BREAKING NEWS Foreigners now need to keep 800k in Thai bank for three months AFTER retirement extension is granted

[notamember]

4 minutes ago, elviajero said:

It doesn’t say why he has to leave.

 

Lots of people are making claims of “many” people will be forced to leave, but no one is explaining why!

you did not ask that or an explanation, you asked:

'' Give me an example of someone that’s already retired in Thailand that cannot stay because of the changes''

i did as you asked in 2 minutes but its not good enough for you

even on these hallowed pages and in the Nation boss pages

not that i expected it to be.........

 

[Roy Baht]

2 minutes ago, David Walden said:

You still don't get it...you have a choice of applying for a Retirements visa in your home country or in Thailand.  The bt800,000 can be in a bank or in an approved Retirement investment fund.  I simply say I get mine in Australia.  That way I save Bt70,000per year by leaving the money in my Australian retirement fund.

Oh, I get what you do. You're fine. You're sane. But for every one post of yours there are ten posts of people who are here, can't go to their home country to apply for a proper visa, have been using illegal agents for years and are furious, with self-righteous anger, when the illegal business that got them their visa/extensions are shut down.

[David Walden]

3 hours ago, Olmate said:

On first glance it appears to be so.Await others view as have not heard this before

That's How I get my Thai Retirement visa in Australia.  Your Thai Embassy web site appears to have the same as information as to how to go about it at the Royal Thai Embassy in Canberra Australia. You can do it by mail from anywhere in Australia.

[jacko45k]

16 minutes ago, Roy Baht said:

when the illegal business that got them their visa/extensions are shut down.

That has yet to be seen!

Anybody seen pickups loaded up with window boards driving down soi Buakhao, not going to bars!

[Roy Baht]

If you used an illegal service to get your previous visa/extension and now are complaining that, due to the perfectly legal enforcement of the laws of this country, you can no longer use an illegal service, how do you expect people to have sympathy for you? The income affidavits were bullshit everywhere (not just the US Embassy). They were right to shut them down. Of course, it’s ridiculous that the embassies themselves had to stop offering them. The Thai gov’t should be able to understand the word “affidavit” and make their judgement accordingly. And that is basically (according to rumor) the reason this whole thing blew up. Supposedly, an American went to Chiang Mai Immigration, showed them his affidavit (“letter of income”) and the officials said, “OK, but show us the money. Where is the money? Let us see your bank book”
    It’s ridiculous that the embassies themselves had to stop offering income affidavits. Thai Immigration just should have stopped accepting them. An income affidavit has value. (It impressed my wife.) But the idea that an affidavit on its own is legal proof of income is ludicrous. Even if it were UK or Aussie embassies, where they vet your financial documents, they aren’t financial experts, and in the end all you got was an affidavit (i.e., proof that you claimed something) and nothing more.

[ocddave]

47 minutes ago, Roy Baht said:

Then why stay? And why complain about not being able to stay? I enjoy plenty of freedom here. In fact, I find Thailand far more free than the US or UK. I don't find the environment here "hostile to foreigners" And if I did, I wouldn't stay here. Basically your complaint is that you are being overcharged to live in a horrible place? My question is why do you want to live in a horrible place for any price? 

Because I have to, family is here, what freedom do you have here that you don't elsewhere?! Its surely not a safer place, pollution is accepted and growing, corruption is rampant and embraced, life expectancy is shorter here, the roads are more dangerous than any in the world (outside of war-zones), and the natives kill people if shamed. 

[jiffers]

No one seems to be referring to the situation regarding the income method, ie B65,000 per month.

I assume if you are able to show with a Thai bank account statement that you are paying this in every month, this is all that's needed.

Obviously, you will be spending the money over the month on living expenses.

[ocddave]

15 minutes ago, Roy Baht said:

The income affidavits were bullshit everywhere (not just the US Embassy). 

What was BS about them?! Just because some used them illegally doesn't mean everyone did, it was perfectly legal, and I used it. Maybe a better option would have been to challenge those they thought were lying, and if found guilty, to blacklist them forever.

[fforest1]

9 minutes ago, Roy Baht said:

If you used an illegal service to get your previous visa/extension and now are complaining that, due to the perfectly legal enforcement of the laws of this country, you can no longer use an illegal service, how do you expect people to have sympathy for you? The income affidavits were bullshit everywhere (not just the US Embassy). They were right to shut them down. Of course, it’s ridiculous that the embassies themselves had to stop offering them. The Thai gov’t should be able to understand the word “affidavit” and make their judgement accordingly. And that is basically (according to rumor) the reason this whole thing blew up. Supposedly, an American went to Chiang Mai Immigration, showed them his affidavit (“letter of income”) and the officials said, “OK, but show us the money. Where is the money? Let us see your bank book”
    It’s ridiculous that the embassies themselves had to stop offering income affidavits. Thai Immigration just should have stopped accepting them. An income affidavit has value. (It impressed my wife.) But the idea that an affidavit on its own is legal proof of income is ludicrous. Even if it were UK or Aussie embassies, where they vet your financial documents, they aren’t financial experts, and in the end all you got was an affidavit (i.e., proof that you claimed something) and nothing more.

Yet the income letters still work from all but 4 embassy...lol.......Your self righteousness is not going to save you from being shown the door with all the rest of the westerners.....It will happen in time,I dont care what visa your on...

[Sheryl]

20 minutes ago, David Walden said:

You still don't get it...you have a choice of applying for a Retirements visa in your home country or in Thailand.  The bt800,000 can be in a bank or in an approved Retirement investment fund.  I simply say I get mine in Australia.  That way I save Bt70,000per year by leaving the money in my Australian retirement fund.

Is there no limit to how many such visas you can get in  a row? If not, I would not be surprised if there isn't one eventually.

[Roy Baht]

3 minutes ago, ocddave said:

Because I have to, family is here, what freedom do you have here that you don't elsewhere?! Its surely not a safer place, pollution is accepted and growing, corruption is rampant and embraced, life expectancy is shorter here, the roads are more dangerous than any in the world (outside of war-zones), and the natives kill people if shamed. 

1. If you have dependents get a dependent visa (that's what it's called, not spouse visa). No reason to worry about Non-Im O-A.

2. Safety & pollution: Get out of where you are. Where are you? Pattaya? Bangkok? Phuket? Why do expats live in such shitholes? I live in rural Thailand. It's safe and unpolluted.

3. Corruption is rampant and embraced. Anyone who has lived here 10 minutes knows that. You're basically unhappy that these days the corruption is working against you, rather than for you? I've never heard a farang complain that 500 baht got him out of speeding ticket.

4. Life expectancy & roads. Yeah, you have to take care of yourself here. Eat well. Drink less. Don't drive a motosai drunk after midnight. I worry about the roads too. I hear there are people driving motosai drunk after midnight.

5. Don't shame people
 

 

[Olmate]

42 minutes ago, Roy Baht said:

If you used an illegal service to get your previous visa/extension and now are complaining that, due to the perfectly legal enforcement of the laws of this country, you can no longer use an illegal service, how do you expect people to have sympathy for you? The income affidavits were bullshit everywhere (not just the US Embassy). They were right to shut them down. Of course, it’s ridiculous that the embassies themselves had to stop offering them. The Thai gov’t should be able to understand the word “affidavit” and make their judgement accordingly. And that is basically (according to rumor) the reason this whole thing blew up. Supposedly, an American went to Chiang Mai Immigration, showed them his affidavit (“letter of income”) and the officials said, “OK, but show us the money. Where is the money? Let us see your bank book”
    It’s ridiculous that the embassies themselves had to stop offering income affidavits. Thai Immigration just should have stopped accepting them. An income affidavit has value. (It impressed my wife.) But the idea that an affidavit on its own is legal proof of income is ludicrous. Even if it were UK or Aussie embassies, where they vet your financial documents, they aren’t financial experts, and in the end all you got was an affidavit (i.e., proof that you claimed something) and nothing more.

Wrong Roy,Oz never vetted anything.

[Roy Baht]

16 minutes ago, ocddave said:

What was BS about them?! Just because some used them illegally doesn't mean everyone did, it was perfectly legal, and I used it. Maybe a better option would have been to challenge those they thought were lying, and if found guilty, to blacklist them forever.

No but the Thais decided they weren't enough, which was perfectly in their right to do. Because some people, not the majority, abused it. So income affidavits were, to the Thai gov't, no longer a reliable indicator of a person's wealth.  Of course the actions of bad apples ruined it for everyone but that happens everywhere, all the time. We (everyone in the world who gets on an airplane) had to take off our shoes at airports because one person (The Shoe Bomber) ruined it for everyone.

Meanwhile, I think that I can safely say that no one has ever been convicted of perjury for lying on an affidavit at the US Embassy (or any embassy) in Bangkok. Do you have any idea how much money international litigation costs? Who's paying for this? Thai immigration? Your home country? Are you ready to pay thousands of dollars to prove in court that you income affidavit is accurate? No. It doesn't work that way.

[David Walden]

3 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

It's not often your correct, but this time your dead wrong.

 

A statutory declaration is a statement made, sometimes under oath, but not sworn to and couldn't be used in a court of law.

An affidavit is a written statement sworn under oath and can be used in a court of law.

 

Neither have anything to do with your Embassy confirming the incomes in your statements.

Everything you say is correct but your words " stat. dec are sometimes made under oath".  They are always made under oath or it's not a stat. dec. They don't seem to have stat decs in the US only affidavits.  It is a fact that Australian Embassies do not provide you with evidence that any of the information contained therein is true.  It is you that is making the sworn statement, it is your stat dec not the Embassies.  that's what they are "a statement made under oath". The Embassy is only witnessing that you did make that statement.  If your stat dec contains incorrect information it is you that put it there, not the Embassy.  You pay the penalty (up to 4 years in gaol.)  I don't think Stat dec in Thailand have any legal standing if signed at the Embassy anyway.

[Olmate]

27 minutes ago, ocddave said:

What was BS about them?! Just because some used them illegally doesn't mean everyone did, it was perfectly legal, and I used it. Maybe a better option would have been to challenge those they thought were lying, and if found guilty, to blacklist them forever.

Exactly, why did Imm approve them if they were dubious, simple to ask for back up if they were in doubt. 

[Roy Baht]

5 minutes ago, Olmate said:

Wrong Roy,Oz never vetted anything.

Yeah. Neither did the States. An affidavit is just one person's claim of fact.

[ocddave]

1 minute ago, Roy Baht said:

No but the Thais decided they weren't enough, which was perfectly in their right to do. Because some people, not the majority, abused it. So income affidavits were, to the Thai gov't, no longer a reliable indicator of a person's wealth.  Of course the actions of bad apples ruined it for everyone but that happens everywhere, all the time. We (everyone in the world who gets on an airplane) had to take off our shoes at airports because one person (The Shoe Bomber) ruined it for everyone.

Meanwhile, I think that I can safely say that no one has ever been convicted of perjury for lying on an affidavit at the US Embassy (or any embassy) in Bangkok. Do you have any idea how much money international litigation costs? Who's paying for this? Thai immigration? Your home country? Are you ready to pay thousands of dollars to prove in court that you income affidavit is accurate? No. It doesn't work that way.

Thai immigration really doesn't need litigation to happen, they just have to challenge you, if you fail to sway them, then blacklisting would have worked. If the home countries wanted to go after expats when they are deported, then thats their option, or not.

[Roy Baht]

2 minutes ago, Olmate said:

Exactly, why did Imm approve them if they were dubious, simple to ask for back up if they were in doubt. 

Because they're incompetent. They do what they need to do to get by. And the translation (done by "certified translators" who are also incompetent ) gives the the affidavit more legal authority that it actually deserves. So rather than having their underlings, who they know are under-educated and incompetent, actually read the affidavits and determine their actual legal status (which sounds like work) they just rule them out. Of course, the affidavits weren't dubious in the beginning. When everyone was honest, it was probably a pretty reliable measure of wealth. But now, due to the bad apples, they are dubious. The same way shoes are dubious at an airport now.

 

 

[Roy Baht]

19 minutes ago, ocddave said:

they just have to challenge you, if you fail to sway them, then blacklisting would have worked.

No that is not their job. They can't do it; they don't want to do it. They are not in the business of document verification. The US Embassy states it explicitly: U.S. Consular Officers are not Empowered to authenticate Public Documents Issued in the United States. They can verify what you say (an affidavit) but they are not equipped to verify the proof you use to say it. All the embassies which bowed out of the "income letters" (US, UK, Oz, Demark) were in effect saying that.

[Spidey]

2 minutes ago, Roy Baht said:

No that is not their job. They can't do it; they don't want to do it. They are not in the business of document verification. The US Embassy states it explicitly: U.S. Consular Officers are not Empowered to authenticate Public Documents Issued in the United States. They can verify what you say (an affidavit) but they are not equipped the verify the proof you use to say it. All the embassies which bowed out of the "income letters" (US, UK, Oz, Demark) were in effect saying that.

The ones that stayed in also said that. They veified your income, not the documents.

[ocddave]

5 minutes ago, Roy Baht said:

No that is not their job. They can't do it; they don't want to do it. They are not in the business of document verification. The US Embassy states it explicitly: U.S. Consular Officers are not Empowered to authenticate Public Documents Issued in the United States. They can verify what you say (an affidavit) but they are not equipped the verify the proof you use to say it. All the embassies which bowed out of the "income letters" (US, UK, Oz, Demark) were in effect saying that.

I am speaking about Thai Immigration challenging your Income Verification (if need be), not the US Embassy. You personally then would have to prove to Thai immigration the amount you swore to, by whatever means possible, and at the discretion of the Thai Immigration. If you fail, then welcome to being blacklisted, I think this would have weeded out plenty of questionable income affidavits, and not seriously rocked the boat.

[SkyNets]

So 65,000 baht is a reasonable pension is it, so why do they only pay 500 baht a month to their own or 30,000 baht if you have worked in the Gov for literally your whole life.

[Spidey]

1 minute ago, ocddave said:

I am speaking about Thai Immigration challenging your Income Verification, not the US Embassy. You personally then would have to prove to Thai immigration the amount you swore to, by whatever means possible, and at the discretion of the Thai Immigration. If you fail, then welcome to being blacklisted, I think this would have weeded out plenty of questionable income affidavits, and not seriously rocked the boat.

CM immigration had started to do that with some US citizens. Appears that they were unhappy with the affidavits. AFIAA only the US and Australian embassies used that system.

[ocddave]

1 minute ago, Spidey said:

CM immigration had started to do that with some US citizens. Appears that they were unhappy with the affidavits. AFIAA only the US and Australian embassies used that system.

Still sounds like a better option then this current nuclear one, but its their country, their rules.

[Roy Baht]

3 minutes ago, ocddave said:

I am speaking about Thai Immigration challenging your Income Verification (if need be), not the US Embassy. You personally then would have to prove to Thai immigration the amount you swore to, by whatever means possible, and at the discretion of the Thai Immigration. If you fail, then welcome to being blacklisted, I think this would have weeded out plenty of questionable income affidavits, and not seriously rocked the boat.

I'm ok with that. But again, for everyone, there's the problem of what proves what. And obviously from a Thai point of view (and from Thai banks' point of view) the best proof that you have money is a bank statement from a Thai bank.

[Spidey]

2 minutes ago, SkyNets said:

So 65,000 baht is a reasonable pension is it, so why do they only pay 500 baht a month to their own or 30,000 baht if you have worked in the Gov for literally your whole life.

Thais live cheaper lifestyle. Also they are traditionally supported by their families when they retire. Try getting your farang kids to pay for your lifestyle in Thailand.

[Spidey]

Just now, ocddave said:

Still sounds like a better option then this current nuclear one, but its their country, their rules.

Not heir rules really. I'm convinced that if the Australian Embassies had asked for documented proof of income, as other embassies do, they would still be issuing embassy income letters now. In fact they could still do that, but they won't!

[ocddave]

3 minutes ago, Roy Baht said:

I'm ok with that. But again, for everyone, there's the problem of what proves what. And obviously from a Thai point of view (and from Thai banks' point of view) the best proof that you have money is a bank statement from a Thai bank.

Yes, that would be the Nuclear Option.....sort of like all of us removing our shoes at the airport, and be subjected to strip searches.

[ocddave]

1 minute ago, Spidey said:

Not heir rules really. I'm convinced that if the Australian Embassies had asked for documented proof of income, as other embassies do, they would still be issuing embassy income letters now. In fact they could still do that, but they won't!

I know my home country (US) would never do it, everyone would be scared of lawsuits.

[Roy Baht]

9 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Thais live cheaper lifestyle. Also they are traditionally supported by their families when they retire. Try getting your farang kids to pay for your lifestyle in Thailand.

Actually just from what I see (no objective research) I'm seeing that Thais are increasingly reluctant to take care of parents who don't give them money.