next year? The is the big question. Each Immigration section is its own fiefdom and that is a worry on its own.

Edited November 4, 2018 by totally thaied up

[giddyup]

7 minutes ago, cyberfarang said:

Sorry, it is you that has no idea.

 

What you describe is similar to the United States system and yes, the procedures are strict. But unlike for expats wanting to stay in Thailand long term or settle here, in Australia the USA and UK applicants will if qualifying under the requirements obtain citizenships or a least permanent visas for those countries, whereas in Thailand we have no statutory rights, no status and can be thrown out within 7 days. This is why retirees and Farang spouses in Thailand are described as non-immigrants. 

 

Totally different to what you have described.

We haven't emigrated to Thailand, Thailand allows us to stay as guests as long as we meet the criteria laid down by immigration. Can a Thai stay in Australia on a retirement visa, and if they can what are the conditions that have to be met? I bet they are a hell of a lot more strict than Thailand with background checks etc.

I just looked it up, here are the requirements:

 

Permanent Australian Retirement Visas

If you are looking for a longer-term retirement visa you may choose to apply for a permanent retirement visa. In order to qualify for this you will need to adhere to stricter rules and regulations. Permanent Australian visas are viewed as investment visas and for this reason you will be required to demonstrate that you possess assets of a pre-determined value. This value will vary according to which area of Australia you wish to retire. However, a general rule of thumb is as follows:

• High Growth Region: $750,000 worth of assets and an additional $500,000 for any dependent (spouse).
• Low Growth Region: $500,0000 worth of assets and an additional $250,000 for any dependent (spouse).

You will be required to demonstrate that you have owned these assets for a minimum of two years prior to applying for a permanent Australian visa.

For full details about the latest visa requirements for retiring in Australia please see our international relocation guides. These contain full and up to date details of the visa requirements and application process.

 

Edited November 4, 2018 by giddyup

[Will27]

6 minutes ago, giddyup said:

We haven't emigrated to Thailand, Thailand allows us to stay as guests as long as we meet the criteria laid down by immigration. Can a Thai stay in Australia on a retirement visa, and if they can what are the conditions that have to be met? I bet they are a hell of a lot more strict than Thailand.

I disagree.

 

You've moved to Thailand from Australia and have lived there for 9 years.

Regardless of your status in Thailand, IMO, you have still emigrated.

 

Yes a Thai can stay in Australia on a retirement visa and you're right, the conditions

are a lot more strict.

 

I've said it before, you cannot compare visas in Australia to visas and extensions in Thailand.

They're two different beasts.

[Will27]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

The last time I went the income route, I did the stat dec with the Australian Consulate outreach service in Chiang Mai. I had my annual tax return to support the declaration. The consulate official who stamped the stat dec didn't even want to look at it.

Of course they can do it. They are just lazy, useless bastards focused on the next diplomatic function.

The only way to get change is a mass write-in to your Federal MP's in Australia.

I disagree, I don't think it is's the embassies job to be verifying incomes.

 

Like others have said, some don't lodge tax returns etc.

It would turn into a dogs breakfast.

[Sophon]

3 hours ago, JackThompson said:

Agree there is no logical / practical reason to "crack down" on any self-funded expats  spending foreign-sourced capital into the economy.   I can come up with possible reasons related only to foreign-policy (China) and corruption (Agents), to explain this.

 

As to those saying they could just stop extensions or shorten them - yes, but this is being done incrementally - likely so that a smaller number of Thais will have their livelihoods destroyed with each change.  If a larger group had their businesses/jobs wiped-out all at once, it could create more of a backlash.

Thailand is no different to just about any other country in the world in that they are comfortable with a certain number of foreigners visiting and living here. You can't really blame them for wanting that number of tourists/residents to be "quality" people that brings the maximum economic benefit to Thailand. As long as more and more people want to move to Thailand, the immigration laws and enforcement will continue to be tightened. I also used to live in Thailand on tourist visas back in 2002 (during 15 months on a career break), but back then there were far fewer foreigners living here, so Thailand at that time didn't see a need to tighten up. Now, things are different.

 

If Thailand did as you suggest and allow any self funded foreigner to come and live in Thailand without any financial criteria, the number of foreigners here would explode overnight. That would create serious backlash and increased xenophobia from the Thai population. To some degree you can already see that happening in the social media when a foreigner commits a faux-pas or more serious transgression (like e.g. the graffiti incident or the public urination incident). It used to be that Thai people were more forgiving for a foreigners minor transgressions, excusing us because as foreigners we weren't expected to know the rules of Thai society.

 

Some people suggest that Thailand should follow the more relaxed attitude to visa and work permit rules of countries like Cambodia, Vietnam and The Philippines, and that if they don't there will be a major outflow of foreigners to those countries. But that is comparing apples with oranges. There is a reason why Thailand has far more expats living here (as well as tourists visiting), today those other countries just don't offer the same quality of life (bad hospitals, inferior infrastructure etc.). And if/when the day comes that those countries catch up to Thailand, and start attracting a much larger number of expats, no doubt they will also start tightening their immigration laws and enforcement.

 

The old chestnut that "Thailand doesn't want expats" anymore is clearly not true. If it were, if would be very easy for Thailand to change the immigration laws that allow pensioners to live here. Many/most countries don't have a provision that allows people from other countries to retire in their country, and it would not be difficult for Thailand to follow that path. If they were afraid of the backlash from Thai people being supported by that particular foreign demographic (I don't believe they would be, when have you known the Thai government to care much about what a (relatively) few Thai poor people think), they could just grandfather in anyone already in the system, but no longer offer the option in the future. No, Thailand still want foreign expats, but they want a limited number of people that both bring significant benefits to Thailand, and are also at the same time relatively unlikely to work here illegally (hence the financial requirements and the age limit for retirement extensions).

 

Sure, they would prefer every expat working here to be a highly qualified and on a high salary (paying high taxes), and for people not working to be here on Thailand Elite visas or investment extensions. But since there are not enough of those to go around, they will have to settle for the bog standard retiree. And as the number of people moving to Thailand to retire is still rising, I fully expect the financial requirement to be raised in the not too distant future. Perhaps they will also start requiring the money to be brought into Thailand in full, or even raise the age limit to qualify for a retirement extension (it used to be higher before the Asian financial crisis). For us already here, we can only try to prepare to the best of our abilities for what the future may bring, and maybe hope that there will be some degree of grandfathering, when the financial requirements are eventually increased.

 

Sophon

Edited November 4, 2018 by Sophon

[giddyup]

1 minute ago, Will27 said:

I disagree.

 

You've moved to Thailand from Australia and have lived there for 9 years.

Regardless of your status in Thailand, IMO, you have still emigrated.

 

Yes a Thai can stay in Australia on a retirement visa and you're right, the conditions

are a lot more strict.

 

I've said it before, you cannot compare visas in Australia to visas and extensions in Thailand.

They're two different beasts.

It's others who seem to be doing the comparing, not me. I was just pointing out to those who seem to think it's a lot easier to get visas and remain in countries like Australia than Thailand, that's far from the truth. Call it what you will, immigrant or guest to Thailand, certain conditions have to be met, so no point in this continuous whinging about how unfair it all is.

[offset]

26 minutes ago, giddyup said:

We haven't emigrated to Thailand, Thailand allows us to stay as guests as long as we meet the criteria laid down by immigration. Can a Thai stay in Australia on a retirement visa, and if they can what are the conditions that have to be met? I bet they are a hell of a lot more strict than Thailand with background checks etc.

I just looked it up, here are the requirements:

 

Permanent Australian Retirement Visas

If you are looking for a longer-term retirement visa you may choose to apply for a permanent retirement visa. In order to qualify for this you will need to adhere to stricter rules and regulations. Permanent Australian visas are viewed as investment visas and for this reason you will be required to demonstrate that you possess assets of a pre-determined value. This value will vary according to which area of Australia you wish to retire. However, a general rule of thumb is as follows:

• High Growth Region: $750,000 worth of assets and an additional $500,000 for any dependent (spouse).
• Low Growth Region: $500,0000 worth of assets and an additional $250,000 for any dependent (spouse).

You will be required to demonstrate that you have owned these assets for a minimum of two years prior to applying for a permanent Australian visa.

For full details about the latest visa requirements for retiring in Australia please see our international relocation guides. These contain full and up to date details of the visa requirements and application process.

 

You only get a visa for 4 years with this retirement visa it is not a  visa 

[giddyup]

Just now, offset said:

You only get a visa for 4 years with this retirement visa it is not a  visa 

  It's called a Retirement Visa on the Aussie government website, and the 4 years is renewable. So what is it if not a visa?

[dennis123]

Here in Pattaya dark/east side there are already a lot of vacant houses with for rent signs, guess that's only getting worse.

 

The people saying get the right visa to the under-50 crowd will soon be starting threads complaining that their new tourist visa has been rejected. Then I'm the one saying: "Maybe it's time to go home?" lol.

 

Nah I'm kidding, I feel your pain, at 50+ or older you deserve a stress-free life, god damn immigration rules.

 

It really looks like they want the foreigners out and leaving all their wealth there for the Thais to enjoy, I mean good luck selling your house or condo, I just read in one of those free newspapers/magazines that it's a sellers market for real estate, yeah right....

[Russell17au]

35 minutes ago, cyberfarang said:

Sorry, it is you that has no idea.

 

What you describe is similar to the United States system and yes, the procedures are strict. But unlike for expats wanting to stay in Thailand long term or settle here, in Australia the USA and UK applicants will if qualifying under the requirements obtain citizenships or a least permanent visas for those countries, whereas in Thailand we have no statutory rights, no status and can be thrown out within 7 days. This is why retirees and Farang spouses in Thailand are described as non-immigrants. 

 

Totally different to what you have described.

Gee, that's funny because I was responding to a claim that a person could get a retirement visa for Australia and there is no such visa and what I described there was what I had to do to get my Thai wife her residents visa to Australia (Partner (provisional) visa 309 and her Partner (permanent) visa 100) when I first applied for it for her in January 2013. You should really learn to read what I was quoting to which was a claim about getting a retirement visa for Australia.

[giddyup]

1 minute ago, dennis123 said:

 It really looks like they want the foreigners out and leaving all their wealth there for the Thais to enjoy, I mean good luck selling your house or condo, I just read in one of those free newspapers/magazines that it's a sellers market for real estate, yeah right....

They don't want them out, they want them to show the financial amounts that immigration require. I would hazard a guess that most falangs have bought a house that's in their GF or wife's name, so they would have to get their say-so before it could be sold. You're right though, there's plenty of houses for sale on the darkside so you wouldn't want to be in a hurry to sell.

[offset]

14 minutes ago, giddyup said:

  It's called a Retirement Visa on the Aussie government website, and the 4 years is renewable. So what is it if not a visa?

Just saying that you called it a permeant visa which it is not you have to have to prove you financial security to renew it

[giddyup]

5 minutes ago, offset said:

Just saying that you called it a permeant visa which it is not you have to have to prove you financial security to renew it

I didn't call it anything, the information I copied and pasted from an Australian website. It is called a Permanent Retirement Visa, look it up for yourself. Of course you have to prove you have the financial security to renew. Do you have to show the financial requirement for a Thai retirement extension when you renew every year? You seem to be a tad confused.

Edited November 4, 2018 by giddyup

[Will27]

26 minutes ago, offset said:

You only get a visa for 4 years with this retirement visa it is not a  visa 

It's a s/c 405 visa

Edited November 4, 2018 by Will27

[offset]

1 minute ago, Will27 said:

It's a s/c 405 visa

yes I know I got one many years ago and if anybody think the Thai system is a pain they should try get one of these visa

[giddyup]

Just now, offset said:

yes I know I got one many years ago and if anybody think the Thai system is a pain they should try get one of these visa

Hang on, I thought you said it's not a visa?

[Will27]

15 minutes ago, Russell17au said:

Gee, that's funny because I was responding to a claim that a person could get a retirement visa for Australia and there is no such visa and what I described there was what I had to do to get my Thai wife her residents visa to Australia (Partner (provisional) visa 309 and her Partner (permanent) visa 100) when I first applied for it for her in January 2013. You should really learn to read what I was quoting to which was a claim about getting a retirement visa for Australia.

Again, no point in comparing the Thai marriage extension to the Oz spouse visa.

For the Oz visa, you're pretty much paying for permanent residency and all of the benefits that involves.

 

Like giddyup has said, the Thai visas and extensions pretty much only allow you to stay.

[giddyup]

6 minutes ago, Will27 said:

It's a s/c 405 visa

It seems Australia no longer issues that visa.  https://www.sbs.com.au/yourlanguage/punjabi/en/article/2018/06/01/australia-permanently-closes-visa-new-applicants