SURVEY: Will the new financial requirements force you to leave?

[JackThompson]

20 hours ago, ocddave said:

They are just slowly pushing people away, best way to do it actually. If they outright ended Visa's that would make a bigger stink, when you want to make someone leave, you just make it harder on them until they make the choice themselves. 

Also minimizes the backlash, since a smaller number of Thais lose their jobs each month - vs a ton of them losing their jobs all at the same time, which would result in the numbers and joint-motivation to draw attention to what was being done to them.

[BritManToo]

6 minutes ago, GeoMill said:

Are you sure? When I went for the same visa (single) version, I had to show marriage certificate and proof of finances to support myself. They didn't ask for a specifik number, but I did have to show a bank statement. This was at the Thai Embassy in my home country though. 

No financials required at Suvannakhet or HCMC for married non-o multi.

HCMC want an additional  note from your wife asking them to give you the VISA.

Different Thai consulates in different countries have different rules.

[JackThompson]

11 hours ago, mania said:

Of the whole new requirements for baht in the bank this

part is the most odd to me....

 

I mean if Thailand Imm wants to weed out future problems at hospitals or expats without money/ medical insurance or being a unfunded load on Thai hospitals then isn't this bone they are tossing to older expats going in the wrong direction?

 

Would seem folks who have lived here more than 20 years are older & more likely to need medical care.  (need more savings as medical insurance becomes harder to get after 65 in Thailand for many)  Also means they have likely not earned western wages in a long time or maybe have a smaller/older pension if any at all.

 

Thailand has a way of swallowing expats the longer they stay the more Thai many become financially. 

So again this reduced requirement may be at the wrong end of the spectrum

Just goes to show these changes are about reducing the OVERALL numbers of us here - and there are likely very few in that grandfathered group.  Those writing these rules don't care how many baht are lost in the hospital system, since that doesn't come out of their pocket.  Nor do they care how many Thais lose their jobs, since those Thais don't give them money.

 

All they care about, is that we are paying them personal-tribute (agents, elite-visa, etc), or gone.  They are satisfied with either choice.

[roo860]

Are you sure? When I went for the same visa (single) version, I had to show marriage certificate and proof of finances to support myself. They didn't ask for a specifik number, but I did have to show a bank statement. This was at the Thai Embassy in my home country though. 

No proof of finances required in Savanaket, there's plenty of info in the visa section.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[giddyup]

42 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

 

Philippines ask you to sign a declaration that you have $10,000 in savings and a monthly pension.

They have never asked me or anyone I know to see any evidence/letter/bank book/etc.

And that "declaration" is worth what, not the papers it's written on, that's why some embassies have done away with the stat. dec, it was just a loophole to circumvent having 800K in the bank.

[JackThompson]

 

33 minutes ago, ozmeldo said:

Anyone that has lied to the consular official

Very few - it's a felony offense for Americans and Aussies.  Have you seen any study indicating otherwise?

 

33 minutes ago, ozmeldo said:

and those that had their visas fixed.

... will continue to do so, plus many more that legally qualified until these changes occurred.  The agents and corrupt IOs will be wealthier than ever.

 

36 minutes ago, ozmeldo said:

Of course this will not deter the dead-enders. They never abided by the law and it will be big joke that rounds them up for overstay all the while continuing to moan about their God given right to be here and

They abided by the law.  The rules / goalposts have just been moved. 

 

36 minutes ago, ozmeldo said:

how they personally are propping up the economy.

Just supporting several Thais each with our spending.  Why don't you go out and pick which Thais should have their lives ruined.  Look them in the face, and tell them those whose spending supports them are being booted-out because you don't approve of them, so those Thais need to go back to subsistence-farming - if their families still have a farm, since that job (which you have decided they do not need) may have been to pay off a agricultural-loan, for which their farm is collateral.

 

And, btw, and all those men who you resent seeing with Thai women (who still act like women) - we will always find a way.  We're not going back.  The spinsters can enjoy their cats.

[NanLaew]

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

All the countries around Thailand require no proof of funding at all to stay for a year.

(Malaysia is the nearest one wanting proof of funding, but they give 3 months waiver on entry)

Thailand is the only one demanding 800k in a local bank account.

Why are you writing this misinformation?

If you want to 'stay for a year' in Thailand, there's no requirement to prove your worth either. It is only when you want to do it for longer or 'perpetually' as the member you responded to has suggested, then they all pretty much have their own circus of hoops that need jumping through including having money.

 

Anyway, the whole Thailand comparison with near neighbors argument is totally pointless and irrelevant as none of them have managed to corner the market in being a desirable repository for burned out and worthless old foreigners.

[JackThompson]

On 2/3/2019 at 12:20 PM, zydeco said:

I selected "jeopardized" not because I cannot meet the new requirements but because I think we're being squeezed, that new rules are coming, and I'm tired of it all. I just want to go to some place that will leave me in peace. 

Exactly.  This particular change does not end it, but the way it was done (28 days notice and no grandfathering??) indicates my and all non-very-rich foreigner's futures here are in jeopardy, regardless of one's type of extension. 

Past grandfathering gave us some hope that those here longer-term were relatively safe.  But, at this point, we know that immigration cannot be trusted not to do something rash and unpredictable - even affecting to those who have been here long-term - without any logical reason for doing so. 

[BritManToo]

15 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

f you want to 'stay for a year' in Thailand, there's no requirement to prove your worth either. It is only when you want to do it for longer or 'perpetually' as the member you responded to has suggested,

Now you're just being silly, a year (15 month non-o, 2 year o-a) )in Thailand is the longest any of us 'retirees' can get, unless you go Elite.

[roger buttmore]

2 hours ago, AjarnMartin said:

I transferred my first TW monies to my BKK Bank today so it will arrive tomorrow! I wait with baited breath to see the record in my bank book. ????????

I checked my Bangkok Bank history a few days ago to see what was stated as I'd never really paid attention to it up until a few days ago. All my transfers from Transferwise over the past year were shown as 'International Transfer'.

 

 

Reading some of the comments here targeting guys who may struggle to maintain the necessary numbers in their accounts in the future speaks volumes about the individuals making them. Some of you should be truly ashamed of yourselves.

 

Just a few years ago (pre-brexit) B65,000 would've cost you £1,200. Now it costs £1,600. That is a 30% increase in less than 3 years. Yes, people should plan their retirements with a certain level of financial flexibility in order to cover fluctuations, but mocking them because there have been extremes in recent times is pure evil.

[BritManToo]

8 minutes ago, roger buttmore said:

Just a few years ago (pre-brexit) B65,000 would've cost you £1,200. Now it costs £1,600. That is a 30% increase in less than 3 years. Yes, people should plan their retirements with a certain level of financial flexibility in order to cover fluctuations, but mocking them because there have been extremes in recent times is pure evil.

Well said Roger, I've been adding the nasties to my ignore list.

[JackThompson]

42 minutes ago, giddyup said:

And that "declaration" is worth what, not the papers it's written on, that's why some embassies have done away with the stat. dec, it was just a loophole to circumvent having 800K in the bank.

No, lying = felony prison time (USA and AU) - all immigration had to do was report the liars.  And all the liars had to do was go to an agent, who would fake the 800K, and they didn't have to worry about a felony-charge in their passport-country.

 

What the stat-docs did - which Immigration found objectionable - was circumvent thousands of agent applications by people who qualified by having the required gross-income.  Demanding the full min-income be foreign-xferred here every month is a big move of the goalposts, and ensures a huge increase in agent/IO money.

 

The new "money in the bank" change improves the agent-racket even further - ensuring fewer honest-applicants can qualify, and that alternate lenders are completely blocked from competing with immigration's agents - the only ones whose applications don't require seasoning.

 

Some predict the agent-business will get hit, rather than helped.  That is a possibility, since the hardliner's view seems to be at "a farang gone" is as good as "a farang paying us off."  The guys at the top of that clique, given their positions, can always use their power to manufacture more extortion opportunities, after all.  But I would bet the agent-business model is shifted, rather than eliminated.

[Spidey]

12 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

No, lying = felony prison time (USA and AU) - all immigration had to do was report the liars. 

And how would immigration know that they were lying?

[JackThompson]

8 minutes ago, Spidey said:

And how would immigration know that they were lying?

If asked for backup docs, and presented detectable fakes.  Or when/if they are in a situation at some point w/o money to pay a bill. 

It would only take a few cases on the news - prosecuted locally and referred to their passport-country for another dose of fun - to scare the pants off of anyone considering using a fake embassy-letter.

[tgeezer]

I visit for five months per year, use fixed deposit of 800,000, so I am not affected by changes.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[NanLaew]

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Now you're just being silly, a year (15 month non-o, 2 year o-a) )in Thailand is the longest any of us 'retirees' can get, unless you go Elite.

As you correctly point out, the best that 'retirees' can get is the one year (15 month non-o, 2 year o-a. If you can't qualify as a retiree, then you shouldn't be arguing to obtain the immigration status you don't qualify for. Same can be said for all these perpetual tourists as well.

 

Meanwhile, a bona fide retiree can get a 1 year extendable stay in Thailand, pretty much in perpetuity as long as he/she can fulfill the once-a-year financial show and tell.

 

I believe this was what bojo was suggesting when he commented:

On 2/3/2019 at 5:48 AM, bojo said:

After all, how many countries in the world are there where one can just rock up with 800K Baht and live there perpetually. I suspect there are non which can match what the kingdom has to offer....

To which you responded with the 'grass is greener' notion that all Thailand's neighbors don't need to see any cash 'to stay for a year'.

3 hours ago, BritManToo said:

All the countries around Thailand require no proof of funding at all to stay for a year.

(Malaysia is the nearest one wanting proof of funding, but they give 3 months waiver on entry)

Thailand is the only one demanding 800k in a local bank account.

Why are you writing this misinformation?

bojo isn't talking about 'staying for a year' and neither am I. Hard to see how you can accuse his comment as misinformation when by saying 'perpetually' he is clearly talking about long-term and you are qualifying your view by citing the one-off, 1-year requirement of Thailand's neighbors. Bit of apples and oranges no?

 

When it comes to being able to live in a foreign country in perpetuity, despite the recent hue and cry about the new methods required of the citizens of 4 nations to prove how much money they have and the ability to bank it in Thailand, it really isn't too hard to satisfy the requirements and stay here long term.

 

I am sure that the Thai language has something similar to 'separating the wheat from the chaff'.

 

[BritManToo]

12 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Meanwhile, a bona fide retiree can get a 1 year extendable stay in Thailand, pretty much in perpetuity as long as he/she can fulfill the once-a-year financial show and tell.

But you can't, you can only get that year under that years rules.

Next year will have different rules that you may or may not be able to meet.

Unless they sell you a ten year VISA extension, you're buying a year at a time.

No amount of denial on your part will change that year into a longer term.

Same for all the other countries, they are all selling 1 year at a time, with no guarantee after.

 

I'm OK living my life a year at a time, next year I might be dead.

I try not to think too much about the future, I've already lived longer than I expected.

(And I haven't exactly been living a sedate life, free of risks)

 

[NanLaew]

2 hours ago, JackThompson said:

No, lying = felony prison time (USA and AU) - all immigration had to do was report the liars.  And all the liars had to do was go to an agent, who would fake the 800K, and they didn't have to worry about a felony-charge in their passport-country.

 

What the stat-docs did - which Immigration found objectionable - was circumvent thousands of agent applications by people who qualified by having the required gross-income.  Demanding the full min-income be foreign-xferred here every month is a big move of the goalposts, and ensures a huge increase in agent/IO money.

 

The new "money in the bank" change improves the agent-racket even further - ensuring fewer honest-applicants can qualify, and that alternate lenders are completely blocked from competing with immigration's agents - the only ones whose applications don't require seasoning.

 

Some predict the agent-business will get hit, rather than helped.  That is a possibility, since the hardliner's view seems to be at "a farang gone" is as good as "a farang paying us off."  The guys at the top of that clique, given their positions, can always use their power to manufacture more extortion opportunities, after all.  But I would bet the agent-business model is shifted, rather than eliminated.

And when agents stop answering the phone and Immigration starts enforcing the 'applicant must attend in person' rule, this rather fragile construct of some vast Immigration-agent mafia that doesn't like us anyway will all fall down. It's only 4 embassy's that have stopped issuing these documents after all.

[jmd8800]

Thailand has durations of stay from 15 days to 20 years. One might not like the terms of those options but it is hard to say that the Thai government does not want outsiders to stay here.

 

[jacko45k]

14 hours ago, JackThompson said:

For each of us that leaves, several Thai people lose their jobs

I certainly don't support several full time, just the one, the Mrs! Some others may lose a tiny fraction of their workload, the checkout katoey stands around 1 minute more a week. Mostly they will move on to different jobs, catering to a different sector or market, evolving.

[JackThompson]

9 hours ago, jmd8800 said:

Thailand has durations of stay from 15 days to 20 years. One might not like the terms of those options but it is hard to say that the Thai government does not want outsiders to stay here.

Even the 20-yr elite is renewed annually.  Given how foreigners are being treated, and the trend of increasing dislike for us in influential circles, and the fact that those on this form of stay are not yet required to prove they "still have money" year-on-year, a 20-yr long-term of a bet seems a bit tenuous.  OTOH, it's only a few thousand people who made "generous contributions," so would not be a target for awhile yet. 

 

As to not wanting us - first they came for the visa-exempt users, then the ED-Visa users (higher "extra fee" payoffs), then the Tourist Visa users (illegally denied-entry based on lies), then the Married-to-a-Thai extensions (irrelevant hoops galore), now the Retirement extensions (moving financial goalposts), ...

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, jacko45k said:

I certainly don't support several full time, just the one, the Mrs! Some others may lose a tiny fraction of their workload, the checkout katoey stands around 1 minute more a week. Mostly they will move on to different jobs, catering to a different sector or market, evolving.

Every time you spend foreign-sourced money in Thailand, you support Thai jobs.  The money you spend is not "recycled" money, like from a Thai paycheck - but "free wealth" poured in via foreign-exchange. 

 

Every 10K or so you spend pays a Thai salary (entry-level job, but higher wages than "industrial" in Bangkok).  Every 10K or so not spent by a foreigner here, means the money literally doesn't exist in the country to pay that Thai salary, because it was never imported. 

 

If those "other jobs" were available and paid as well or better, they would be working them now.  Most will be forced back to subsistence-farming - and never counted as "unemployed" - after they lose their job due to immigration-policy.

[jacko45k]

5 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Most will be forced back to subsistence-farming - and never counted as "unemployed" - after they lose their job due to immigration-policy.

What you say may fit for older bargirls or MP women. But honestly, plenty of jobs in Thailand and very much expanding. Enough life in the economy to make my contributions petty.

I feel more for those married to and living with an Expat who now may be forced to leave, including their kids. Their 64,000 a month suited them fine.

[jmd8800]

44 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Even the 20-yr elite is renewed annually.  Given how foreigners are being treated, and the trend of increasing dislike for us in influential circles, and the fact that those on this form of stay are not yet required to prove they "still have money" year-on-year, a 20-yr long-term of a bet seems a bit tenuous.  OTOH, it's only a few thousand people who made "generous contributions," so would not be a target for awhile yet. 

 

As to not wanting us - first they came for the visa-exempt users, then the ED-Visa users (higher "extra fee" payoffs), then the Tourist Visa users (illegally denied-entry based on lies), then the Married-to-a-Thai extensions (irrelevant hoops galore), now the Retirement extensions (moving financial goalposts), ...

As my mother would say: Inside every head is a whole other world.

 

I've read your comments for a long time now. Your disdain and contempt for Thais and Thai gov't are astounding.

[JackThompson]

27 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

What you say may fit for older bargirls or MP women. But honestly, plenty of jobs in Thailand and very much expanding. Enough life in the economy to make my contributions petty.

An "older Thai woman" cannot get many jobs, due to age discrimination.  But, if you look at who works in areas where longer-term expats live and shop, only a tiny percentage are bargirls and MP women - and those occupations would be harder-hurt by a crackdown on Short-Term Tourists (gogo girls and streetwalkers even more so).

 

The vast majority of entry-level jobs we create have no connection to sex-work at all.  The influx of foreign workers makes the situation worse, driving down salaries and removing jobs from Thais - with the hard-hit including kitchen-help and maids, specific to the tourist sector. 

 

Which "expanding" job opportunities do you see, for entry-level (high school or less educated) Thais (the vast majority), which pay as well as working in establishments that serve Western expat clients?

 

27 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

I feel more for those married to and living with an Expat who now may be forced to leave, including their kids. Their 64,000 a month suited them fine.

They only need 40K / mo per the rules.  But if using money in-the-bank, the seasoning-time is being increased in some offices, which will harm many families.

[JackThompson]

6 minutes ago, jmd8800 said:

As my mother would say: Inside every head is a whole other world.

 

I've read your comments for a long time now. Your disdain and contempt for Thais and Thai gov't are astounding.

Please show where I have expressed disdain for Thais. 

I have disdain for the corrupt and farang-hating clique within Thai immigration (not all IOs) - quite a different thing.  Their actions are hurting their fellow-citizens, as well as us.

[lamyai3]

20 minutes ago, jmd8800 said:

I've read your comments for a long time now. Your disdain and contempt for Thais and Thai gov't are astounding.

The Thai government's contempt and disdain for their fellow countrymen is astounding. 

[zydeco]

16 hours ago, ozmeldo said:

This lot deserves every bit of what's come down. I'm surprised it didn't happen years ago honestly.

I'll bet when you were in third grade and the teacher asked for someone to volunteer to be the classroom monitor that your hand was the first one to shoot up, while saying, "me, me, me, please!"

[Chongalulu]

On 2/3/2019 at 8:03 PM, OJAS said:

 

I have a Bangkok Bank account and made several TransferWise transfers into it. In all but 1 case, these transfers were also routed through Bangkok Bank and ended up coded FTT in my passbook. In the remaining case, though, the transfer was routed through TMB and ended up coded SMT in my passbook - which, I was advised in response to an enquiry I initiated on the banking forum, stood for the following:- 

SMT

System for Managing Automated Retail Funds Transfer

Service for interbank funds transfer via online order submission

Clearly not even a teeny-weeny whiff of any "international transfer" odour about it! For this reason I have stopped using TransferWise for my future 65k+ monthly transfers from the UK.

 

 

 

 

I use a similar fx company with the same issues - I have 3 uk bank accounts and one (first direct) unlike the other 2 (£25)have no transfer fees. However today as I was about to transfer equivalent  65k gave an exchange rate of 0.5 baht per £ less than World first currency = £23 on the transaction ...so the equivalent of a fee! So at best you’re going to incur costs of an additional £276 per annum . I’ll be reverting to marriage visa next January.

[Hugh Geen]

If sterling drops below 30baht I may have a problem.