Best estimates for visa changes, the near and far term?

[JackThompson]

13 hours ago, marcusarelus said:

That's why there is macro economics and micro economics.  Micro economics - my soi has two Farang if they leave 8 people will be hurt and have to find an alternative source of income.  Macro economics.  Too small to compute. 

 

Are you asking an economic question or writing a romance novel?  It has no impact on the people who write the rules for immigration. 

I see no reason immigration should change their rules to "hurt the little guy" Thais - when letting more expats stay here has no negative effects on the "macro" issues what so ever.  

 

If all the condos were full, and you needed an appointment a week in advance to get a seat at a restaurant, because "Western Expats" were filling them all, then they might need to consider prioritizing who gets in. 

 

As the opposite is the case - empty condos galore, and entire sois of businesses formerly serving Western patrons boarded-up - what they are doing is purely destructive.

[JackThompson]

3 hours ago, worgeordie said:

It's the ones that were not been truthful,the ones that are now saying

they are leaving because without the Embassy letters the cannot meet

the requirements to obtain a new extension.they are the ones that spoilt 

it for the honest folks.

regards Worgeordie

The ones making in-person applications were the honest folks.  Some tiny percentage who lied on letters doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of dishonest applications are done via Immigration's preferred method - their agent-partners.  Those lying on their letters can simply switch to agents, and lie that way, instead - with Immigration's blessing and a smile.

 

Immigration and their agent-system is the driving force that "spoiled" (I prefer "rotted") the system for honest folks. 

 

It was most certainly NOT your fellow expats, who many seem so happy to throw under the bus, because they cannot "import" most/all of their income in mo-xfers, or leave large amounts of money in the bank untouched for extended periods of time - as the New Rules demand.

[Jingthing]

It's the ones that were not been truthful,the ones that are now saying
they are leaving because without the Embassy letters the cannot meet
the requirements to obtain a new extension.they are the ones that spoilt 
it for the honest folks.
regards Worgeordie

There was no need to punish everyone.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[sumrit]

58 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Most retirees who retire to Thailand don't have or need 65K Baht/mo in income.  Many own their own condos, so don't have rent to pay.  Thailand can wish all they want, but most retirees with that level of "disposable" income to transfer monthly won't be coming here, because this is a "discount" retirement destination - where working-class people can afford to retire, and live better than if they stayed at home. 

You obviously don't understand what I am trying to suggest.

The rules say an expat mush show money in Thailand of 800/400k baht per year, either by keeping most of that money permanently in a Thai bank OR transferring 65/40k baht into a Thai bank during the course of the year (equal to 780/480k baht per year).

Regardless of what an individuals personal circumstances are, the rules say that money must be in a Thai bank for that year whichever method is used.

With the money in the bank method most of that money must remain permanently in a Thai bank and can't be used. Whatever your circumstances, you must keep a lot of money in Thailand unusable and unable to transfer it back to your home country (or anywhere else) regardless of your particular needs.

With my suggested monthly version, yes, the rules say you must transfer an equivelent/average of 65/40k baht per month into Thailand, then then you can use it as you please - without any restrictions. If you want to keep any excess in your Thai bank you can (it's similar to keeping 800k in the bank) but this time you have full control and can use it. Or, if you prefer, you can send money else where (your home country?) using somebody like Dee Money.

Much more flexibility plus you would still have your original 800k baht to use, invest, spend as you pleasewith no restrictions whatsoever.

Although you didn't highlight it, I also said: a more flexible proof of the source of the income is required. Not everybody has a pension but many have an investment/rental income etc, or even just a large bank balance to use. As long as its source can, if necessary, be proved that’s all that should be required.

 

58 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

The combo method is/was ideal for many retirees - allowing a "buffer amount" in the bank to cover any shortfall between 65K and their income.

I didn't mention the combo method because there is some debate as to how usable it will be under the new/current rules anyway, and for many appears to be on the back burner.

But yes, for some people with lower incomes that has been a viable option in the past. But a larg(ish) lump sum still had to remain, unusable, in a Thai bank. My suggestion means that money could be invested/used to help make up the shortfall in their income.

 

58 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Add to this, some offices demanding all income "must be from a govt pension" - which is insane, since those don't pay nearly enough (for most), and most have other sources of income they rely on from investments, etc.

I've covered that by suggesting the new rules are much more flexible and state pension and/or other income such as investments, rental income, etc.

 

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

Limit the "minimum plan" to "stabilize and send home," with a deductible of 100K - which could be very inexpensive.  It is long-term care that usually creates the high-bills, and this would cover the less-common accidents, initial stabilizing treatment for heart-attacks and strokes, etc.

Just a basic idea at the moment but my suggestion would be to give expats the same/similar care that a Thai National would receive in a Governmet Hospital, with a (Government run) type of insurance (that doesn't need to factor in profits that private schemes do) to pay for the cost of Government Hospital (not private hospital) care.

[ubonjoe]

21 minutes ago, sumrit said:

With my suggested monthly version, yes, the rules say you must transfer an equivelent/average of 65/40k baht per month into Thailand, then then you can use it as you please - without any restrictions.

For an extension based upon retirement a average income of 65k baht is not allowed. It must be 65k baht or more every month.

For an extension based upon marriage a annual average monthly income of 40k baht is allowed.

[GeorgeCross]

36 minutes ago, sumrit said:

You obviously don't understand what I am trying to suggest.

The rules say an expat mush show money in Thailand of 800/400k baht per year, either by keeping most of that money permanently in a Thai bank OR transferring 65/40k baht into a Thai bank during the course of the year (equal to 780/480k baht per year).

Regardless of what an individuals personal circumstances are, the rules say that money must be in a Thai bank for that year whichever method is used.

With the money in the bank method most of that money must remain permanently in a Thai bank and can't be used. Whatever your circumstances, you must keep a lot of money in Thailand unusable and unable to transfer it back to your home country (or anywhere else) regardless of your particular needs.

With my suggested monthly version, yes, the rules say you must transfer an equivelent/average of 65/40k baht per month into Thailand, then then you can use it as you please - without any restrictions. If you want to keep any excess in your Thai bank you can (it's similar to keeping 800k in the bank) but this time you have full control and can use it. Or, if you prefer, you can send money else where (your home country?) using somebody like Dee Money.

Much more flexibility plus you would still have your original 800k baht to use, invest, spend as you pleasewith no restrictions whatsoever.

Although you didn't highlight it, I also said: a more flexible proof of the source of the income is required. Not everybody has a pension but many have an investment/rental income etc, or even just a large bank balance to use. As long as its source can, if necessary, be proved that’s all that should be required.

 

I didn't mention the combo method because there is some debate as to how usable it will be under the new/current rules anyway, and for many appears to be on the back burner.

But yes, for some people with lower incomes that has been a viable option in the past. But a larg(ish) lump sum still had to remain, unusable, in a Thai bank. My suggestion means that money could be invested/used to help make up the shortfall in their income.

 

I've covered that by suggesting the new rules are much more flexible and state pension and/or other income such as investments, rental income, etc.

 

Just a basic idea at the moment but my suggestion would be to give expats the same/similar care that a Thai National would receive in a Governmet Hospital, with a (Government run) type of insurance (that doesn't need to factor in profits that private schemes do) to pay for the cost of Government Hospital (not private hospital) care.

 

yes well thanks for your 'suggestion' but i'd rather just keep my money in a thai bank all year earning a small but acceptable amount of interest rather than transfer some of it back to the UK just so i CAN SEND IT BACK 12 TIMES and pay all those fees nevermind remembering to do it every month!!!

 

forcing all of us onto the income only method will mess a lot of people up. thats why they have the money in the bank option in the first place.

 

just leaving the money in the bank gives me peace of mind each year that everything (under the current rules) is already covered.

 

for me and most of us the best solution is just to meet the 400/800 figure in either balance OR transactions over the course of the last year on day of application and be done with it regardless of whether its 12x65 or 4x200 or 1x800 or just the same 800 from last year. any combination.

 

and get rid of the blooddy agents

 

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by GeorgeCross

[chainarong]

I think that there is concentrated pressure being applied from others outside to tighten up Thailand's game.

[mike787]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

There was no need to punish everyone.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

WHY????  ....do they???  That's the 800/400K and endless games, paper work, manipulation, deceit, etc, Baht question

Edited May 1, 2019 by mike787

[sumrit]

 

 

 

 

 

4

1 hour ago, ubonjoe said:

For an extension based upon retirement a average income of 65k baht is not allowed. It must be 65k baht or more every month.

For an extension based upon marriage a annual average monthly income of 40k baht is allowed.

I know it's not allowed to have an average of 65/40k baht pm now!

 

Read the title of the thread and what I have written. The thread is about what changes we might like to see in the near and more distant future, not what the rules are now.

 

If you read it properly my suggestion would be to simplify the extension requirements and everybody qualifying under a system similar system to the monthly income system we have at the moment and scrap the money in the bank alternative some people have now. People would no longer have to maintain 'dead' money (almost) permanently in a Thai account, freeing that up for their own use, while my suggestion would be more flexible and cost no more for expats.

 

Part of my suggestion was to include much more flexibility on how/when money was transferred to Thailand and the comment you highlighted was that part which was suggesting an average income per month, rather than a minimum 65k baht every month.

 

To understand fully what I am saying, read posts  47 and 64, where I tried to add more clarity for Jack Thompson.

 

 

[sumrit]

1 hour ago, GeorgeCross said:

and get rid of the blooddy agents

My suggestion would go a long way to getting rid of the agents illegal activity. 

 

You won't find agents fiddling the monthly income method because they will have to show a full twelve months of bank statements and bank book activity. Not easy to forge at all. They now only want to show the money in the bank option because it's easier for them to create those false documents.

 

Agents would become a small minority, just doing things legally almost overnight.

[GeorgeCross]

getting rid of the money in the bank option and then saying it won't cost us anything more is a ridiculous suggestion

 

how can sending 12 x 65K cost the same as just leaving the 800K in the bank where we pay no transfer fees at all ???!!

 

just consolidate it all to the combo method, rather than throwing half of us under a bus, then everybody can be happy

 

or better yet scrap the 65K month method and just have those that can keep 800K in a bank all year round? that would be easiest for IO's AND me ????

 

but NO. that would be selfish of me.

 

 

 

[sumrit]

29 minutes ago, GeorgeCross said:

how can sending 12 x 65K cost the same as just leaving the 800K in the bank where we pay no transfer fees at all ???!!

The possible interest gained by investing (some of) that 800k baht into a higher interest account of your choice anywhere in the world would more than compensate for the minimal transfer fees using a company like Transferwise. Plus you have the flexibility to use that money exactly the way you want and not be dictated to by Thai Immigration on where to put it.

 

29 minutes ago, GeorgeCross said:

just consolidate it all to the combo method, rather than throwing half of us under a bus, then everybody can be happy

I'm not throwing anybody under a bus. The 800k baht is dead money so you still need to transfer more money into Thailand for your living expenses on a regular basis. My way you still bring your living expenses over PLUS have your 800k freed up and available to use as you please. And transferring the living expenses you use now costs transfer fees as well so you're paying them already.

 

By contrast, your 'put everybody onto the combo method' would cause untold problems and throw many expats under your bus. A lot of expats, many married with families, have lived in Thailand for many years. Over those years they have used their 'nesteggs' to build a house, buy a car, pay for their children's educations, helped out their Thai families at times, etc, etc. Over those years their nest eggs have well and truly gone on the more important things in their family lives. They simply would not be able to come up with the necessary lump sum required.

 

Do you want to throw those people under your bus!!!!

Edited May 1, 2019 by sumrit

[Traubert]

20 hours ago, PingRoundTheWorld said:

70 million people is a nice figure, but keep in mind most of them live on less than 300 baht a day. A single expat making a western salary could easily spend 10x times that. Expats are also a major source of incoming tourism i.e. friends and family who wouldn't come otherwise. I think you (and probably the junta) are greatly underestimating it.

Great. So you just need 7m western paid expats to match the figure.

 

We're on around 200k currently.

[GeorgeCross]

23 minutes ago, sumrit said:

The possible interest gained by investing (some of) that 800k baht into a higher interest account of your choice anywhere in the world would more than compensate for the minimal transfer fees using a company like Transferwise. Plus you have the flexibility to use that money exactly the way you want and not be dictated to by Thai Immigration on where to put it.

 

thanks but my money is here and i am happy it is having earned a large chunk already against the pound over the years. i have no interest (lol) in chasing interest rates in a country i haven't even been in for 20 years and which i couldn't even open an account in now as i am non-resident. not to mention the currency risk (cough brexit) associated with that decision. hence 2% here i am happy with.

 

23 minutes ago, sumrit said:

I'm not throwing anybody under a bus. The 800k baht is dead money so you still need to transfer more money into Thailand for your living expenses on a regular basis. My way you still bring your living expenses over PLUS have your 800k freed up and available to use as you please.

 

my money is already here i don't transfer anything and as for dead money it earns a stable interest rate with no currency risk. as you say i am free to do with it what i want. that is what i choose to do with it.

 

23 minutes ago, sumrit said:

By contrast, your 'put everybody onto the combo method' would cause untold problems and throw many expats under your bus

for me and most of us the best solution is just to meet the 400/800 figure in either balance OR transactions over the course of the last year on day of application and be done with it regardless of whether its 12x65 or 4x200 or 1x800 or just the same 800 from last year. any combination.

how? whether (hypothetically) its transferred in monthly, quarterly, bi-annually or 10 years ago and just stayed here as long as it totals 800K by the end of the year as balance or TRANSACTIONS IN it would qualify. everybody would. 

 

23 minutes ago, sumrit said:

A lot of expats, many married with families, have lived in Thailand for many years. Over those years they have used their 'nesteggs' to build a house, buy a car, pay for their children's educations, helped out their Thai families at times, etc, etc. Over those years their nest eggs have well and truly gone on the more important things in their family lives. They simply would not be able to come up with the necessary lump sum required.

 

this group includes me but i kept my nest egg aside. but it wouldn't matter if i didn't and had a pension instead because under my method no-one would need to worry, you either have the lumpsum or you transferred it over at your own leisure over the previous year.

 

once again everybody covered and no busses bothered. 

 

anyways no more of this from me, we obviously have our own crosses to bear, lets just put it to bed now and move on before we both look like idiots! 

 

good day ????

 

 

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by GeorgeCross

[sumrit]

 

 

 

 

3

4 minutes ago, GeorgeCross said:

how? whether (hypothetically) its transferred in monthly, quarterly, bi-annually or 10 years ago and just stayed here as long as it totals 800K by the end of the year as balance or TRANSACTIONS IN it would qualify. everybody would. thats an updated combo method not the current combo method btw (read my OP)

It's great that you have had sufficient income to maintain a healthy balance.

 

But, using your example, you've still got to have 800k in the bank as an annual float that you can use, then top up to maintain that level. A lot of people simply haven't got that money available any more.

 

How would you suggest people, who've lived here for years and no longer have a healthy bank balance that you enjoy, would proceed using your method? 

[marcusarelus]

18 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Talking about ABUSE.

The people of the nationalities that have rudely CUT OFF the embassy letters that were being truthful in their income claims. They are the ones suffering the REAL abuse here.

If they had 65k+ why would it be a problem to send it to Thailand?  Hardly suffering.  The only people suffering are those who do not have a pension of 65k+

[marcusarelus]

10 hours ago, JackThompson said:

I see no reason immigration should change their rules to "hurt the little guy" Thais - when letting more expats stay here has no negative effects on the "macro" issues what so ever.  

 

If all the condos were full, and you needed an appointment a week in advance to get a seat at a restaurant, because "Western Expats" were filling them all, then they might need to consider prioritizing who gets in. 

 

As the opposite is the case - empty condos galore, and entire sois of businesses formerly serving Western patrons boarded-up - what they are doing is purely destructive.

Many expats from some countries use fake marriages to start businesses here and take income away from the Thai little guy who is in the same business. 

[marcusarelus]

People who have lived in Thailand for years and now don't have enough money to meet the new time in the bank method got taken advantage of by a Thai government who no longer wishes to grandfather grandfathers.  I would think by looking at past performance one could have assumed any monetary changes would be grandfathered.  However the new Thai government from top to bottom and the Thai people for allowing that government don't care about grandfathers.  Let your feet do the talking.  Actions speak louder than words. 

[Mike Teavee]

13 hours ago, sumrit said:

The possible interest gained by investing (some of) that 800k baht into a higher interest account of your choice anywhere in the world would more than compensate for the minimal transfer fees using a company like Transferwise. Plus you have the flexibility to use that money exactly the way you want and not be dictated to by Thai Immigration on where to put it.

You do know that because of the way Transferwise works you cannot guarantee that the transaction will show as a foreign transfer (FTT) in your bank account so using it is risky.

 

It costs me nothing to leave 800K in an account (please don't mention opportunity costs of the monies being tied up, I choose to keep at least 6 months spending money in the bank for emergencies).

 

It also costs me nothing to bring money into the country as I travel in/out twice a month so bring in $SGD and change it in any mall for a higher rate than I'd get with my bank + I get free withdrawals from Citi ATMs (Asoke).

 

 

Nope sorry, leaving the 800K in the bank is far more efficient & cost effective for me.

Edited May 1, 2019 by Mike Teavee

[BertM]

1 hour ago, Mike Teavee said:

It costs me nothing to leave 800K in an account (please don't mention opportunity costs of the monies being tied up, I choose to keep at least 6 months spending money in the bank for emergencies).

 

Nope sorry, leaving the 800K in the bank is far more efficient & cost effective for me.

I'm with you... I find it more efficient & cost effective to make larger transfers when exchange rates are more favorable. Last time (9 mths ago), I transferred $60k at 33.35 THB (about 2MM THB) and I've been using it to live on and will use it for my extension later this year. That's a big savings from the current exchange rates plus I'm earning a fair interest rate in the bank. And, even though I pay no swift wire transfer fees, I still prefer not having to hassle with making monthly transfers or being forced to accept whatever the current exchange rates are each month. What's best for me may not be best for anyone else, so I respect that. "To each his own"...

Edited May 2, 2019 by BertM

[UKresonant]

16 hours ago, mike787 said:

WHY????  ....do they???  That's the 800/400K and endless games, paper work, manipulation, deceit, etc, Baht question

Yes, some people love Thailand as a place to spend a substantial amount of their retirement time, but not all of it..as "it would become routine"

Provide they can still get a ME visa from their home Embassy, great!

Some people don't want a bank account here (and if they did they would expect, they would walk into the bank and they would say "yes no problem" if Im. think they should have one.

[BertM]

Ok. I will play the best estimates for visa changes for long-stay retirees, hypothetically...

 

1) change bank method to 800k with only 1 mth seasoning, then can draw down no more than 65k per mth, then repeat for renewals

2) no more 90-day reports, only need to report permanent residence address change within 2 weeks

3) keep current monthly income method of 65k transferred into a Thai bank for those who don't have verifiable incomes

4) reinstate all embassy letters, stat declarations & income affidavits and REQUIRE All EMBASSIES to verify all incomes and to provide the source verification docs to immigration in a sealed packet with approval letter.

 

* for the part-timers (snowbirds) who don't live here full-time and complain about having to transfer money when they are not staying here, establish a 3 mth visa that can be renewed at least one time with its own set of financial requirements

 

Now, back to reality for me. I try to live in the present and look to the future. The past is gone and no one can change it, so i don't dwell on it.

 

Time for me to take a long TV holiday. Signing out...

Edited May 2, 2019 by BertM

[dcnx]

On 4/29/2019 at 5:49 PM, MRToMRT said:

 

Mark my words (guess) that compulsory insurance will be added to the list soon on ret ext of stays.

 

 

I’ve used the same visa agent for almost 15 years. She’s never been wrong about anything she’s told me and said recently that mandatory insurance is coming.

[dcnx]

6 hours ago, Mike Teavee said:

It costs me nothing to leave 800K in an account 

Inflation would disagree.

[tingtongtourist]

On 4/29/2019 at 11:35 PM, LongTang said:

I think you summed it up very nicely ????

Its really difficult to know which way the wind will blow (look at BJ as one example), though i doubt we will see a drastic relaxation of the rules..

Anyway, if you are really serious about staying here for a long time and are not near 50, get an elite visa and hopefully forget about this rollercoaster.

Up to him, but unless have a family/kids here (must stay fulltime) why anyone in their right mind would pay $32,0000 for 20 year visa? 

 

apart from obvious (you dont know what changes about life will happen even just after 5-10 years)

and Thailand give way to many question marks for me anyway.

 

I love it here also but that sort of money can buy serious time in parts of the west now.

and you actually get some quality and standards for your money not everything broken in no time.

 

certainly you can buy many trips back and forward for that money

id sooner buy a car, even a van or caravan (for temporary stay) back home before i give Thailand $30+k just to stay here. 

 

 

[Jingthing]

50 minutes ago, dcnx said:

Inflation would disagree.

And opportunity cost. That much dead money is very expensive. The wealthier people know that better than others. 

[marcusarelus]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

And opportunity cost. That much dead money is very expensive. The wealthier people know that better than others. 

Even though Wealthy people have an onerous and overwhelming desire to make money but I don't think they care too much about 20 grand. 

Edited May 2, 2019 by marcusarelus

[tingtongtourist]

 

Only very silly wealthy foriegners will forfeit $15-30k just to live somewhere with these sort of standards.

and actually i never knew any very silly wealthy people.

 

When the ones living here are complaining about put 800k of their OWN money in a Thai bank, what does it tell you?

 

tho to fair, the ones barking the loudest probably dont have the dosh.

 

 

[Mike Teavee]

1 hour ago, dcnx said:

Inflation would disagree.

I think you missed my point... I'm keep 6+ months spending money in a bank account anyway so I don't have to fire sale assets in the event of an "emergency", it just so happens that this in excess of 800K & can be used to support my Visa so costs me nothing extra.

 

If I did need to spend down below the 800K/400K (depending on timings & highly unlikely given other resources I have access to) then I would simply top it back up when I was able & go get a new Non-O from Penang/Savannakhet & start again

[Dave98]

22 hours ago, sumrit said:

My suggestion would go a long way to getting rid of the agents illegal activity. 

 

You won't find agents fiddling the monthly income method because they will have to show a full twelve months of bank statements and bank book activity. Not easy to forge at all. They now only want to show the money in the bank option because it's easier for them to create those false documents.

 

Agents would become a small minority, just doing things legally almost overnight.

You are kidding yourself if you think that Agents are going away.  My personal thought is that these "rules" are meant to encourage the use of agents by foreigners and that the "powers to be" are consolidating the agent network.