Staying in Thailand 2-3 months - UK resident, working remotely for UK company

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, BritTim said:

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

"You can do this on a tourist visa" - Try asking the same question, as a non-immigrant visa holder with permission to stay for retirement that is living in the country, and see what answer you get.

I am aware of people on retirement extensions who still do some work as digital nomads. I believe this is equally tolerated as for those on tourist visas.

I'm sure we all are.

 

"I believe this is equally tolerated" - on what evidence? How many of those people have declared their work to TIB or the DoL? Where is the public statement saying it's ok for expats to work online?

 

The only public comments to date refer specifically to 'tourists'. People on retirement extensions are supposed to be "retired" as in not working. No doubt you'll argue that even though they say retired they don't really mean retired.

 

I recall one report from someone in authority saying that they would only give a pass to a DN ("tourist") for a few months after which they would probably prosecute. I think it was Pukhet, but I can't find the link.

Edited December 29, 2018 by elviajero

[balo]

6 hours ago, elviajero said:

People on retirement extensions are supposed to be "retired" as in not working. No doubt you'll argue that even though they say retired they don't really mean retired.

Oh please stop it now , you have made your point, in the stone age world that you are living in . 

 

I am one of the retired here, but I have still kept my address in Norway.

Even if I'm retired and saved up some money, I do run a small online business and I pay my taxes in Norway, not in Thailand. My bank account and income is in Norway.  

I do transfer money from time to time from my Norwegian bank account to a Thai bank account, but it's not taxable in Thailand. 

 

Now you can argue with that all you want and tell us about a law which is 38 years old or whatever , but the fact is that Thais do not care about digital nomads. 

 

In Bangkok alone there are at least 50 co-working spaces where young people from all over the world can hook up their laptop and do some "work" offline or online. 

 

This is not going to change, it's the digital world we're living in . 

 

 

 

 

 

[elviajero]

24 minutes ago, balo said:

Oh please stop it now , you have made your point, in the stone age world that you are living in . 

???? I’ve been working in IT for 20 years, and am one of the early ‘Digital Nomads’!

 

40 minutes ago, balo said:

Now you can argue with that all you want and tell us about a law which is 38 years old or whatever , but the fact is that Thais do not care about digital nomads. 

I agree, Thais don’t.

[impulse]

48 minutes ago, balo said:

In Bangkok alone there are at least 50 co-working spaces where young people from all over the world can hook up their laptop and do some "work" offline or online. 

 

This is not going to change, it's the digital world we're living in . 

 

That's what they said about all those services running people to the border to do visa runs.  Then one day, it changed.  And hundreds (thousands?) of guys who had been living here for decades found their status changed.  There was no change in the law.  The only change was in the interpretation and the enforcement.  Which could easily happen to any loopholes.  Like tolerating people working online.

 

Edited December 29, 2018 by impulse

[balo]

8 minutes ago, impulse said:

Like tolerating people working online

Trust me , nothing will change, then they have to pull the internet plug.  

 

Any tourist coming here , even on a short holiday , bring their laptops and smartphones with them . You can have a Skype business meeting via your smart phone.  And nobody cares. 

 

 

 

 

[impulse]

2 minutes ago, balo said:

Trust me , nothing will change, then they have to pull the internet plug.  

 

Any tourist coming here , even on a short holiday , bring their laptops and smartphones with them . You can have a Skype business meeting via your smart phone.  And nobody cares. 

 

I agree with you when you're discussing a short stay tourist like the OP.  He'll be fine. 

 

The problem is that a lot of statements have been made here that extrapolate it to people that may not be fine if the interpretation or enforcement changes like it did for visa runs.  And a lot of guys come here to be tourists, and end up staying a lot longer than they originally intended.

 

I've met a lot of guys who wish that they had focused on getting legal in the long term, instead of spending their time, money and effort on condos, cars, boats, and other toys they had to leave behind when their loophole slammed shut.  Guys who had lived in Thailand for decades.

 

To the guys (not balo) claiming that some government official or another has stated that working online is okay, I recall several times when one government official said one thing, and within a day that statement was contradicted by another government official.  Working online is one of those topics where there have been conflicting statements.  So I take those with a grain of salt.

[BritTim]

3 hours ago, impulse said:

 

I agree with you when you're discussing a short stay tourist like the OP.  He'll be fine. 

 

The problem is that a lot of statements have been made here that extrapolate it to people that may not be fine if the interpretation or enforcement changes like it did for visa runs.  And a lot of guys come here to be tourists, and end up staying a lot longer than they originally intended.

 

I've met a lot of guys who wish that they had focused on getting legal in the long term, instead of spending their time, money and effort on condos, cars, boats, and other toys they had to leave behind when their loophole slammed shut.  Guys who had lived in Thailand for decades.

 

To the guys (not balo) claiming that some government official or another has stated that working online is okay, I recall several times when one government official said one thing, and within a day that statement was contradicted by another government official.  Working online is one of those topics where there have been conflicting statements.  So I take those with a grain of salt.

If your point is that rules can change in Thailand, I agree with you. Today, there is really no doubt that digital nomads are tolerated (even if technically working illegally). I am with those who consider that particular policy unlikely to change, if nothing else because enforcement would be so problematic. Clearly, limited transaction of business while here as a tourist (or even on a non immigrant visa) must be allowed, and it becomes awfully difficult to draw the line if you want only to prosecute "extensive" online working.

[Caldera]

Instead of either merely tolerating or attempting to ban digital nomads, Thailand would have the option to cash in on them - to give them legal status while taxing their income. That would take quite a leap though.

Edited December 30, 2018 by Caldera
Clarity

[JackThompson]

4 hours ago, impulse said:

That's what they said about all those services running people to the border to do visa runs.  Then one day, it changed.  And hundreds (thousands?) of guys who had been living here for decades found their status changed.  There was no change in the law.  The only change was in the interpretation and the enforcement.  Which could easily happen to any loopholes.  Like tolerating people working online.

I could certainly see them going after those in public co-working spaces, if the anti-foreigner clique decide that would be another easy fraction of farangs to purge.  It would be a small fraction, so probably not worth the trouble - but anyone using those spaces is being unwise, in my view.

 

18 minutes ago, Caldera said:

Instead of either merely tolerating or attempting to ban digital nomads, Thailand would have the option to cash in on them - to give them legal status while taxing their income. That would take quite a leap though.

So obvious, and so easy to do - just say, "Pay taxes on X Baht foreign-xferred income, and you qualify for a Non-B Visa."  It would be a huge "win-win" for everyone - but the anti-foreigner clique won't have it.

[jacko45k]

39 minutes ago, Caldera said:

Instead of either merely tolerating or attempting to ban digital nomads, Thailand would have the option to cash in on them - to give them legal status while taxing their income. That would take quite a leap though.

They don't do a particularly good job or implementing income tax on a large proportion of the population. But yeah, a tax purely on foreigners would appeal!

[jackdd]

5 hours ago, impulse said:

That's what they said about all those services running people to the border to do visa runs.  Then one day, it changed.  And hundreds (thousands?) of guys who had been living here for decades found their status changed.  There was no change in the law.  The only change was in the interpretation and the enforcement.  Which could easily happen to any loopholes.  Like tolerating people working online.

Visa exempt rules are set by ministerial orders, and these were changed to a limit of 2 per year at land borders which didn't allow visa runs in the old fashion anymore. So while it's technically not the "law" that changed, they clearly changed the rules tied to the law and it was not just the interpretation and the enforcement that changed.

[balo]

2 hours ago, jacko45k said:

They don't do a particularly good job or implementing income tax on a large proportion of the population.

Yes good point, most Thai's do not pay tax. I asked a few local restaurant owners, no tax . Maybe they pay other types of "bribes". 

 

[BritTim]

4 hours ago, balo said:

7 hours ago, jacko45k said:

They don't do a particularly good job or implementing income tax on a large proportion of the population.

Yes good point, most Thai's do not pay tax. I asked a few local restaurant owners, no tax . Maybe they pay other types of "bribes". 

One of the more bizarre features of the Thai tax code (which I believe still exists) is the concept of alternative negotiated tax. This legally permits a senior tax official to agree an appropriate level of tax for business owners or self employed persons that bears no relation to the published tax rates. It is just a, sometimes suspiciously low, lump sum figure. If you find the right Thai lawyer, this can be negotiated for foreigners also. (Of course, such a provision in the law would never be exploited for corrupt purposes.)

[elviajero]

16 hours ago, Caldera said:

Instead of either merely tolerating or attempting to ban digital nomads, Thailand would have the option to cash in on them - to give them legal status while taxing their income. That would take quite a leap though.

Not going to happen. And why should they be given special treatment?

[BritTim]

4 hours ago, elviajero said:

Not going to happen. And why should they be given special treatment?

I agree it is unlikely to happen, but surely the "why" Thailand might choose to do this is obvious. It would raise tax revenue with no obvious downside.

[onera1961]

On 12/28/2018 at 11:36 AM, elviajero said:

If they are illegally working in Thailand (3.), and are tax resident (after 180 days), they should be filing a tax return to declare any tax liability on any foreign sources of earned or unearned income.

 

In your case you would be illegally working in Thailand under section 37.1 of the immigration act. If your income is being remitted to Thailand you might have a tax liability, but not unless you are tax resident and the income is being remitted to Thailand.

You're right. Ask any multi-national company if you can work outside your tax country. They will simply say no. I worked as a remote worker for Microsoft and my contract specifically said I could not work in any country, except in the US even if I have multiple passports 

 

Edited December 31, 2018 by onera1961

[BritTim]

55 minutes ago, onera1961 said:

You're right. Ask any multi-national company if you can work outside your tax country. They will simply say no. I worked as a remote worker for Microsoft and my contract specifically said I could not work in any country, except in the US even if I have multiple passports 

An interesting theory, but I worked as a third level support engineer for General Electric years ago, where I was continually travelling to customers all over Europe (as well as the US headquarters) and often working online to resolve problems. My salary was paid in Germany, my boss was in the US, I was enrolled in a pension scheme in the UK, and might in one day visit customers in France and Italy, while working on an issue while in transit of a customer in the UK.

 

Your job description might well restrict where you are allowed to work. However, there is nothing in international law that prevents online working around the world if your employer approves.

[rwdrwdrwd]

4 hours ago, onera1961 said:

You're right. Ask any multi-national company if you can work outside your tax country. They will simply say no. I worked as a remote worker for Microsoft and my contract specifically said I could not work in any country, except in the US even if I have multiple passports 

 

Perhaps as a direct employee, but not as a consultant. I contracted remotely for many years for numerous large US entities including Microsoft and never once did this kind of clause exist (I wouldn't have accepted it). Pretty much the only limitation is not being an Iranian or North Korean entity.

Can be done either as a C2C contract with a company *anywhere* (I used HK) you own as a supplier and you personally as a named consultant supplied by that company, or simply directly as an individual (often they want you to file a W8-BEN form to cover the non application of withholding tax).

I doubt it's the case as an employee either - I know personally a number of individuals that currently work as direct US employees for FANG companies (and many other tech companies) and who work 100% remotely with constant travel and with full transparency to their employer without issue. It's very, very common these days.

Edited December 31, 2018 by rwdrwdrwd

[elviajero]

On 12/30/2018 at 9:55 PM, BritTim said:

On 12/30/2018 at 5:28 PM, elviajero said:

Not going to happen. And why should they be given special treatment?

I agree it is unlikely to happen, but surely the "why" Thailand might choose to do this is obvious. It would raise tax revenue with no obvious downside.

The reasons for not doing it more obvious. The tax take would be minimal in the grand scheme, and the cost of implementing the collection of tax would go along way to reduce any gain; unless it was a fixed tax, which could be penalising to low earners. I doubt many 'Digital Nomads' would want to sign up to paying tax in a country they are passing through, and what about the country the business is registered in. And many IT professionals could simply sign up to the new scheme instead of being properly employed. I know two of my employees would love the idea.

 

But my question was why should they be given special treatment over other foreigners that could work at jobs in Thailand? Just because you can work anywhere, doesn't mean you can work anywhere.

[jackdd]

45 minutes ago, elviajero said:

The reasons for not doing it more obvious. The tax take would be minimal in the grand scheme, and the cost of implementing the collection of tax would go along way to reduce any gain; unless it was a fixed tax, which could be penalising to low earners. I doubt many 'Digital Nomads' would want to sign up to paying tax in a country they are passing through, and what about the country the business is registered in. And many IT professionals could simply sign up to the new scheme instead of being properly employed. I know two of my employees would love the idea.

  

But my question was why should they be given special treatment over other foreigners that could work at jobs in Thailand? Just because you can work anywhere, doesn't mean you can work anywhere.

There are several ways to implement this, of course a fail safe method might not be as easy as it looks, but still possible

Here is one example for how they could do it which is imho not too complicated:

Allow foreigners to register a basic "personal business" (no idea how they call that, the one that a Thai selling stuff on the street should have).

Limitations are: The foreigner may not have employees, also no dedicated office space and all money has to come from abroad.

Work permit and non-B visa as usual, the foreigner has to prove that he had the minimum monthly income to get his extension

 

It does of course need some adjustments for the income calculation, because the income of a business might fluctuate, so this should be averaged over a year, and maybe allow the person to pay a penalty if the income was only a bit under the required ammount (for example the minimum is 800k per year, you don't want to kick him out just because he made only 700k in a year)

 

The foreigner has a business entity in Thailand, the bureaucracy in Thailand needs only slight changes, he files his tax report in Thailand, and pays income tax here.

Edited January 2, 2019 by jackdd

[JackThompson]

 

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

The tax take would be minimal in the grand scheme, and the cost of implementing the collection of tax would go along way to reduce any gain; unless it was a fixed tax, which could be penalising to low earners.

Say, 100K people paying tax on incomes multiples of the Thai median wage?  That's good money vs processing-overhead, or Thailand would not bother taxing Thais or Thai-employed foreigners with those income-levels at all. 

 

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

I doubt many 'Digital Nomads' would want to sign up to paying tax in a country they are passing through

Agreed - but "passing through" types (including "five flags" types) don't need a visa other than Tourist, so would not bother with any of this.  This would be for those who want to trade paying-tax for the ability to get a Visa to actually live here (i.e. not go out and back repeatedly on short- permitted-stays), when under 50.

 

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

what about the country the business is registered in.

Dual tax arrangements might allow the remote-worker to deduct Thai tax from any taxes owed in the employer's and/or their passport country(ies).  In any case, Thai taxes would need to be paid first, or "no deal" under such a scheme.

 

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

And many IT professionals could simply sign up to the new scheme instead of being properly employed. I know two of my employees would love the idea.

Would this be a downside for Thailand?   Bear in mind, the employer would not be a Thai business, in this scenario.  Personally, if I was going to work a "job" again, I'd rather work for a Thai company and get all the benefits that entails - unless the overseas offer paid significantly more, of course - in which case, better for Thailand if I spent the money earned here.

 

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

But my question was why should they be given special treatment over other foreigners that could work at jobs in Thailand? Just because you can work anywhere, doesn't mean you can work anywhere.

No special treatment, because they are not in competition with each other to begin with.  At least, not any more than if the same remote-worker took a bus to Cambodia or their passport-country and continued work there (and even on the way there).  Keeping them out only ensures they can not help the Thai economy with their spending, and confers no other positive benefit to the country.

 

 

1 hour ago, jackdd said:

It does of course need some adjustments for the income calculation, because the income of a business might fluctuate, so this should be averaged over a year, and maybe allow the person to pay a penalty if the income was only a bit under the required ammount (for example the minimum is 800k per year, you don't want to kick him out just because he made only 700k in a year)

Even if this came to pass, I would not expect any sort of "break" if you don't have the minimum-income.  Ask anyone on retirement about this, when they show up with an account that dropped to 799K Baht for 1 day in the last 3 months. 

But, in this case, you would be showing immigration your tax-receipts as proof of income.  In addition, probably paying some sort of special fee for the program.  Maybe also a work-permit - though those were waived for the Smart Visa program.  Love the idea, unlikely though it is to happen (sadly) - otherwise it could have been included in the Smart Visa option-list.

 

But returning to our fantasy - if the number of those using this program went up significantly (I could see 500K people, easily, in 5 years), and the authorities are worried about "too many foreigners," they could limit the areas where they could live to "outsourcing-visa zones" like Pattaya (which is already Westernized)

 

Or even take any undeveloped island of decent size, declare it "OK" for this, then watch it grow into a developed and popular area in a couple years.  Maybe even keep it nice, by having more restrictive environmental codes, requiring enough sewage treatment facilities to handle the population-size (unlike Patts/Jomtien), etc.

Edited January 2, 2019 by JackThompson

[elviajero]

@JackThompson @jackdd

 

It would be easy for them to come up with a visa and possibly work out someway to tax them. But it would be messy and give an advantage to a group that they have no reason to advantage. Immigration policy is not just about money.

 

The idea that DN's are a special case is wrong, IMO. We could have the situation that a DN could legally sit in a coffee shop and work, and the foreign shop co-owning husband of a Thai couldn't legally carry a cup of coffee to the DN's table. You need to look at the big picture.

 

And if you fast forward 20 years the numbers of people working remotely will be huge and cause many countries, not just Thailand, a massive headache!

 

40 years ago Thailand didn't envisage 'tourists' being able to hang around months/years, hence the weaknesses in the immigration act. IMO Thailand and other countries will take more of a wait and see attitude on DN's and close/open doors as required. I do not see a full on DN specific visa coming to Thailand anytime soon. They will continue on the current path until they have to make a decision; like they've historically done with tourism, ED'ism, overstaying etc. Reactive, not proactive.

Edited January 2, 2019 by elviajero

[JackThompson]

14 hours ago, elviajero said:

It would be easy for them to come up with a visa and possibly work out someway to tax them. But it would be messy and give an advantage to a group that they have no reason to advantage. Immigration policy is not just about money. 

We have already outlined the reasons to do it, which from the Thai perspective is indeed money.  Unfortunately, some factions of immigration seem to only care about money - but not money which would benefit the country; rather, money in their pockets from elite visa sales, agents, etc - so skew their policies to maximize that, at the expense of the country. 

 

But, that aside, certainly the authorities should care about other factors than foreign-sourced incomes spent in Thailand.  Mass numbers of foreigners becoming citizens, then influencing the govt via participation in elections using ethnic-block voting, for example; but Thailand already have the citizenship opening narrowed-down to a trickle (unlike in many of our passport-countries), so that is not a concern.  Similar with welfare programs - non-existent for foreigners here (unlike in many of our passport-countries), so not an issue.

 

Given this plan could include geographic-limits on where those with such visas could live, I fail to see any downside to Thailand, even from the perspective of cultural-preservation - setting aside the fact that most cultural-erosion comes from the TV and Internet.

 

14 hours ago, elviajero said:

The idea that DN's are a special case is wrong, IMO. We could have the situation that a DN could legally sit in a coffee shop and work, and the foreign shop co-owning husband of a Thai couldn't legally carry a cup of coffee to the DN's table. You need to look at the big picture.

Correct - because the Thai business can be coerced to hire a Thai for that coffee-serving job.  There is no corresponding leverage over a remote-worker's employer or the employee, who can work from anywhere.  Therefore, in this situation, the only way Thais can benefit, is to allow the remote-worker to stay, so they will spend their income - which they will earn regardless - in Thailand.

 

14 hours ago, elviajero said:

And if you fast forward 20 years the numbers of people working remotely will be huge and cause many countries, not just Thailand, a massive headache!

A successful world-wide policy (international law?) to prevent remote-working by anyone anywhere is impossible.  The internet and any/all other forms of data-transmission worldwide would have to be shut-down or micro-managed/examined to pull that off.

 

So called "globalization" trade policies involving physical goods production and cheap foreign-worker importation to replace local-workers could be reversed via national policies.  But, I do not see a way to stop remote working.  Although, it would greatly benefit me, personally, if it could be stopped - if carried out in conjunction with reversing the "globalization" trade and immigration policies.  Were that to occur, I could work in my passport country for the wages earned by people there 20 yrs ago with my education and experience - so that just a couple months per-year would cover 10 months living well in Thailand.  But that is not on the horizon.

 

So, it boils down to, "Too much foreign-money being spent into the Thai economy vs spent in other countries?"  At least, if the remote workers are spending money in Thailand, Thai-jobs will be created.  If they work elsewhere, those potential Thai jobs are created elsewhere.

 

14 hours ago, elviajero said:

I do not see a full on DN specific visa coming to Thailand anytime soon. They will continue on the current path until they have to make a decision; like they've historically done with tourism, ED'ism, overstaying etc. Reactive, not proactive.

I agree, unfortunately, if current trends continue - they will continue to focus on under-the-table revenue for themselves, rather than the good of the country.  As a result, this will leave them with mere crumbs of their potential gains if they were to be forward-thinking, and considering benefit to the country, instead of their "tea-money."

 

Right now, Thailand is in an excellent position to facilitate the creation of a huge foreign-revenue source in a popular destination.  That opportunity will be gone when other countries have already allowed remote-worker communities to be built, and local services have integrated to serve those populations.  To even attempt to catch-up, at that point, Thailand would need to invest huge subsidies, in an attempt to lure remote-workers to relocate - possibly offering slashed tax-rates, etc.  But, if begun today, they could simply "permit" it, and those communities would self-fund into existence, happily paying taxes to be allowed to work and enjoy life in a part of Thailand.

Edited January 3, 2019 by JackThompson

[balo]

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

Correct - because the Thai business can be coerced to hire a Thai for that coffee-serving job.  There is no corresponding leverage over a remote-worker's employer or the employee, who can work from anywhere.  Therefore, in this situation, the only way Thais can benefit, is to allow the remote-worker to stay, so they will spend their income - which they will earn regardless - in Thailand.

 

Good point, and we do contribute to the Thai economy. After 7 years here coming and going and working as a digital nomad, my contribution must have been around 6-7 million baht.  Money spent in Thailand but also in my home country where I pay my taxes.

 

I disagree with Elviajero and do think we are a special case. Of course I could have done the same job in any country, as I did during my visits to Cambodia , Laos and Vietnam.  

 

[wobalt]

[mention=247476]JackThompson[/mention] [mention=281285]jackdd[/mention]
 
It would be easy for them to come up with a visa and possibly work out someway to tax them. But it would be messy and give an advantage to a group that they have no reason to advantage. Immigration policy is not just about money.
 
The idea that DN's are a special case is wrong, IMO. We could have the situation that a DN could legally sit in a coffee shop and work, and the foreign shop co-owning husband of a Thai couldn't legally carry a cup of coffee to the DN's table. You need to look at the big picture.
 
And if you fast forward 20 years the numbers of people working remotely will be huge and cause many countries, not just Thailand, a massive headache!
 
40 years ago Thailand didn't envisage 'tourists' being able to hang around months/years, hence the weaknesses in the immigration act. IMO Thailand and other countries will take more of a wait and see attitude on DN's and close/open doors as required. I do not see a full on DN specific visa coming to Thailand anytime soon. They will continue on the current path until they have to make a decision; like they've historically done with tourism, ED'ism, overstaying etc. Reactive, not proactive.

The big picture is that we will moving away from the traditional working practice to an individual working scheme independent from localization and time.This process cannot/ will not be stopped


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Caldera]

On 1/2/2019 at 8:12 PM, elviajero said:

But my question was why should they be given special treatment over other foreigners that could work at jobs in Thailand? Just because you can work anywhere, doesn't mean you can work anywhere.

You have it upside down. Right now, DNs are given special treatment, as a side effect from being merely tolerated without having specific rules catering to them. Adapting Thai laws to present-day realities would remove this special treatment - they would contribute by paying income tax and social security just like someone employed by a Thai company. It would be the smart thing to do, which almost guarantees that it won't happen.

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, wobalt said:

The big picture is that we will moving away from the traditional working practice to an individual working scheme independent from localization and time.This process cannot/ will not be stopped


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

I agree completely on working practices. But just because you can work anywhere doesn’t mean you can work anywhere. The country you are physically in have a say.

 

As I said, because of this change countries are going to have to deal with this problem, and it won’t include opening up there borders to anyone with a laptop.

[wobalt]

Why not, I don’t see it as a problem


Gesendet von iPad mit Thaivisa Connect

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, Caldera said:

You have it upside down. Right now, DNs are given special treatment, as a side effect from being merely tolerated without having specific rules catering to them. Adapting Thai laws to present-day realities would remove this special treatment - they would contribute by paying income tax and social security just like someone employed by a Thai company. It would be the smart thing to do, which almost guarantees that it won't happen.

They are not being given special treatment. They are being treated as tourists, and as any tourist are allowed to keep up with their job/business whilst on holiday.

[elviajero]

1 minute ago, wobalt said:

Why not, I don’t see it as a problem


Gesendet von iPad mit Thaivisa Connect

Why are only over 50’s allowed a long term visa/permit to stay and not over 20’s?