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

[steve73]

13 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

What happens when the 2 years are up? Can you do these visas back to back indefinitely? Seems odd  TI would make the rules it has for retirement extensions yet allow that large of a loophole , at least nor for long.

Friend of mine, Canadian, has been using O-A's for the past 9 or 10 years.. 6 months here, 6 in Canada.  He was initially using a new one every year, until I explained how to get the 2nd year by making his 2nd year entry a little earlier.  He doesn't want to break his stay here so won't use the ME-TV, or previously the Triple Entry. 

[ocddave]

The other horrible fact is sending this 800K here now is done so at a huge loss to expats due to the exchange rate, but a boon to the Thai banks who i am sure turn around and buy USD, or US property with it.

[Andrew Dwyer]

Friend of mine, Canadian, has been using O-A's for the past 9 or 10 years.. 6 months here, 6 in Canada.  He was initially using a new one every year, until I explained how to get the 2nd year by making his 2nd year entry a little earlier.  He doesn't want to break his stay here so won't use the ME-TV, or previously the Triple Entry. 

The OA is a great option to avoid all this Thai financial requirements malarkey, one i am seriously considering, helps if you make visits to your home country anyway.

[Sheryl]

36 minutes ago, steve73 said:

Friend of mine, Canadian, has been using O-A's for the past 9 or 10 years.. 6 months here, 6 in Canada.  He was initially using a new one every year, until I explained how to get the 2nd year by making his 2nd year entry a little earlier.  He doesn't want to break his stay here so won't use the ME-TV, or previously the Triple Entry. 

For someone spending 6 months out of Thailand each year it makes full sense.

 

But I will be surprised if back to back O-As by people living here full time continue to be possible indefinitely. It;s too big a loophole to the new regs and not what those visas where intended for. Just my opinion, I have no inside track info.

[steve73]

5 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

For someone spending 6 months out of Thailand each year it makes full sense.

 

But I will be surprised if back to back O-As by people living here full time continue to be possible indefinitely. It;s too big a loophole to the new regs and not what those visas where intended for. Just my opinion, I have no inside track info.

I disagree... The OA also makes perfect sense if someone wants to spend just a month or two in his (or her) own country every other year, and enjoys at least one local hop in between.

The cost (i.e. benefit to Thai embassies), is higher than the annual extensions, so UNLESS Thai I/O's are trying to encourage "agent" participation, there seem little point in stopping it. ... and therein lies the rub.  

 

[totally thaied up]

6 minutes ago, steve73 said:

The cost (i.e. benefit to Thai embassies), is higher than the annual extensions, so UNLESS Thai I/O's are trying to encourage "agent" participation, there seem little point in stopping it. ... and therein lies the rub. 

I have never been one to believe all the hype on this pushing people to use agents but what I saw on my Facebook Feed today, the amounts of money involved and how easy they say it is to still do, agent participation is a large part of this problem.

 

I honestly thought something was going to change but in reality, this is just going to drive it down darker and deeper and until people start getting locked up over it, nothing is going to change.

 

Just going to be harder on the honest ones.

[steve73]

3 minutes ago, totally thaied up said:

Just going to be harder on the honest ones.

 

This is what worries me... 

There's a few more sly tricks up their sleeve that they could play.  Some have been mentioned on these threads already, others I've not seen at all, and I'm not going to add fuel to the fire by spelling them out (again).

 

I would rather leave than have to play into their hands, but also, I have no problems with people who do have to make use of their services in order to stay here, at least until the cost becomes too much for them.

[David Walden]

3 hours ago, Sheryl said:

What happens when the 2 years are up? Can you do these visas back to back indefinitely? Seems odd  TI would make the rules it has for retirement extensions yet allow that large of a loophole , at least nor for long.

I believe it's similar to a tourist visa you can have them forever if you like over and over again.

[Jingthing]

5 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

Isn't the real issue here 'change'. Let's face it, we all get accustomed and adjust to a certain routine, then comes along a change that disrupts our known routines.

I don't think it was Roy Baht's intention to be smug, or insulting, he was just pointing out if you legally have the required funds to live in Thailand, the requirement to keep 800K in a Thai bank for 3 months after application shouldn't be an issue.

It will though mean a 'change' to how you manage your funds.

 

As you've stated and I'm sure a lot of other expats do exactly the same

Presumably you have a monthly income that you saved in order to top up your account to 800K again.

It just now means you may have to transfer those incomes for 3 months, before you can draw down on the 800K to a minimum of 400K. At next top up time you'll only have to transfer 400K to top up.

It's an inconvenience, a 'change' to the method you previously used, but it doesn't change the actual amount of income you need at your disposal.

 

If you were receiving 800K income before, you still only need 800K income.

No, it's onerous. Why sugar coat it? 

The most scary part is the 400K virtual bond.

So you're living your life and you have an unexpected large expense at any time for 1000 different reasons. You've got money here. In your bank account. You spend it. BINGO! You've just become an illegal alien.

I call B.S. on anyone trying to sugar coat that!

[Tanoshi]

11 hours ago, xylophone said:

At the moment the pounds sent to the London "branch" are converted in London to Thai baht, before being transferred (if indeed they actually are) to Thailand, so if this is changed, apparently my statement will now read International Transfer.

You can choose whether the London branch convert to THB, or it's sent in pounds and your Bangkok branch convert it.

https://www.bangkokbank.com/en/Personal/Other-Services/Transfers/Transferring-Into-Thailand/Transfer-money-from-UK-to-Thailand-via-London-Branch

Click on Fees and conversion options.

Either method will show as an FTT payment.

 

I used this method twice before switching to Transferwise.

In 6 years all transactions through TW are also coded as an FTT payment.

 

Paying your UK state pension direct into your Thai bank account (the cheapest method) is coded as BTN.

BTN = BAHTNET system paid through the Bank of Thailand through the UK governments funds account.

 

TI need to start learning the meanings of these codes in their banking system, which they now wish us to pay into.

 

 

[Tanoshi]

39 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

No, it's onerous. Why sugar coat it? 

The most scary part is the 400K virtual bond.

So you're living your life and you have an unexpected large expense at any time for 1000 different reasons. You've got money here. In your bank account. You spend it. BINGO! You've just become an illegal alien.

I call B.S. on anyone trying to sugar coat that!

Then keep your current reserve of cash in the bank for that unexpected expense and start transferring that 65K per month to use the income method. Problem solved.

For a sudden large unexpected expense, I can request a transfer at 5pm at night and it hits my Thai bank account at 9am next morning. Problem solved.

[Roy Baht]

6 hours ago, fforest1 said:

Your very nauseating to me too...In practically every post you make...

The feeling is mutual. Forgive me for being "smug" (i.e., honest) and "insulting" (i.e., truthful), but the people who don't have enough money to live here and are now furious that they can no longer lie about having enough money to live here (either through an agent or an affidavit), will have to find a another arrangement. That's not something I made up. It's just a fact. I started out having quite a bit of sympathy for people being forced out for lack of funds. But after reading the self-righteous rants of people who are clearly breaking the law but feel they are entitled to live here nonetheless (you're the smug ones) and having aspersions hurled at me just you stating my opinion (you're the insulting ones), it's becoming clear to me that Thailand will be better off without you. Bye.

[D3030]

Wouldn't it make more sense just to return to your home country and apply for a new OA visa, vice keeping 800K baht stuck in a Thai bank for any amount of time?

 

Sure, 1900 baht for a one year extension is better than purchasing a plane ticket and paying for the things required to get a visa, plus the cost of the visa itself, but it seems like a better option at the moment.

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, Tanoshi said:

Then keep your current reserve of cash in the bank for that unexpected expense and start transferring that 65K per month to use the income method. Problem solved.

For a sudden large unexpected expense, I can request a transfer at 5pm at night and it hits my Thai bank account at 9am next morning. Problem solved.

Dude, many or most retired expats do not have 65K month income!?! What do you think the bank method and combo method are about? Speaking as an American, I can say the vast majority of Americans on social security don't have as much as 65K as the average check is closer to 45K.

[ttrd]

2 hours ago, Roy Baht said:

The feeling is mutual. Forgive me for being "smug" (i.e., honest) and "insulting" (i.e., truthful), but the people who don't have enough money to live here and are now furious that they can no longer lie about having enough money to live here (either through an agent or an affidavit), will have to find a another arrangement. That's not something I made up. It's just a fact. I started out having quite a bit of sympathy for people being forced out for lack of funds. But after reading the self-righteous rants of people who are clearly breaking the law but feel they are entitled to live here nonetheless (you're the smug ones) and having aspersions hurled at me just you stating my opinion (you're the insulting ones), it's becoming clear to me that Thailand will be better off without you. Bye.

1st of all the announced change has not yet come to force, for the 2nd it is a huge possibility it never will so it can be an idea to see if anything will happen at all from March 1st and my bet is that it wont alternatively it will be started for a short period of time and then changed.

 

Anyway, whatever we discuss here will not change anything so no need to take sorrows in advance - JustSaying ... 

[CharlieH]

Keep it civil and STOP with the personal remarks.

[Jai Dee]

An argumentative off-topic troll post has been removed.

[wayned]

The US Income Affidavit is no more!  However, they have a blank affidavit that you could basically swear anything that you want.  It is not specifically addressed to immigration but you could put the exact statement that was in the old Income Affidavit in on the document,

 

I also affirm that I receive US$ __________ every month from the

United States Government and/or other sources. I am applying for a Thai visa/ an extension of a current Thai visa and any assistance you can provide in this request will be greatly appreciated.

 

It would have all of the certification signatures, embossed seal and dates as the old Income Affidavit although it would not be specifically addressed to Immigration.  It would be interesting how immigration would view the document, but most likely not worth the $50 that it would cost unless you took a completed document to them before the actual trip to the Embassy and got their approval.

blank-affidavit-bangkok-1.pdf

[JLCrab]

4 minutes ago, wayned said:

However, they have a blank affidavit that you could basically swear anything that you want.

Yes this one has been tossed around before. The new regs say for evidence e of income not less than 65,000 baht monthly

 

2) Income certification certified by the embassy or consular

 

while on the blank US affidavit the US Embassy doesn't certify anything as to income in fact says:

 

"The U. S. Embassy does not guarantee the contents of my own sworn statement ..."

[wayned]

Just now, JLCrab said:

Yes this one has been tossed around before. The new regs say for evidence e of income not less than 65,000 baht monthly

 

2) Income certification certified by the embassy or consular

 

while on the blank US affidavit the US Embassy doesn't certify anything as to income in fact says:

 

"The U. S. Embassy does not guarantee the contents of my own sworn statement ..."

The old Affidavit didn't guarantee the contents of the statement either, it never has!  It was always a sworn statement by the applicant that the information contained on the document was true as all notarized statements are.  The only difference is that it is not addressed directly to Immigration and actually contains more information regarding the applicant than the original Income Affidavit. 

[Andrew Dwyer]

4 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

Understand initial OA requirements, But to get 1 yr extension is where I get lost. Is the extension obtained in TL or in home country?

Extension is done in Thailand, which is where the financial requirements ( money in Thai bank, international transfer, etc etc ) come into place.

Hence the option to obtain a new OA ( in your home country) every two years is great as it does not need a Thai bank or transfers etc etc .

 

Not an option for everyone, but if you visit your home country every two years, for example, is worth considering.

 

( or are you referring to how to get 2 years from an OA ? )

[JLCrab]

25 minutes ago, wayned said:

The old Affidavit didn't guarantee the contents of the statement either, it never has!

Yes and that is why it was scrapped as the IMM folks said it would no longer be acceptable.

 

From US Embassy - Bangkok website (excerpted):

FAQS: CESSATION OF INCOME AFFIDAVITS.

Why is the U.S. Embassy making this decision?

The self-sworn affidavits notarized at the Embassy and Consulate General do not meet the Thai requirement to certify the income of U.S. citizens. 

[ubonjoe]

This topic again got a few pages shorter after I did a bulk cleanup to remove troll, off topic, bickering, baiting posts and etc.

[wayned]

Just now, JLCrab said:

Yes and that is why it was scrapped as the IMM folks said it would no longer be acceptable.

 

From US Embassy - Bangkok website (excerpted):

FAQS: CESSATION OF INCOME AFFIDAVITS.

Why is the U.S. Embassy making this decision?

The self-sworn affidavits notarized at the Embassy and Consulate General do not meet the Thai requirement to certify the income of U.S. citizens. 

I realize that but I have used the Affidavit fir at least 10 years.  I wonder what wound happen if the Thai Immigration came out and said that all Embassies that still issue the Affidavits put the following statement  on it

 

"The XXXXXX Embassy certifies that  the amount stated above  is received by the applicant every month"

[JLCrab]

5 minutes ago, wayned said:

I realize that but I have used the Affidavit fir at least 10 years. 

So have I but I guess I won't be using it next year.

[Olmate]

30 minutes ago, JLCrab said:

So have I but I guess I won't be using it next year.

So going by the usual critics on here( who have recently resurfaced) you, him, and me are to blame for lying on said embassy letters and causing this latest amendment concern!

[JLCrab]

4 minutes ago, Olmate said:

So going by the usual critics on here( who have recently resurfaced) you, him, and me are to blame for lying on said embassy letters and causing this latest amendment concern!

I don't have the slightest idea but I think the embassies, that are still issuing income letters, have taken the attitude that, if we need to certify to the Thai IMM folks that the moon is made of green cheese to help our citizens in Thailand get an extension, that's what we're going to do.

[wayned]

Just now, Olmate said:

So going by the usual critics on here( who have recently resurfaced) you, him, and me are to blame for lying on said embassy letters and causing this latest amendment concern!

No, just go back above and read my post 2281.  IMHO, the whole crap was caused by the British Embassy because they can never get their head and ass wired together.  They should  rename it ILXIT, Income letter exit!

[Pib]

22 hours ago, xylophone said:

Perhaps some good news on this Sheryl (and others) as I have been making enquiries to the UK pension service, the UK "branch" of Bangkok bank and also my own New Zealand pension service to look at alternatives.

 

The main worry for me was the UK pension service paying into the London "branch" of the Bangkok bank and when that money appeared in my bank statement here it did not state it was an international transfer. HOWEVER, I've been discussing this with the liaison person in that London "branch" of Bangkok bank and she informs me that if I get my UK pension paid in pounds to them, and request that they send pounds to my Thai bank account, then it will register as an international transfer here.

 

At the moment the pounds sent to the London "branch" are converted in London to Thai baht, before being transferred (if indeed they actually are) to Thailand, so if this is changed, apparently my statement will now read International Transfer.

 

On the one hand that's fantastic, however on the other hand the service will cost me £20 at the London end and anything between 200 and 500 baht at the Thai end, so more expensive than other methods (some of which I'm still investigating) but at least it's very doable!

 

Perhaps the same thing is applicable to folks remitting from the USA?

 

Sounds like when you registered with Bangkok Bank London you chose the "clearing service option" of 92 00 10 00 which means the London branch does the exchange...and their exchange rate is worst than the Thai bank TT Buying Rate.  Basically you are getting a western bank's exchange rate which x-percent lower than Thai bank TT Buying Rate.   You should have chosen clearing option 92 00 20 00.

 

Yes, you get a lower direct sending fee of 15 pounds by allowing the London branch to do the exchange compared to 20 pounds if "not" letting them do the exchange.  But the London branch more than makes up for that 5 pounds difference when they zap you with their lower exchange rate.  Always send your home country currency....do not let the sending bank do the exchange....let the receiving Thai bank in Thailand accomplish the conversion.

 

[xylophone]

10 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

You can choose whether the London branch convert to THB, or it's sent in pounds and your Bangkok branch convert it.

https://www.bangkokbank.com/en/Personal/Other-Services/Transfers/Transferring-Into-Thailand/Transfer-money-from-UK-to-Thailand-via-London-Branch

Click on Fees and conversion options.

Either method will show as an FTT payment.

 

I used this method twice before switching to Transferwise.

In 6 years all transactions through TW are also coded as an FTT payment.

 

Paying your UK state pension direct into your Thai bank account (the cheapest method) is coded as BTN.

BTN = BAHTNET system paid through the Bank of Thailand through the UK governments funds account.

 

TI need to start learning the meanings of these codes in their banking system, which they now wish us to pay into.

 

 

Thanks (again) for the info and the Bkk Bank link, Tanoshi, very much appreciated. 

 

You did say that either method using Bkk Bank will show as an FTT payment, however the one I use currently which is the conversion to baht in the UK and then transferred to Thailand shows up on my Thai account as purely, "Transfer" with a notation as "Auto"?? If it did show up as an FTT payment I would be happy, that is of course presupposing that immigration know what that actually means (as you quite rightly pointed out in your post)!

 

I have contacted the UK pension folk to see what their charges are for transferring money directly into my Thailand account, however I seem to recall (maybe I'm wrong on this as time and red wine do not help the remaining brain cell) that they use Citibank to distribute UK pensions?? Maybe that's the case, maybe it isn't, however I'm still waiting for a reply from them.

 

You did state that paying the UK pension directly into my Thai bank account is the cheapest, and if that is the case, I will surely take it as my recalculation of the fees to send pounds to Bangkok bank here equates to 5.5% of the amount sent – – far too high when other options are available. And on that subject maybe Transferwise is the best bet, however again others have said that it does not show as an FTT payment whereas you seem to have been lucky in that regard.

 

Anyway for the moment I thank you for your information and I'm still waiting for the UK pension folk to reply and also keeping in mind your Transferwise info.