LTR Visa is Now available for Long Term Residency

[CrossBones]

First Cannabis was legalized.

 

Now, form September 22nd a new kind of visa is available for long stayers.

 

It seems if you make $80k a year or have assets worth $1m you can stay here for 5 - 10 years.

 

I am wondering why there isnt much talk about this on this forum.

[ukrules]

1 hour ago, CrossBones said:

I am wondering why there isnt much talk about this on this forum.

Because it changes nothing for those affected, absolutely nothing - except perhaps the name printed on the piece of paper that goes into the passport.

 

 

[arithai12]

3 hours ago, CrossBones said:

I am wondering why there isnt much talk about this on this forum.

See here

[JustThisOnePostOnly]

People in that bracket are better off with the Elite visa, imho.

[Lee4Life]

8 hours ago, arithai12 said:

See here

The OP is asking about the long-term retirement visa, your link is for the long-term residency visa, are they the same? the residency visa article mentions working in Thailand, retirees can't work, right?

[jensmann]

If I have a million dollar back home, I wouldn't be here. Simple...

[ThailandRyan]

Here is a link.  There is also another OP running on the subject.

 

https://www.huahintoday.com/thailand-news/10-year-long-term-resident-ltr-visa-to-make-living-in-thailand-easier-and-less-bureaucratic/

[Captain Monday]

5 minutes ago, jensmann said:

If I have a million dollar back home, I wouldn't be here. Simple...

Not much anymore  to rely on to last "back home"

[ubonjoe]

1 hour ago, Lee4Life said:

The OP is asking about the long-term retirement visa, your link is for the long-term residency visa, are they the same? the residency visa article mentions working in Thailand, retirees can't work, right?

Yes

[Misty]

3 hours ago, JustThisOnePostOnly said:

People in that bracket are better off with the Elite visa, imho.

Unless they wish to work

[ThailandRyan]

3 hours ago, JustThisOnePostOnly said:

People in that bracket are better off with the Elite visa, imho.

Why, if they qualify for this LTR

[BritTim]

The new visa initiatives (for instance Non O-X 10-year retirement, Investment visa, multiple entry tourist visa) are almost invariably attractive when first announced, and usually much less so when closely examined. I expect the LTR to fall into the same category.

[Tropposurfer]

6 hours ago, JustThisOnePostOnly said:

People in that bracket are better off with the Elite visa, imho.

I posted on these subject  before. My apologies if I repeat myself. I agree with you JTOPO.

 

The LTV has some preferences and benefits for some. But for me the benefits of my Elite far out-way this newer long term O or OA retirement visa.

I estimate at my usual yearly rate of play projected forward and allowing for a downturn in games played as I approach my walking frame years lol ???? my free golf alone will pay entirely for my 20 year Elite visa over its life, leaving aside the other in country discounts and services I receive. 

There are lots of other benefits in an Elite that this LTR thingy does not offer. Yes its much cheaper but offers far far less in benefits than an Elite.

I encourage others to read the fine print and you'll see what these disparities are. Of course if you cannot rationalise paying for either then the point of one versus other is a mute one, and the standard O or OA is for you.

 

 

 

[Tracyb]

Will they accept insurance from a UK company to meet the requirement?

[jdlancaster]

I'd love to use this with the Work-From Thailand Visa, but it's always the little details that get you. Got a Master's and make more than 80k a year, but have to work for a large company and I don't. Just working for myself.

 

Theoretically, I could find a part-time remote job for a big company.... but most of the money to make the requirement would be from myself. I doubt they'd accept that.

[Thingamabob]

As a retiree I am happy to maintain 800k in the bank, and pay 1900 baht once a year for a retirement extension. Why would I want to pay more ?

[Wrwest]

80,000 baht a month income? Yea … no. I retired to Thailand as a lower cost country because I cannot afford to retire a working middle class standard of living in the USA. I bring 65,000 baht into Thailand each month (and spend almost all of it) supporting my Thai wife and her Daughter (my Stepdaughter). I am benefitted, my Thai dependents are benefitted and the Thai economy is benefitted. Thailand wanting to attract the rich and famous or those, at least still working? Go for it but deal with the documented demographics. Thailand advantage? Potentially great for tourism, for medical tourism, for working middle class retirement at reasonable cost. Overplay your hand and you shoot yourself in the foot.

[ThailandRyan]

16 minutes ago, Wrwest said:

80,000 baht a month income? Yea … no. I retired to Thailand as a lower cost country because I cannot afford to retire a working middle class standard of living in the USA. I bring 65,000 baht into Thailand each month (and spend almost all of it) supporting my Thai wife and her Daughter (my Stepdaughter). I am benefitted, my Thai dependents are benefitted and the Thai economy is benefitted. Thailand wanting to attract the rich and famous or those, at least still working? Go for it but deal with the documented demographics. Thailand advantage? Potentially great for tourism, for medical tourism, for working middle class retirement at reasonable cost. Overplay your hand and you shoot yourself in the foot.

Think your confused, it is not 80k Thb per month, instead it averages out to being about $6,666 USD or 239k Baht per month.  80K USD for the year. There are many who make this from a pension, well at least coming from the US there are.  The pension type I and a few others I know is a very rare now adays Defined Benefit pension, where the amount only increases every year based on a COLA adjustment but is also a lifetime pension.

[Northwest87]

12 hours ago, jdlancaster said:

I'd love to use this with the Work-From Thailand Visa, but it's always the little details that get you. Got a Master's and make more than 80k a year, but have to work for a large company and I don't. Just working for myself.

 

Theoretically, I could find a part-time remote job for a big company.... but most of the money to make the requirement would be from myself. I doubt they'd accept that.

I am in a similar situation, and interested in this visa type, so I'll throw my hat in this ring.  I think I might (and I stress "might") qualify under option 2 wealthy pensioner and 3 digital nomads, and from the info you give I think that you might yourself also fit these options if current publicly available info is correct (for option 2 US$80K income in the last two years at the time of your application, which does not trigger the minimum investment in Thailand rule). The English wording does not say the income has to be from retirement sources, only that it is dated from the time of the application filing. If this is the case, what documents will have to be submitted to prove that income? This has not been confirmed as far as I know; and will work income be satisfactory or subject to interpretation from embassy or whatever agency will run the show (the Board of Investment?) since option 2 is for "pensioners". Hey! is this pre-tax by the way? I will optimistically assume it is for the time being. ???? This is the no-pain option, with only the income having to be justified. 

 

I agree about the devil being in the details: that may screw up everything, but especially when it comes to work contracts under option 3 (remote work). Here too, I  am in a somewhat similar situation as yours (easily employable remotely in my industry, fits the experience requirements, and have a Master's degree). For instance, the company size of allowable foreign employers is clear enough, but what justificative paperwork will be accepted to prove that the company has made $150 million (or whatever the requirement will be) the last 3 years? If it's a listed company, then the listing should be easy to prove (in principle), but justifying the income for non-listed companies is tricky for the smaller ones, precisely because they are private, and public sources such as Dun and Bradstreet are only indicative in those cases.

 

Also, what constitute a "work contract" for the purpose of the visa? I don't know about other countries, but in my contractor's experience in the US, and I have an extensive one, I'll get a contract every time I take on a contractual job (remote or not) because "cover-your-ass" is a way of life in the US, but it won't guarantee me a job for a finite period of time. Typically, a contract of this type is essentially a non-disclosure agreement that protects the employer, and not much else aside from the duration and the type of work to be performed; it may mention the pay rate, but not always when the jobs vary and the pay rate varies with it: often, you get a duration and a rate guarantee when you work on-site, but this combination is not the norm in many other situations. I can get employed all year long remote, but my employer(s) may not necessarily know at the beginning of the year what the jobs available will be (especially in government contract work) . So the fact that you have a contract on hand is not a proof of guaranteed income of length of employment. This is where I see the biggest question mark in term of what will be left to civil servants' interpretation; the generic wording of the rules is worrisome and may indicate a lack of understanding/research into foreign contractual practices, at least in the context of using them as proof of guaranteed employment.

 

That was my 2 cents...

 

NW

[Northwest87]

11 hours ago, Thingamabob said:

As a retiree I am happy to maintain 800k in the bank, and pay 1900 baht once a year for a retirement extension. Why would I want to pay more ?

Because you didn't spend enough time hanging on for dear life from the rear platform of a chock-full 100 km/h speeding songthaew coming and going from/to the local immigration office ????

[Northwest87]

14 hours ago, BritTim said:

The new visa initiatives (for instance Non O-X 10-year retirement, Investment visa, multiple entry tourist visa) are almost invariably attractive when first announced, and usually much less so when closely examined. I expect the LTR to fall into the same category.

The jury is still out for the LTR, but you have a very good point. Smart Visa for instance as per its own web site, has delivered on average 50 or less visas per month in the last year under the scheme, and in some months less than 20; this implies rules that are very restrictive, whether or not this was by design.

[portlandtree]

17 hours ago, Thingamabob said:

As a retiree I am happy to maintain 800k in the bank, and pay 1900 baht once a year for a retirement extension. Why would I want to pay more ?

How much more is it for LTR visa?

[ubonjoe]

6 minutes ago, portlandtree said:

How much more is it for LTR visa?

The fee is 50k baht.

[portlandtree]

14 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

The fee is 50k baht.

A rip off that’s more than $4,000 compared to $1,900 as now the benefits are not even close to being worth it

[ubonjoe]

25 minutes ago, portlandtree said:

A rip off that’s more than $4,000 compared to $1,900 as now the benefits are not even close to being worth it

Using recent exchange rates 50k baht is less than $1500 US. I assume you meant 1900 baht instead of dollars.

[ThailandRyan]

33 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

Using recent exchange rates 50k baht is less than $1500 US. I assume you meant 1900 baht instead of dollars.

50k thb divided by 10 years equals 5k thb a year, so it costs just about 3100 thb more a year. But then there are the benefits that make it a wash if you can qualify. Makes it a good deal if it works.

[gearbox]

18 hours ago, Wrwest said:

80,000 baht a month income? Yea … no. I retired to Thailand as a lower cost country because I cannot afford to retire a working middle class standard of living in the USA. I bring 65,000 baht into Thailand each month (and spend almost all of it) supporting my Thai wife and her Daughter (my Stepdaughter). I am benefitted, my Thai dependents are benefitted and the Thai economy is benefitted. Thailand wanting to attract the rich and famous or those, at least still working? Go for it but deal with the documented demographics. Thailand advantage? Potentially great for tourism, for medical tourism, for working middle class retirement at reasonable cost. Overplay your hand and you shoot yourself in the foot.

They are not overplaying anything as long as they keep the other visa options intact. Hopefully they are not that dumb to make negative changes to the other types of visas.

[gearbox]

1 hour ago, ubonjoe said:

The fee is 50k baht.

There are very few details to say with certainty that the total fee for 10 years would be 50k baht. I suspect there would be some kind of "check-in" every year which would involve payment.

 

Medical insurance is also required.

[gearbox]

8 hours ago, Northwest87 said:

I am in a similar situation, and interested in this visa type, so I'll throw my hat in this ring.  I think I might (and I stress "might") qualify under option 2 wealthy pensioner and 3 digital nomads, and from the info you give I think that you might yourself also fit these options if current publicly available info is correct (for option 2 US$80K income in the last two years at the time of your application, which does not trigger the minimum investment in Thailand rule). The English wording does not say the income has to be from retirement sources, only that it is dated from the time of the application filing. If this is the case, what documents will have to be submitted to prove that income? This has not been confirmed as far as I know; and will work income be satisfactory or subject to interpretation from embassy or whatever agency will run the show (the Board of Investment?) since option 2 is for "pensioners". Hey! is this pre-tax by the way? I will optimistically assume it is for the time being. ???? This is the no-pain option, with only the income having to be justified. 

 

I agree about the devil being in the details: that may screw up everything, but especially when it comes to work contracts under option 3 (remote work). Here too, I  am in a somewhat similar situation as yours (easily employable remotely in my industry, fits the experience requirements, and have a Master's degree). For instance, the company size of allowable foreign employers is clear enough, but what justificative paperwork will be accepted to prove that the company has made $150 million (or whatever the requirement will be) the last 3 years? If it's a listed company, then the listing should be easy to prove (in principle), but justifying the income for non-listed companies is tricky for the smaller ones, precisely because they are private, and public sources such as Dun and Bradstreet are only indicative in those cases.

 

Also, what constitute a "work contract" for the purpose of the visa? I don't know about other countries, but in my contractor's experience in the US, and I have an extensive one, I'll get a contract every time I take on a contractual job (remote or not) because "cover-your-ass" is a way of life in the US, but it won't guarantee me a job for a finite period of time. Typically, a contract of this type is essentially a non-disclosure agreement that protects the employer, and not much else aside from the duration and the type of work to be performed; it may mention the pay rate, but not always when the jobs vary and the pay rate varies with it: often, you get a duration and a rate guarantee when you work on-site, but this combination is not the norm in many other situations. I can get employed all year long remote, but my employer(s) may not necessarily know at the beginning of the year what the jobs available will be (especially in government contract work) . So the fact that you have a contract on hand is not a proof of guaranteed income of length of employment. This is where I see the biggest question mark in term of what will be left to civil servants' interpretation; the generic wording of the rules is worrisome and may indicate a lack of understanding/research into foreign contractual practices, at least in the context of using them as proof of guaranteed employment.

 

That was my 2 cents...

 

NW

They don't need to rediscover the wheel, the banks in the west (at least in Australia) have a way to deal with contractors/freelancers in regards to loans and credit cards. Usually copies of filed tax returns are required for the last 1-3 years.

 

In regards to contracts it would be very rare to state periods longer than 12 months explicitly in the terms of the contract.

[GroveHillWanderer]

1 hour ago, gearbox said:

There are very few details to say with certainty that the total fee for 10 years would be 50k baht. I suspect there would be some kind of "check-in" every year which would involve payment.

 

Medical insurance is also required.

I would say there are enough details to say that's the total fee for 10 years. It's what's been annnounced and there's no hint of any additional fees being required.

 

What the main issue would be for most people, I suspect, are the relatively onerous financial requirements to qualify in the first place.

 

That's basically, whether working or not, having $80,000 a year in income; for "Wealthy Global Citizens," having in addition, a minimum of $1 million in assets and an investment in Thailand of $500,000; for retirees, having in addition to the income requirement, an investment of $250,000 in Thailand. 

 

If I'm being honest, I don't expect to see a whole bunch of people both qualifying and applying for this new LTR visa.