Abolish all Tourist Visas and Requirements Until 2030

[donnacha]

1 minute ago, rott said:

And 10 out of 10 for your snappy, cheap, meaningless response. 

Well, it gave a few people a good laugh ????

To be fair, you have got to expect people to laugh at you a bit if you hang around a discussion forum and spend your own precious time, to respond in a discussion, to tell another member that he shouldn't have started the discussion because no one could possibly be interested.
 

[jacko45k]

3 hours ago, Pravda said:

This is why western economies should stop doling out state pensions for anyone living in Thailand for more than 6 months. Why should western taxpayers support old men sponsoring Isaan families? I fully support pension freeze like Britain is doing and wish Canada did the same thing. 

 

I don't give a flying f about Thailand economy. 

Well the state pension in the UK comes from contributions made all your working life, and 35 years worth is required. Seems wrong to take it off you and not beneficial to force Expats to return to the UK and become a burden, particularly on the health service. They can't even stop the crooks living in Thailand claiming heating allowance. 

[Hi Tea]

21 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Google "ripple effect", please.

Don't need to, thanks.

[Sambotte]

5 hours ago, ezzra said:

Ok, Thai will die before they will relinquish controls on who's is or going in their kingdom,by the same token no other country in the world allow free entry into their land and territories, so wishful thinking, but will not happen, ever...

Many countries have the right tourism / expats / travelers / businessman approche.

Panama : 6 months on arrival, easy to stay more.

Colombia : 3 months, renew 3 months

Malaysia is still 3 months on arrival too no ?

 

Clearly Thailand target(ed) only the short terms tourists, with a poor 1 month, with random denials.

Not much better with the 2 months tourist visa, and all the complicated visas often 3 months then only extension.

And the "Elite" visa is not really a good deal.

 

Could change.

[rott]

3 hours ago, Oldie said:

Thailand has to avoid that it gets a home for foreign people without money. Such people would be a burden. And so it has visas already that allow a longer stay but where also the financial situation of the foreigners is checked regularly. 

From where do you get the information that "such people will be a burden"? 

 

To date there has been no noticeable significant burden of poverty stricken foreigners. Anyone who knows anything about Thailand knows that here you are on your own. There is no safety net or support system other than that which you put in place yourself. 

[rott]

22 minutes ago, donnacha said:

Well, it gave a few people a good laugh ????

To be fair, you have got to expect people to laugh at you a bit if you hang around a discussion forum and spend your own precious time, to respond in a discussion, to tell another member that he shouldn't have started the discussion because no one could possibly be interested.
 

No-one in a position to do anything about it could possibly be interested. 

 

Every time I see "they should" I think OK another one who doesn't know which way is up. 

 

Most pointless phrase on here. 

Nothing personal of course. 

Edited September 7, 2020 by rott

[Oldie]

2 minutes ago, rott said:

From where do you get the information that "such people will be a burden"? 

 

To date there has been no noticeable significant burden of poverty stricken foreigners. Anyone who knows anything about Thailand knows that here you are on your own. There is no safety net or support system other than that which you put in place yourself. 

I could imagine that many people without much future in Western countries would try to move here. You can sleep outside because here is no cold weather and you can eat cheap street food and in the end you can survive on a very low budget. No great life but perhaps still better than in the home country. 

[simon43]

Quote

 

They should stamp visitors in for a year, and hope they stay spending money in the country for as long as possible. As long as you have not been blacklisted, you should be able to simply buy a one-way ticket, hop on the plane, and figure out your hotel once you arrive.

You should not have to waste a minute of your stay in an immigration office. All you should have to worry about is making sure you leave by the end of your 365 days.
 

 

 

That's exactly what I'm doing in Laos!  After 365 days, I also don't need to leave the country to extend my visa for another year. My only contact with an immigration officer was when I originally entered the country in a Thai taxi piled high with my chattels...  (And they didn't ask me anything about what goods I was bringing into the country).  I live here, spend my money freely, do whatever I want (within the law and adhering to sensible Covid-19 virus precautions).  Each month in Laos I spend or save in a local bank account more than 100,000 Thai baht.  Everyone seems happy... ????

 

Update:  I forgot to mention the 'very expensive' business visa, work permit and local ID card that cost me less than $12 a week...

 

 

Edited September 7, 2020 by simon43

[Airalee]

2 hours ago, Hi Tea said:

26% is not a particularly "large amount" when compared with the 74% of people who do not rely on tourism!

The income of the 26% is then spent and becomes part of the income of the 74%.  
 

26% is a huge amount and it is ridiculous for you to suggest otherwise.

[Hi Tea]

5 minutes ago, Airalee said:

2 hours ago, Hi Tea said:

26% is not a particularly "large amount" when compared with the 74% of people who do not rely on tourism!

The income of the 26% is then spent and becomes part of the income of the 74%.  
 

26% is a huge amount and it is ridiculous for you to suggest otherwise.

In comparison with 74%, it's just as ridiculous for you to suggest that 26% is a huge amount.

[Pattaya46]

5 hours ago, donnacha said:

// Now, however, the airfare to Thailand is going to be much higher than before. //

Why do I read such statement so often on this forum ?

What make you think that fares will be "much higher than before" ?

Currently easy to book flights from Europe in the below 400€ range, same before.

 

Here: One example on Paris-Bangkok, 339€ return.

[rott]

21 minutes ago, Hi Tea said:

In comparison with 74%, it's just as ridiculous for you to suggest that 26% is a huge amount.

I think most governments or businesses would feel that 26% is a serious loss. Putting it mildly. 

[JackThompson]

6 hours ago, donnacha said:

the sections of society that the Bangkok elites have never liked to think about.

And they still don't - which is why what you are suggesting will never be on the radar - though I generally agree with what you propose.  Sadly, only tourists who are taken to shop at "connected" businesses, are given consideration. 

 

6 hours ago, donnacha said:

Even pre-Covid, the junta had been happily chipping away at that pillar

Immigration did this - not the current-govt specifically.  The "crackdowns"  started during the Thaksin days.  When the general took power, he actually told Immigration to lighten-up a bit on Visa-Exempt restrictions.

 

Immigration resents foreigners here on corruption-free MFA-issed Visas, who did not pay them brown-envelope money.  In response, they wrecked thousands of Thai businesses with "crackdowns" on tourists, just to greedily claw-in just a little bit more.  The countless Thais negatively affected by blocking foreign-customers, and by Immigration's "L-Visas," issued to replace them (for lower wages) at remaining jobs, are not considered.

 

If you marry a Thai, and experience what Immigration puts you though to stay and support them, you will fully-realize how little Immigration care about their own citizens.  Immigration's world is entirely-focused on agent-laundered money.  The xenophobia-bit (why they are rude - especially to a Thai wife) is just the cover, and way to help the lower-level IOs to justify what they are ordered to do.

 

6 hours ago, donnacha said:

may depend on not having those parts of Thai society collapse and spark upheaval throughout the rest. 

You would think they would have that foresight - would encourage MORE foreigners to come here and spend foreign-capital in Thai businesses, to create more opportunities for Thais to have a path to economic-success - the best defense against unrest and communist-appeals.  It's much less trouble/expense than trying to force-down angry throngs.  Sadly, it appears they do not see this - likely listening to advice from the ChiComms.

[Hi Tea]

2 minutes ago, rott said:

26 minutes ago, Hi Tea said:

In comparison with 74%, it's just as ridiculous for you to suggest that 26% is a huge amount.

I think most governments or businesses would feel that 26% is a serious loss. Putting it mildly. 

I didn't say that it wasn't, a serious loss, I said that 26% is nowhere near 74%.

[Why Me]

I believe there is a rarely used backpacker and bum B&B-visa category allowing a year. No docs required to apply at the Thai Embassy but one must show at least one large hole in one's pants. Jeez, the OP must be toast of his mates on that particular row of barstools.

 

Folks with respectable jobs in the West get 2-4 weeks holiday per year max. That's the kind that spends 100 of $s a day on vacation eating and drinking and being merry (and doing a bunch of stuff they really shouldn't). And then they leave. They don't hang around for months.

 

And they will be back, all 40 mil of them as soon as the vaccine's out in less than a year. Just wave your immunization card and waltz through Imm control. Thailand has zero need in the meantime to let in a bunch of cut-price losers who'll spend $10 a day on board and lodging and another 15 on stuff to sniff.

Edited September 7, 2020 by Why Me

[JackThompson]

5 hours ago, tomazbodner said:

And when you think of these people, with debts mounting and future uncertain, would they really want to splash on a vacation at the other end of the World, quarantine or not, with 12+ hours of flying and mingling with thousands of people at the airports, risking infecting themselves on the way, and being left with possibly excruciatingly expensive treatment in another country? Probably not.

As more jobs become remote, they might consider moving some where "nice but less expensive" to live, while they continue work for a foreign company.  Thailand could open up to these folks, and create tens of thousands + jobs for Thais. 

 

The rule to stay here should be simple - prove 30K Baht foreign-income / mo.  That is a many times a Thai average salary - and each foreigner spending that into the economy would directly support several Thai jobs.  

 

Add 5K/year for the permitted-stay/visa, which should include catastrophic health-insurance (stabilize and re-patriate only - not long-term treatment). 

Edited September 7, 2020 by JackThompson

[JackThompson]

5 hours ago, Oldie said:

Thailand has to avoid that it gets a home for foreign people without money. Such people would be a burden. And so it has visas already that allow a longer stay but where also the financial situation of the foreigners is checked regularly. 

They already have that covered - there is no welfare for foreigners here.  Arrest, deport and ban for vagrancy, if this were ever a significant issue.  But having a SANE income-requirement - balanced to the Cost Of Living in Thailand - would not be unreasonable. 

 

As is, the Elite and Retirement schemes bear no resemblance to the cost-of-living - with the 'retirement' requirements primarily designed to force agent-laundered money (no receipt) into Immigration's pockets - not to ensure a foreigner has "enough income" to comfortably support their stay.

 

OTOH, at the best of greedy-elites, Immigration doles out countless L-Visas (also agent-processed), which force their own citizens out of jobs - requiring Thais go overseas to do the same jobs a Cambodian or Burmese does in Thailand.  THAT should definitely be stopped - but the Elites like the cheap-labor - and they don't care that blocking Western tourists hurts the same strata of their population undermined by L-Visas.

Edited September 7, 2020 by JackThompson

[JackThompson]

4 hours ago, Pravda said:

This is why western economies should stop doling out state pensions for anyone living in Thailand for more than 6 months. Why should western taxpayers support old men sponsoring Isaan families? I fully support pension freeze like Britain is doing and wish Canada did the same thing. 

Because they paid into those "state pensions" for a lifetime, and EARNED that money.

 

4 hours ago, Pravda said:

I don't give a flying f about Thailand economy. 

I do - and Thai Immigration policy should be based on helping Thais - not stuffing brown-enevelopes (as is).

[JackThompson]

4 hours ago, Hi Tea said:

Just like your own country does, eh? 

No, we primarily let in those who make our citizens poorer.  No one is suggesting Thailand offer welfare and enact anti-native discrimination policies, like our nations have. 

 

Sadly, Thailand-Immigration/Elites have duplicated the "Bring in foreign workers to undermine locals job-opportunities" policy, already.

 

4 hours ago, Hi Tea said:

Why do you suggest that only citizens of "developed" countries should qualify, do they spend a different type of not-as-valuable currency?

They tend to Have Money to spend, is why.  Others who can demonstrate income should also be welcome, of course.  But if the min-wage in your passport-country is multiples of the Thai min-wage, that is a relevant factor.

[tomazbodner]

14 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

As more jobs become remote, they might consider moving some where "nice but less expensive" to live, while they continue work for a foreign company.  Thailand could open up to these folks, and create tens of thousands + jobs for Thais. 

 

The rule to stay here should be simple - prove 30K Baht foreign-income / mo.  That is a many times a Thai average salary - and each foreigner spending that into the economy would directly support several Thai jobs.  

 

Add 5K/year for the permitted-stay/visa, which should include catastrophic health-insurance (stabilize and re-patriate only - not long-term treatment). 

Problem is how does this compare with legitimate jobs. Right now people have to have significant income and pay significant taxes to be able to stay in the country. How would they feel in case above was done? Thailand may wish to attract very highly paid people in smaller numbers and fleece... erm, tax them, rather than many people with very low added value. Look, one bloke in 1 day at a golf club spends more than a 30k/month "digital nomad" in 6 months.

 

12 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

5 hours ago, Pravda said:

This is why western economies should stop doling out state pensions for anyone living in Thailand for more than 6 months. Why should western taxpayers support old men sponsoring Isaan families? I fully support pension freeze like Britain is doing and wish Canada did the same thing. 

Because they paid into those "state pensions" for a lifetime, and EARNED that money.

I surely agree with that, but even for people who stay in their home countries, these are rapidly running out of cash as money these people paid in is already used up. That's why you hear about the pension reforms all over the place, with most popular option being increasing retirement age... as that just delays the problem fix to the next government...

[JackThompson]

4 hours ago, Pilotman said:

But the biggest issue is uncontrolled movement into the country.  What country in its right mind would allow such a thing.  I know that the UK/US/Australia/NZ would not and it would be madness and unacceptable if it did.

The USA has done this - no enforcement of the laws against employing illegal aliens, for example - illegal for the cops to even "inquire" about one's "immigration-status" in many areas.

 

But this is not the issue here, because those entering en-masse are from nations where the min-wage (if existent) is a fraction of that in the "UK/US/Australia/NZ" - AND we have social-welfare systems to exploit.

 

What is proposed is the inverse - those from higher-wage nations into Thailand, which has no welfare-system for foreigners what so ever.

 

3 hours ago, Lacessit said:

the current mess of bureaucracy that is Thai Immigration employs a lot of people, plus the hanger-on agents. I don't think they would relish being told to go back to the rice fields.

That's not where most came from - and they "bought" their jobs for a pile of cash, in anticipation of "brown envelope money" payouts.  

 

It is those who lost work in the tourist-related industries who mostly came from the rice-fields - and are furious at immigration for destroying their opportunities (since pre-covid).

 

No need to fire IOs, as they could process many new extensions, based on new, sane rules.  The problem is how to deal with their lost-expectations of "above-salary" agent-laundered income. 

Edited September 7, 2020 by JackThompson

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, Oldie said:

I could imagine that many people without much future in Western countries would try to move here. You can sleep outside because here is no cold weather and you can eat cheap street food and in the end you can survive on a very low budget. No great life but perhaps still better than in the home country. 

Low budget is relative - multiples of an average Thai salary should be fine (I suggest 30K) - though less as foreign-sourced income would still be a net-benefit to the country.

 

As to those "sleeping outside" - enforce vagrancy laws - deport and ban those who cannot show they have a place to live / rent-paid.

 

45 minutes ago, Why Me said:

Folks with respectable jobs in the West get 2-4 weeks holiday per year max. That's the kind that spends 100 of $s a day on vacation eating and drinking and being merry (and doing a bunch of stuff they really shouldn't). And then they leave. They don't hang around for months.

Many folks with "respectable jobs" today Work Remotely.  That's the kind that could spend continuously into the Thai economy.  Why would it be adventageous for them to leave and stop spending here?

 

47 minutes ago, Why Me said:

Thailand has zero need in the meantime to let in a bunch of cut-price losers who'll spend $10 a day on board and lodging and another 15 on stuff to sniff.

Anyone who gets involved in drugs here is an idiot - very harsh laws - and would be banned for life. 

 

$300/mo (~9300 Baht) is more than many Thais earn (far more than the Cambodians and Burmese let in by the thousands), but I do agree that the qualifying income should be more like 30K Baht per-mo - easy to prove by showing foreign-transfers of that amount or greater.

[warcy]

@donnacha

 

On the contrary, countries will come up with more restrictions and requirements to stem the spread of the virus.

[ravip]

WILL the west Abolish all Tourist Visas and Requirements Until 2030

[Why Me]

20 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

1 hour ago, Why Me said:

Folks with respectable jobs in the West get 2-4 weeks holiday per year max. That's the kind that spends 100 of $s a day on vacation eating and drinking and being merry (and doing a bunch of stuff they really shouldn't). And then they leave. They don't hang around for months.

Many folks with "respectable jobs" today Work Remotely.  That's the kind that could spend continuously into the Thai economy.  Why would it be adventageous for them to leave and stop spending here?

There're visas exactly for these kinds of folks. Smart visa if you don't want to incorporate here, non-b visa if you do and Elite somewhere in the middle. Perfectly legal and you and your funds are most welcome.

 

Long-stay wannabe bums wouldn't qualify for or couldn't afford these visas. Which is the whole point. Thailand has zero need for foreigners shacked up in a hole in a wall in Samut Prakan eating out of 7/11 freezers.

 

26 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Anyone who gets involved in drugs here is an idiot - very harsh laws - and would be banned for life. 

Agreed.

 

28 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

$300/mo (~9300 Baht) is more than many Thais earn (far more than the Cambodians and Burmese let in by the thousands), but I do agree that the qualifying income should be more like 30K Baht per-mo - easy to prove by showing foreign-transfers of that amount or greater.

Jeez, you aren't here to compete with the Thai poor. Foreigners are expected to do better or why on earth should Thais let them in? Methinks the 800k lumpsum or 65k/mth mins for retirement are perfectly fair. They indicate an ample safety net plus spending power.

[Hi Tea]

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

Quote

Why do you suggest that only citizens of "developed" countries should qualify, do they spend a different type of not-as-valuable currency?

They tend to Have Money to spend, is why. 

Many citizens of 'non-developed' countries, particularly those who are flying in to Thailand as a tourist, also have money to spend.  Not everyone is a pauper.

[ChaiyaTH]

Dream on, must have been high writing that out.

[baansgr]

Great idea...then make Thailand again the hub of boiler rooms, money laundering, paedophelia and drug trafficking....has to be some rules/restrictions in place.

[FlyingThai]

While we're at it can we also agree on a fix sum of money to be wired to my account each month?

 

150,000 Baht would be ok for starters. K Thx Bye!

[ravip]

26 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

No, we primarily let in those who make our citizens poorer.  No one is suggesting Thailand offer welfare and enact anti-native discrimination policies, like our nations have. 

 

Sadly, Thailand-Immigration/Elites have duplicated the "Bring in foreign workers to undermine locals job-opportunities" policy, already.

 

They tend to Have Money to spend, is why.  Others who can demonstrate income should also be welcome, of course.  But if the min-wage in your passport-country is multiples of the Thai min-wage, that is a relevant factor.

They tend to Have Money to spend, is why.

 

Tell us from where THEY got THAT money.

In the most disgusting manner - or not?  Tel us please