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

[Khaeng Mak]

49 minutes ago, ozmeldo said:

High drama here

 

Life is based on similar situations and circumstances.

 

It's what often drives migration, families are routinely broken up so breadwinners can chase money to feed their families.

 

What do you expect from the country? Permanent residency for being broke? That's a serious question, not being flippant.

I'm not broke.  I am just old, sick (cancer) and disabled. Thanks for your input.

[NCC1701A]

1 hour ago, TheThai said:

I did not see anything that stated you have to PROVE the transfers were from abroad.  That is pure speculation by forum members.  It only states having monthly income transfers of 65k a month.  Period.

OK you go first and let us know how things went. 

[BritManToo]

My vote, "Who can predict the future"

They might change the rules so I can't stay, I might die before that.

I'm thinking 80% of foreigners would be driven out before me, but who wants to live in a place that treats foreigners like that?

[Khaeng Mak]

3 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

The more I think about this, the harder it is to understand what these new rules re 800K are expected to achieve.

 

If the problem is foreigners living here without adequate means to support themselves (and I agree that happens and is a concern), how does tying up people's money so they can't spend it under any circumstance help with that? On the contrary I would say that by requiring what amounts to a 400K bond, all you do is deplete people's savings by 400K thereby likely increasing the numbers of people without adequate financial buffer to fall back on.

 

If the problem is illegal extensions being granted, nothing in this law addresses that.  Agents abetted by corrupt IOs will get around these new requirements just as easily as they did the old.

Yes Sheryl I just had the same epiphany also.  If immigration wont let us get at our money why cant we lock up up in a condo or business purchase? That is why I just started the following thread.  I would welcome your comments:

 

 

[mokwit]

I will be gone from here at some point as this is 'no country for old men' - I don't want to sit there in my old age worrying that my visa criteria will be changed in a way that excludes me, forcing me to up sticks at an age when that is difficult/impossible.

[bojo]

4 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

The more I think about this, the harder it is to understand what these new rules re 800K are expected to achieve.

 

If the problem is foreigners living here without adequate means to support themselves (and I agree that happens and is a concern), how does tying up people's money so they can't spend it under any circumstance help with that? On the contrary I would say that by requiring what amounts to a 400K bond, all you do is deplete people's savings by 400K thereby likely increasing the numbers of people without adequate financial buffer to fall back on.

 

If the problem is illegal extensions being granted, nothing in this law addresses that.  Agents abetted by corrupt IOs will get around these new requirements just as easily as they did the old.

It's filtration.........

they want the have's, not the have not's.

Pure and simple

[NanLaew]

1 hour ago, Chicken George said:

When will the Thai government realise its not what you have in the bank its how much you spend here. ...

When will most foreigners realize it's not how much you have socked away in the Caymans but what's in your Thai bank account here? They don't care how or where you spend it just as long as the greater part of what they want is secured in a Thai bank account.

[Nowisee]

Will the new financial requirements force you to leave?  No.

Will the new financial requirements make me consider leaving?  Yes.

They changed the rules from NOT having to have the money in country.  Not what I want to do.   
 

The Spain/France/Portugal option is looking much better these days.  The hiking, motorcycling, cycling, food, music, mountains, ocean and air quality... MUCH nicer.
 

[mokwit]

1 hour ago, korkenzieher said:

The way I look at it, since there is no way that I can accrue a right to stay, then this moving of the goal posts is a wake-up call on the precarious nature of retiring in the Land of Shake-ups. I would rather make the move now, say within the next 18 months, and on my own agenda, than be exposed to the risk of the rules shifting around me when I am a good chunk older and cannot quite so easily deal with it.

 

I could deal with this change, but the writing is on the wall for me, for sure. Rules could also be changed back either once they realise the impact this has, or once the election is past. But the simple fact is that I don't want my life in my dotage, to be subject to the whims of ill considered (or conceivably malicious) immigration rule changes, every time someone feels the need to impress his bosses.

Exactly how I feel.

[BritManToo]

31 minutes ago, worgeordie said:

People seem to be making a big fuss about the changes,

which really only boil down to having the cash in the bank

a bit longer,only go to immigration once a year,90 days done

online,been here 31 years and Thailand has been very good

to me,so hopefully i will die here,and stay here,as i already

have a grave bought in the foreign cemetery.

regards worgeordie

I haven't had any cash in a Thai bank since the coup.

Seemed a bit too risky.

[jmd8800]

1 hour ago, TheThai said:

I'm not sure where you are from but there are more American expats living in the Philippines than in Thailand.

 

That is one reason I would avoid the Phils.

 

Disclaimer: I am American

[NCC1701A]

55 minutes ago, ozmeldo said:

Philippines is sketchy as hell. Armed guards everywhere. Open shops are caged in. It's one step from open civil war and food riots. Most subsisting on 2-3 dollar a day.

 

Expat scams around. You'll have a target on your back the moment you step off the plane.

Sounds like my kind of place.  Hua Hin is boring as hell.

[Sheryl]

5 minutes ago, bojo said:

It's filtration.........

they want the have's, not the have not's.

Pure and simple

But it does nto serve that purpose. The "have nots" will still be here, using agents as before.

 

The "haves" will just all have 400-800K less than they used to have.

 

 

[BritManToo]

57 minutes ago, ozmeldo said:

Philippines is sketchy as hell. Armed guards everywhere. Open shops are caged in. It's one step from open civil war and food riots. Most subsisting on 2-3 dollar a day.

 

Expat scams around. You'll have a target on your back the moment you step off the plane.

I've been there lots in the past four years.

It was a really nice place to live, everyone spoke English and were very friendly.

France is nearer to civil war than the Philippines IMHO.

[NanLaew]

7 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

The more I think about this, the harder it is to understand what these new rules re 800K are expected to achieve.

 

If the problem is foreigners living here without adequate means to support themselves (and I agree that happens and is a concern), how does tying up people's money so they can't spend it under any circumstance help with that? On the contrary I would say that by requiring what amounts to a 400K bond, all you do is deplete people's savings by 400K thereby likely increasing the numbers of people without adequate financial buffer to fall back on.

 

If the problem is illegal extensions being granted, nothing in this law addresses that.  Agents abetted by corrupt IOs will get around these new requirements just as easily as they did the old.

It's like a tax by stealth. They haven't officially changed the minimum fiscal requirements like so many doomsayers say is an inevitability. By asking the retiree to bank the same 800 k and not touch it, they know that in all practicality he/she will need yet ANOTHER 800 k to live on, thus they have covertly doubled the income requirements for long-stayers without having it wrote in any statutes.

[bojo]

9 minutes ago, Nowisee said:

Will the new financial requirements force you to leave?  No.

Will the new financial requirements make me consider leaving?  Yes.

 

The Spain/France/Portugal option is looking much better these days.  The hiking, motorcycling, cycling, food, music, mountains... MUCH nicer.
 

not to mention 'likeminded'

[Sheryl]

3 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

It's like a tax by stealth. They haven't officially changed the minimum fiscal requirements like so many doomsayers say is an inevitability. By asking the retiree to bank the same 800 k and not touch it, they know that in all practicality he/she will need yet ANOTHER 800 k to live on, thus they have covertly doubled the income requirements for long-stayers without having it wrote in any statutes.

But without increasing people's spend-able income. The worst of both worlds.

 

if they had doubled the income requirement people would have more money to spend while here and likely many would in fact respond by spending more. I know I would. I'd change from US credit cards paid out of my US bank to Thai cards paid from my Thai account, for starters. 

 

Not with this system, though. In fact there is an incentive to spend as little as possible so as to reduce the amount one has to bring in to live on beyond the required 800K.

[zydeco]

1 hour ago, TheThai said:

No where did I state I was moving to the Philippines.  I was responded to the fact he stated he didn't know of a country that didn't require the financial responsibilities that Thailand is now requiring.

Below is statistics of crime rate.   Thailand actually has a higher crime rate than the Philippines.
https://www.worldofbuzz.com/malaysia-ranks-number-1-south-east-asia-highest-crime-rate/

That is very interesting. I don't know how they are defining crime and subcategories such as violent crime versus fraud/theft. But it does give reason to pause and think.

[how241]

As with many/most new Thai laws,  they are quickly enacted without a lot of thinking behind them.  That's why most get changed in a few weeks.  Give this issue a little time. 

[bojo]

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I've been there lots in the past four years.

It was a really nice place to live, everyone spoke English and were very friendly.

France is nearer to civil war than the Philippines IMHO.

The whole world is closer to civil war, you are right, just we never really think it's going to happen in our  lifetime, god forbid.....

[wgdanson]

1 hour ago, TheThai said:

I did not see anything that stated you have to PROVE the transfers were from abroad.  That is pure speculation by forum members.  It only states having monthly income transfers of 65k a month.  Period.

Oh I see, you are new here. How new?

 

Last Wednesday. I suggest you read some of the past posts on this subject before 'insulting' forum members.

[NanLaew]

6 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I haven't had any cash in a Thai bank since the coup.

Seemed a bit too risky.

Living ATM-to-mouth is just as risky IMHO. I was working in Brazil for a couple of years around 1995, happily sucking my locally-earned, overseas banked and non-domiciled cash out of ATM machines. While I was on a beach idyll in Jericocoara, they changed the rules and when I got back to the city, I found that foreign bank-issued plastic didn't work in any ATM any more. Luckily for me, Miss Anna Keila Silva da Silva, my bit-titted squeeze at the time was not only well-endowed but also well-minted.

[zydeco]

50 minutes ago, anon7854 said:

It's weird how the Philippines is the "11th most dangerous country for tourists" because of the Islamic insurgency in a tiny part of the southernmost islands where there is zero tourism (neither local or international). Thailand has the same problem with Islamist rebels in southern Thailand, but western media does not report on it.

The last time I was sort of southwards was about seven years ago in Hat Yai. Police and army cordons around the airport. No marked taxis. Three weeks after I returned to Bangkok, I bomb blew up the hotel where I had been staying.

[BritManToo]

4 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Living ATM-to-mouth is just as risky IMHO. I was working in Brazil for a couple of years around 1995, happily sucking my locally-earned, overseas banked and non-domiciled cash out of ATM machines. While I was on a beach idyll in Jericocoara, they changed the rules and when I got back to the city, I found that foreign bank-issued plastic didn't work in any ATM any more. Luckily for me, Miss Anna Keila Silva da Silva, my bit-titted squeeze at the time was not only well-endowed but also well-minted.

I started using money transfer companies, HiFx at first, then switched to Transferwise as I can move money in 24hrs. As long as the internet works, I can move money around.

[NanLaew]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

I started using money transfer companies, HiFx at first, then switched to Transferwise as I can move money in 24hrs.

Into a Thai bank account?

[spidermike007]

It does appear that this administration, and especially the biggest joke, are trying to do everything in their power to discourage ex-pats from staying here. Does it not? These imbeciles should be making our lives easier, and making visa policy simpler. Rather they seem to be tightening the noose, every chance they get. To call them ignorant, fearful, xenophobic, non-visionary, and misguided would be a vast understatement. 

 

One can only hope that come election time, all of this nonsense will be over, and both Prayuth and especially the biggest joke, will be sent out to pasture for the rest of their lives. They are not doing anything that benefits their nation, and they are picking on good men, who are bringing a lot to the table. Dumb and dumber. What can one say? 

[BritManToo]

1 minute ago, NanLaew said:

Into a Thai bank account?

Yes, Natwest Bank to Transferwise, to Bangkok Bank less than 24hrs.

Charges are around 7 pounds per 1000 pounds, and exchange rate is XE.com rate.

[Khaeng Mak]

23 minutes ago, mokwit said:

I will be gone from here at some point as this is 'no country for old men' - I don't want to sit there in my old age worrying that my visa criteria will be changed in a way that excludes me, forcing me to up sticks at an age when that is difficult/impossible.

You're describing me.

[wgdanson]

58 minutes ago, nchuckle said:

Read the original police order more carefully-it IS transfers from abroad, hence the other threads about many fx companies like Transferwise transactions appearing on your statement as domestic because of the intermediary bank used before arriving in your Thai bank account. You could (if you have an account) use a normal bank to do the transfers but their charges are up to £25 (1000 baht) per transaction so an extra 12000 per year to use ,and a worse exchange rate. You cannot rely on statements from Transferwise to prove the transaction to immigration officers- for most it will be too complicated to understand.

Not if you highlighted say £1000 on a Transferwise statement on 1st Feb, and a deposit into your Bkk Bank for Bht 40xxx on 2nd Feb. Surely even an IO would understand that

[Khaeng Mak]

20 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

It's like a tax by stealth. They haven't officially changed the minimum fiscal requirements like so many doomsayers say is an inevitability. By asking the retiree to bank the same 800 k and not touch it, they know that in all practicality he/she will need yet ANOTHER 800 k to live on, thus they have covertly doubled the income requirements for long-stayers without having it wrote in any statutes.

Yes. I already posted this on another thread.  That's exactly what this is a "defacto" doubling of the required amount.