question on Non 0 retirement extention deposit method

[rken2]

My last post went so well and in preparation for my next visa, I have a queston

 

Can the transfers be more than 65,000 but less than one per month.

For instance can I make 8  100,000 baht transfer for a total of 800,000 baht or a One year period. So less than once a month but totaling the 800,000 requirement. As before thanks for all your comments. 

 

[moontang]

You would be inviting trouble, but it may have worked for some.  

[Dumbastheycome]

If you can show  evidence of  not less than 65 per month for a  qualifying period for  first extension and when  have achieved the  800  deposit can use that for consecutive  extensions.

It seems they have become a  bit picky about  monthly  income for retirement in some places though.

 

[rken2]

Thanks for the input. 

 

[john terry1001]

16 minutes ago, rken2 said:

Can the transfers be more than 65,000 but less than one per month.

For instance can I make 8  100,000 baht transfer for a total of 800,000 baht or a One year period. So less than once a month but totaling the 800,000 requirement. As before thanks for all your comments.

If you're using the monthly income option, no you can't. The rules state you must transfer a minimum of 65k baht each and every month for twelve months. You can't use an over-payment transfer from one month to count against an underpayment in a pre/post month to make up the difference.

[moontang]

25 minutes ago, john terry1001 said:

If you're using the monthly income option, no you can't. The rules state you must transfer a minimum of 65k baht each and every month for twelve months. You can't use an over-payment transfer from one month to count against an underpayment in a pre/post month to make up the difference.

A devaluation of your home currency would likely be retroactive, too.  I have never heard of them using more than one exchange rate to convert amounts.  The GBP dropped 20% in one 2016 day, and I don't recall many getting screwed on their monthly income, but those were the long gone days of easy income declarations.  And, it might also look suspicious to have exactly 65000 per month..

[rken2]

It would seem that the requirements are specified in Thai baht, so as long as is specified as 65.000 thai baht or more exchange rates would not appear to be a problem

 

[moontang]

5 minutes ago, rken2 said:

It would seem that the requirements are specified in Thai baht, so as long as is specified as 65.000 thai baht or more exchange rates would not appear to be a problem

 

Correct..it would only be a problem if you were still using a declaration letter, which would be in a foreign currency, or using a foreign currency account here,  which I recall being allowed, but I have read reports of other catches with those accounts...fees, rules, minimums...

 

I have always used the 800k, that was brought over in chunks of 200k.  

[john terry1001]

6 minutes ago, moontang said:

A devaluation of your home currency would likely be retroactive, too.  I have never heard of them using more than one exchange rate to convert amounts.  The GBP dropped 20% in one 2016 day, and I don't recall many getting screwed on their monthly income, but those were the long gone days of easy income declarations.  And, it might also look suspicious to have exactly 65000 per month..

??????

 

I never mentioned currency devaluation. And the amount transferred in your own currency must equal at least 65k baht every month. Immigration do everything in Thai baht, they only ever convert exchange rates when they are presented with an Embassy letter with the income written is a different currency. What I said in my post was 'If you're using the monthly income option' any transfer the OP made over and above 65k in one month cannot be used to subsidise an under transfer of a different month.

[rken2]

I was using the 800,000 method. but do to the current state of world economic and the that bail ins are now legal, I don't trust any banks with that much of my money. 65,000 a month is not problem and I can remove it the moment it is shone as a deposit. Gold is a much better store of wealth, this has shown to be true over the last 5000 years in times of monetary crisis. Thanks for your in put