The horns of a dilemma.

[geoffbezoz]

1 minute ago, kenk24 said:

Yes, I understood that you were not the researcher but quoting something you read... 

 

Yes, you could say that.. since I have both savings and profits from investments, the profits go into my savings... but I think people who do not have 100 GBP do not sit and wonder if they should retire in Thailand or The Maldives instead... 

A good point but consider this. You are fortunate to not be one of the 74%.  But just for a second pretend you where, coming up to retirement with only a state pension, in the cold miserable UK, well not all days but most, and think to yourself, would I feel better living my last years in a warm climate which is purported to have a much cheaper cost of living, or remaining in the the UK ?  On the balance of probability I am sure that out of the 20 million or so there will be several hundreds who chose the Thai option.

[JaiLai]

A good point but consider this. You are fortunate to not be one of the 74%.  But just for a second pretend you where, coming up to retirement with only a state pension, in the cold miserable UK, well not all days but most, and think to yourself, would I feel better living my last years in a warm climate which is purported to have a much cheaper cost of living, or remaining in the the UK ?  On the balance of probability I am sure that out of the 20 million or so there will be several hundreds who chose the Thai option.

With no savings it’s a massive risk.

If you had a nest egg then doing it relying on state pension I would say is possibly ( depending on Ex rate ).


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[1FinickyOne]

1 minute ago, geoffbezoz said:

A good point but consider this. You are fortunate to not be one of the 74%.  But just for a second pretend you where, coming up to retirement with only a state pension, in the cold miserable UK, well not all days but most, and think to yourself, would I feel better living my last years in a warm climate which is purported to have a much cheaper cost of living, or remaining in the the UK ?  On the balance of probability I am sure that out of the 20 million or so there will be several hundreds who chose the Thai option.

Sure, I understand why they would want to retire here, and yes, I appreciate my good fortune in life - - but it seems sort of a moot point if you cannot afford the requirements to retire in a foreign land.. they might just as well dream of retiring to a mansion in Malibu... everyone has things out of their reach...

 

Brittania may have ruled the seas, but in Thailand, the land is theirs... they make the rules. 

[geoffbezoz]

10 minutes ago, kenk24 said:

Sure, I understand why they would want to retire here, and yes, I appreciate my good fortune in life - - but it seems sort of a moot point if you cannot afford the requirements to retire in a foreign land.. they might just as well dream of retiring to a mansion in Malibu... everyone has things out of their reach...

 

Brittania may have ruled the seas, but in Thailand, the land is theirs... they make the rules. 

But you have totally missed the point. Go back to the very first post and it is about people who are already here and have been for a very long time, prior to many of the current requirements. My point about savings was only in direct response to the poster who was quite pompous in his attitude with regard to people not having sufficient savings. Although when I came here first it was not for retirement, I seemed to recall in those days you only needed 200,000 for a retirement visa or 20000 baht per month income. Those people are still on a fixed income without any incremental increases. The rule have changed and although they may  be grandfathered previously with respect to the 200000 I am not sure if that is still the case. Can you not appreciate that scenario ?

Edited June 4, 2019 by geoffbezoz

[1FinickyOne]

How far back are you going? Never heard of the requirements you mention...

 

The recent rule changes for me are extremely minimal.. I think the big dust up is that many are here who do not meet the requirements and were working the system with embassy letters relying on their word of honor which are no longer accepted w/o proof... 

 

What is genuinely sad is that with the decline through the years in the GBP, and other currencies, many people who did qualify legitimately, now do not. 

 

There are risks everywhere in life and many did not anticipate this possibility... that's how some end up rich and some not... but none of us get out alive... I've been told... though so far so good for me... 

 

ps - tightening immigration rules are a worldwide phenomenon.. 

 

Edited June 4, 2019 by kenk24

[Gandtee]

39 minutes ago, geoffbezoz said:

But you have totally missed the point. Go back to the very first post and it is about people who are already here and have been for a very long time, prior to many of the current requirements. My point about savings was only in direct response to the poster who was quite pompous in his attitude with regard to people not having sufficient savings. Although when I came here first it was not for retirement, I seemed to recall in those days you only needed 200,000 for a retirement visa or 20000 baht per month income. Those people are still on a fixed income without any incremental increases. The rule have changed and although they may  be grandfathered previously with respect to the 200000 I am not sure if that is still the case. Can you not appreciate that scenario ?

Exactly!

[JaiLai]

But you have totally missed the point. Go back to the very first post and it is about people who are already here and have been for a very long time, prior to many of the current requirements. My point about savings was only in direct response to the poster who was quite pompous in his attitude with regard to people not having sufficient savings. Although when I came here first it was not for retirement, I seemed to recall in those days you only needed 200,000 for a retirement visa or 20000 baht per month income. Those people are still on a fixed income without any incremental increases. The rule have changed and although they may  be grandfathered previously with respect to the 200000 I am not sure if that is still the case. Can you not appreciate that scenario ?

Pompous - I was staying my opinion or is that not allowed?

Do you decide my opinion or me?


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Monomial]

On 6/1/2019 at 11:49 AM, ballpoint said:

Why abandon the family?  Why don't they sell their house here and move the family back to their home country?  Could it be because their own country's immigration requirements are far stricter than Thailand's?

Nope. There is no western country anywhere in the whole world that has a stricter citizenship program for long stay residents than Thailand.  We are not discussing tourists here or recent immigrants. Don't change the subject just to be an apologist.

 

We are discussing long stay residents who have set down roots.  The fact that I've lived here for 20 years and have 2.3 kids and a mortgage yet have no hope of becoming Thai is absurd. No western country is this tyrannical.

Edited June 4, 2019 by Monomial

[ballpoint]

59 minutes ago, Monomial said:

Nope. There is no western country anywhere in the whole world that has a stricter citizenship program for long stay residents than Thailand.  We are not discussing tourists here or recent immigrants. Don't change the subject just to be an apologist.

 

We are discussing long stay residents who have set down roots.  The fact that I've lived here for 20 years and have 2.3 kids and a mortgage yet have no hope of becoming Thai is absurd. No western country is this tyrannical.

You can argue all you like about how fair Thailand treats those of us who are married to its citizens, but there has been no change in Thailand's stance on who can get permanent residency - and ultimately citizenship, and marriage has never been one of the ways of doing so.  Anyone moving here surely knew that at the time, and should have figured that into their decision, so, while it is valid to point that fact out, it has no bearing on the case at hand.  

 

What the country does allow is for people with a relatively small amount of money to remain here long term, and the recent changes to the retirement extension process made no difference whatsoever to anyone on a marriage extension's ability to do so, which is what this thread is about.  The amount of married people on this thread claiming to  being unable to meet the "new" requirements is baffling.  There are no new requirements for marriage extension.  Show 400,000 Baht in the bank from a month or so before making the application, get the extension, and then do what you want with the money until the next year - the same as it's been for at least the past 20 years.  Instead, what we are seeing are people trying to blame the Thai immigration department for their own lack of financial planning, or the self destruction of their own countries currencies, and complaining that they are suddenly unable to afford to be here, and will therefore have to leave their families behind.  

 

As for the strictness of various countries policies towards long term foreigners, there are numerous threads from people who have been unable to get their wives visas to visit their home countries for a holiday, let alone for the long term.  I have successfully been through this process for my own country, but there's no way they would have given my wife a long term visa, and eventually PR, if we had not had a long history of being together, which was only possible through the ease with which I was able to remain based in Thailand.  To all those who replied to my first post, arguing that their own country is far easier to enter and remain long term in than Thailand, I (again) ask what's the problem then?  Either get your wife PR in your own country, or give her 400,000 Baht and have her apply for an annual visa, based on the fact that she's married to a citizen of said country.  Simple.  

[seajae]

I still believe that foreigners on a marriage extension should be able to use all their marital property(houses/land etc) as part or all of their required money same with pensioners. Married farangs and pensioners often have a lot more than the required amounts tied up in houses, land, condo's etc that more than cover what is being asked to be banked, using it as  or instead would make a lot of sense but Thailand isnt really all the sensible in the way they set up laws/regulations

Edited June 4, 2019 by seajae

[Monomial]

20 hours ago, ballpoint said:

You can argue all you like about how fair Thailand treats those of us who are married to its citizens, but there has been no change in Thailand's stance on who can get permanent residency - and ultimately citizenship, and marriage has never been one of the ways of doing so.  Anyone moving here surely knew that at the time, and should have figured that into their decision, so, while it is valid to point that fact out, it has no bearing on the case at hand.   

  

What the country does allow is for people with a relatively small amount of money to remain here long term, and the recent changes to the retirement extension process made no difference whatsoever to anyone on a marriage extension's ability to do so, which is what this thread is about.  The amount of married people on this thread claiming to  being unable to meet the "new" requirements is baffling.  There are no new requirements for marriage extension.  Show 400,000 Baht in the bank from a month or so before making the application, get the extension, and then do what you want with the money until the next year - the same as it's been for at least the past 20 years.  Instead, what we are seeing are people trying to blame the Thai immigration department for their own lack of financial planning, or the self destruction of their own countries currencies, and complaining that they are suddenly unable to afford to be here, and will therefore have to leave their families behind.   

 

As for the strictness of various countries policies towards long term foreigners, there are numerous threads from people who have been unable to get their wives visas to visit their home countries for a holiday, let alone for the long term.  I have successfully been through this process for my own country, but there's no way they would have given my wife a long term visa, and eventually PR, if we had not had a long history of being together, which was only possible through the ease with which I was able to remain based in Thailand.  To all those who replied to my first post, arguing that their own country is far easier to enter and remain long term in than Thailand, I (again) ask what's the problem then?  Either get your wife PR in your own country, or give her 400,000 Baht and have her apply for an annual visa, based on the fact that she's married to a citizen of said country.  Simple.   

 

I love it. "Let them eat cake!" "You're only a guest here." "Just Leave."  Did I leave any of the sound bites out? It gets tedious hearing them after a while. Perhaps some of us who have actually lived here for 20 years and have deep roots in the country don't really enjoy being pressured to leave our homes, even if that is just fine with you.

 

Still, I will agree that since you have yours, you are free to continue ignoring the plight of all who don't. Simple for you. Reminds me of Hillary Clinton and her "deplorables" comments.

 

If all farangs shared your callous attitude I would actually agree with Thailand that they are better off without us.

 

I know better though.

 

 

[Jamesanderson]

Why don't they sell their house here and move the family back to their home country? 

[madmen]

15 hours ago, seajae said:

I still believe that foreigners on a marriage extension should be able to use all their marital property(houses/land etc) as part or all of their required money same with pensioners. Married farangs and pensioners often have a lot more than the required amounts tied up in houses, land, condo's etc that more than cover what is being asked to be banked, using it as  or instead would make a lot of sense but Thailand isnt really all the sensible in the way they set up laws/regulations

I think being asset rich and cash poor is not what immigration want to see for obvious reasons although they contradict themselves by offering a 10 million baht (condo only) investment visa

[Joseph C]

I suppose other people have pointed to this but... what about selling the condo where you are living right now? You could get enough $$ to cover the 400/800k needed. 

[davidst01]

On 6/1/2019 at 1:18 PM, Carlosm said:

If i could sell my house i'd do it in a heart beat. I cannot meat the requirements and would literally do anything for 400k right now. I invested everything i had, mid last year, into my business and employ 4 Thais. I am slowly recovering the money but will not be enough for a couple of years.

The rural housing market is all but dead so before you comment use your dead brain ! I know 2 other westerners who have small business's and cannot come close to the new requirements. They will lose their families and home and are really scared right now, like many others i suspect.

It looks like only 2 options (realistically) are available, leave the Country and get a non 'O' or use and agent and take your chance's of not been caught. Both costly and time consuming but there's no other choice's i can see.

do you mind if I ask what is your business and what is the business type for the other 2 westerners you talk about

thanks