New residency visas announced by Cabinet aimed at ‘high-potential’ foreigners

[Captain Monday]

3 hours ago, Badger18 said:

No doubt Tomster can speak for himself but he said he had a Thai company so is presumably paying tax in Thailand.

 

The point you're making here is exactly the reason why they have made the eligibility requirements fairly high - people in the remote worker category won't pay tax but they have to be relatively high earners who can be expected to spend a decent amount in Thailand.

 

The attraction for me is not the work permit but the ability to buy land. That puts this visa in a different category from any of the others, especially for those of us with no intention of getting married.

Where is it proposed foreigner could buy land?

[Badger18]

43 minutes ago, Captain Monday said:

Where is it proposed foreigner could buy land?

It was part and parcel of the original proposal (this has been in the works for about a year). It isn't mentioned in the announcement at the top of this thread but if they had dropped such an important part of the scheme you would think that would have been newsworthy. The gist is that they approved the original proposal so I am hoping the land ownership bit is still in there. As I said in a previous post it looks as though the details have been settled but they don't seem to have been released yet. Lots of questions around that, e.g. if you're in the category that has to spend at least USD 500k on property, how long do you have - is it like the investment visa where you have to stump up and then wait 3 years before applying, or do you have a year's grace to find somewhere you like, or what.

[RocketDog]

7 hours ago, tomster said:

I still can't get my head around why they don't offer a long term visa/extension for the under 50's with the same financial requirements as the retirement extension.

 

Soooooo many people under 50 leave and take their online incomes with them to spend else where - they are pointlessly losing millions of dollars for what?

 

Just does not make any sense at all.

Your last line said it all.

TIT

[ukrules]

7 hours ago, tomster said:

I still can't get my head around why they don't offer a long term visa/extension for the under 50's with the same financial requirements as the retirement extension.

 

Soooooo many people under 50 leave and take their online incomes with them to spend else where - they are pointlessly losing millions of dollars for what?

 

Just does not make any sense at all.

Somchais Razor : "Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice"

[Badger18]

I think you've got to expect different rules for people of working age and retirees. What surprises me more is the fact that they have the cut-off as young as 50.

[LarsBKK]

11 hours ago, tomster said:

I still can't get my head around why they don't offer a long term visa/extension for the under 50's with the same financial requirements as the retirement extension.

 

Soooooo many people under 50 leave and take their online incomes with them to spend else where - they are pointlessly losing millions of dollars for what?

 

Just does not make any sense at all.

My point exactly. I retired 5 years ago at 37 and there simply is nothing except Thailand Elite at a ridiculous price to stay here long term for me. Before Covid it wasn't that much of a problem as I like traveling but it is sure not easy to consider Thailand your home of choice if you are under 50 and gay (so marriage visa isn't an option). 

[timendres]

10 hours ago, The Hammer2021 said:

It was "not high potential" tourists who turned an impoverished suburb in Bangkok into a wealthy area with international fame. It was backpackers and budget  travellers who put The Kao San Rd and Banglampoo on the map.

And I suspect very few of them would be interested in the LTR. The OP does not mention "high potential tourists". The concept is about "high potential foreigners" who wish to stay long term, and thus wish to have a more stable visa/extension of stay. It makes perfect sense to limit this to individuals seen as contributing more to the country during their stay. That said, I am in the camp that thinks that those who have resided in Thailand more than 5 years, or are married to a Thai national and/or support a family here, should also be provided with a more stable means of residing in the country.