Opinion Editorial: No, It Isn’t Time to Worry About RETIREMENT VISA Changes….Yet

[TigerandDog]

1 hour ago, Mike Teavee said:

Why should Agents be declared illegal?

I use them (for convenience) for all of my immigration needs despite keeping the 800K in the Bank. 

 

The next 10 days are going to be interesting as I need to 

1. Extend my Non-IMM O Visa 
2. Get a Multi Re-Entry Permit
3. Do a TM30 change of address
4. 90 Day Report (Despite doing a TM30 which obviously reports my address to immigration ) 

You can bet your bottom dollar that I will legally be using an Agent to do all of the above (8K for the extension, 4K for the Multi-Rentry Permit, unknown for the TM30 & they normally do a new 90 Day report for me as part of the Extension). 

 

 

 

PS. I also have Health Insurance (Visa Friendly Policy with Pacific Cross) which I got when they made it mandatory for Non-IMM OA holders as I thought there was a possibility that this would be extended to Non-IMM O holders but I wouldn't want to see this made mandatory as there are lots of guys that have lived her for decades who are too old to get it.

 

Make this kind of stuff mandatory for New Visas by all means, but retrospectively making changes for existing holders that they cannot meet is simply unfair. 

Just goes to show what I said about those that meet the requirements and who use agencies is correct. Too lazy to do it yourself. Also please show me where I said make it retrospective. Like so many others you've read something into my comments that wasn't there. I said make it mandatory going forward.

[mokwit]

5 minutes ago, TigerandDog said:

I did do my research and was was by the Thai Consulate that O was no longer available. So please cease with your useless uneducated replies.

OK so why didn't you get a VE/TR and convert in country, rather than choose a visa that seemingly has ruined your life.

 

As for me being "uneducated" I am trying to EDUCATE YOU and others who hopefully this will help avoid a poor visa choice

[TigerandDog]

4 minutes ago, mokwit said:

We don't receive preferential treatment, we just opted for a better visa/extension type. You could have had an O just like us if you had come on a VE or TR and converted in country. I find it hard to believe your country offers OA but not O, as OA is much more recent.

you still haven't explained why O visa gets preferential treatment, viz. NO health insurance and NO police check. All other long term visas require both so why is O getting preferential treatment.

[TigerandDog]

Just now, mokwit said:

OK so why didn't you get a VE/TR and convert in country, rather than choose a visa that seemingly has ruined your life.

 

As for me being "uneducated" I am trying to EDUCATE YOU and others who hopefully this will help avoid a poor visa choice

The O-A hasn't ruined my life, so another useless uneducated comment. Personally I fine having an O-A. I just want someone to explain why the health insurance and police checks aren't a requirement for O. ALL other long term visas require both, so I'm still waiting for your explanation as to why O doesn't require this.

[mokwit]

Just now, TigerandDog said:

you still haven't explained why O visa gets preferential treatment, viz. NO health insurance and NO police check. All other long term visas require both so why is O getting preferential treatment.

It's not. You chose a visa type that came in later and had all kinds requirements.

 

Check this beauty out that came after OA:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwidscHpqMSAAxX_7TgGHcTPDNYQFnoECAsQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fbangkok.immigration.go.th%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2022C1_20.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1E5oyJ1ln4_6Y8nF6AyfR7&opi=89978449

 

Were you required to confirm to the authorities that you don't have Syphilis or did you get some kind of preferential treatment?

[mokwit]

2 minutes ago, TigerandDog said:

why O doesn't require this.

Because it dates back to when Thailand was less restrictive about people staying long term.

[TigerandDog]

Just now, mokwit said:

Because it dates back to when Thailand was less restrictive about people staying long term.

So was O-A, but O-A was the ONLY one of the 2 changed. So you still haven't explained why the preferential treatment when teh mandatory health insurance was implemented for O-A and not O..

[mokwit]

4 minutes ago, TigerandDog said:

uneducated comment. Personally I fine having an O-A.

I seem to be a lot better educated on visa matters than you - you chose an OA <deleted>

 

You don't come across as "fine" having your OA. It seems to be eating away at you.

[Mike Teavee]

41 minutes ago, TigerandDog said:

Just goes to show what I said about those that meet the requirements and who use agencies is correct. Too lazy to do it yourself. Also please show me where I said make it retrospective. Like so many others you've read something into my comments that wasn't there. I said make it mandatory going forward.

You call it “Lazy” I call it making the best use of my time (a bit like paying for Fast Track access at the airport)… works out at <17b pd… Worth it to me, not too everybody. 

 

You have consistently complained about Non-IMM O holders getting preferential treatment over Non-IMM OA holders so to make things “Equal” it would have to apply retroactively as it did with Non-IMM OA holders.

 

So either you do want it applied retrospectively or don’t want to see the Visas being “Equal”, make your mind up. 
 

 

 

 

Edited August 7, 2023 by Mike Teavee

[TigerandDog]

Just now, mokwit said:

I seem to be a lot better educated on visa matters than you - you chose an OA <deleted>

 

You don't come across as "fine" having your OA. It seems to be eating away at you.

what eats away at me is the fact that there is blatant discrimination between the 2 types of visa. The other thing that doesn't make any sense at all is why a retirement visa (regardless of whether o or O-A) requires 800k or 65k per month and a marriage visa requires half that amount. Logically it should be the other way around. However that being said I comfortably meet all the requirements for an O-A, so no need to even consider changing to an O, AND I'm not like so many lazy farangs on this forum who use agents rather than spend the time doing their extensions etc themselves. Why pay an agent when you can do 90 day reports online and make an appointment for an extension which takes 40 minutes at the most in my experience. It's all a waste of money and just participating in the corrupt practices of Immigration Officers. A sad state of affairs really.

[mokwit]

Just now, TigerandDog said:

So was O-A, but O-A was the ONLY one of the 2 changed. So you still haven't explained why the preferential treatment when teh mandatory health insurance was implemented for O-A and not O..

Actually, you are quite right. I stand corrected here. It was Anutin who brought in this change. My personal view was that he meant the O visa extension issued in country but when researching "retirement visa" thought it was the MFoA issued OA.

 

If you got an OA and THEN the change, I take back my comments. I dn't know why, my best guess is because the OA gives one year (more?) in country without need for funds in country - hence the need for insurance to value 400k.

 

It has never been stated as such by Hapkarn or IB but quite possibly the 400k 'year 'round was meant as ensuring funds for medical coverage was available in country.

 

The difference may be explained by the fact that right from extension date O holders would have 400k in their bank here whereas OA would have a one year period where there was no such deposit so hence the requirement for insurance. My best guess.

 

[TigerandDog]

1 minute ago, Mike Teavee said:

You call it “Lazy” I call it making the best use of my time (a bit like paying for Fast Track access at the airport)… works out at <17b pd… Worth it to me, not too everybody. 

 

You have consistently complained about Non-IMM O holders getting preferential treatment over Non-IMM OA holders so to make things “Equal” it wouldn’t apply retroactively as it did with Non-IMM OA holders.

 

So either you do want it applied retrospectively or don’t want to see the Visas being “Equal”, make your mind up. 
 

 

 

 

Learn to read and comprehend. I said going forward abolish O. No retrospectivity whatsoever.

[Mike Teavee]

13 minutes ago, TigerandDog said:

Learn to read and comprehend. I said going forward abolish O. No retrospectivity whatsoever.

I sort of agree with your last point, but think they should scrap both & come up with a new “Retirement” Visa whilst “Grandfathering In” existing holders. 
 

Of course this would only “Cement In” your gripe about Non-IMM O getting preferential treatment over Non-IMM OA but again, unless changes are made that impact Non-Imm O holders retrospectively I will always be receiving preferential treatment over you. 
 

 

Edited August 7, 2023 by Mike Teavee

[TigerandDog]

1 minute ago, mokwit said:

Actually, you are quite right. I stand corrected here. It was Anutin who brought in this change. My personal view was that he meant the O visa extension issued in country but when researching "retirement visa" thought it was the MFoA issued OA.

 

If you got an OA and THEN the change, I take back my comments. I dn't know why, my best guess is because the OA gives one year (more?) in country without need for funds in country - hence the need for insurance to value 400k.

 

It has never been stated as such by Hapkarn or IB but quite possibly the 400k 'year 'round was meant as ensuring funds for medical coverage was available in country.

 

The difference may be explained by the fact that right from extension date O holders would have 400k in their bank here whereas OA would have a one year period where there was no such deposit so hence the requirement for insurance. My best guess.

 

almost correct. When applying for the O-A just had to show the 800k in home country, BUT it was mandatory to open a Thai account and have the 800k in that account within 3 months of arrival. Not sure if that part still applies but that's the way it was when I moved her 9 years ago, and the purpose of the 800k was originally to cover for any medical coverage in country.

 

Unfortunately Anutin screwed the O-A holders when he brought in the compulsory health insurance as he blamed farangs (his words) for doing runners from hospitals, but it was tourists doing the runners, not long term expats. The thing about health insurance is this could have all been avoided if the requirement for tourists to hold travel insurance, that was made law around 2014-2015 was enforced. Tourists are NEVER, except during covid, asked to prove they have travel insurance. If a tourist arrives with no travel insurance then they should not be allowed to clear immigration until they purchase a policy at a booth/s that could be easily set up before arriving at immigration.

[rabas]

11 minutes ago, TigerandDog said:

Learn to read and comprehend. I said going forward abolish O. No retrospectivity whatsoever.

 

Non-immigrant Type O is the base visa type used for many purposes. No one is going to get rid if it.

 

[Bday Prang]

34 minutes ago, mokwit said:

We don't receive preferential treatment, we just opted for a better visa/extension type. You could have had an O just like us if you had come on a VE or TR and converted in country. I find it hard to believe your country offers OA but not O, as OA is much more recent.

I don't think he even  knew what questions to ask, either that or he comes from Albania or somewhere similar

No state pension required for NON O visas in the uk either .  money in the bank is acceptable and has been for years. It just isn't very clear on the website

Why would it say over 50 with state pension when state pensions start at 65??

[mokwit]

2 minutes ago, TigerandDog said:

he blamed farangs (his words) for doing runners from hospitals,

I still wonder if he was aiming at people on IB one year O retirement extensions i'e' people retired here, but it got applied to MoFA "retirement visa" i.e. OA by mistake.

[TigerandDog]

1 minute ago, mokwit said:

I still wonder if he was aiming at people on IB one year O retirement extensions i'e' people retired here, but it got applied to MoFA "retirement visa" i.e. OA by mistake.

the whole thing was badly thought out. Obviously no research done by Anutin and his cronies as to the various visa types available for long stay so just picked O-A retirement, ignored the O marriage & retirement visas completely.

[mokwit]

1 minute ago, TigerandDog said:

the whole thing was badly thought out. Obviously no research done by Anutin and his cronies as to the various visa types available for long stay so just picked O-A retirement, ignored the O marriage & retirement visas completely.

yep, thought people retired here must be using a "retirement visa" - and OA issued by MoFA seemed to be the one.

[Bday Prang]

7 minutes ago, TigerandDog said:

almost correct. When applying for the O-A just had to show the 800k in home country, BUT it was mandatory to open a Thai account and have the 800k in that account within 3 months of arrival. Not sure if that part still applies but that's the way it was when I moved her 9 years ago, and the purpose of the 800k was originally to cover for any medical coverage in country.

 

Unfortunately Anutin screwed the O-A holders when he brought in the compulsory health insurance as he blamed farangs (his words) for doing runners from hospitals, but it was tourists doing the runners, not long term expats. The thing about health insurance is this could have all been avoided if the requirement for tourists to hold travel insurance, that was made law around 2014-2015 was enforced. Tourists are NEVER, except during covid, asked to prove they have travel insurance. If a tourist arrives with no travel insurance then they should not be allowed to clear immigration until they purchase a policy at a booth/s that could be easily set up before arriving at immigration.

There is no requirement for tourists to hold travel insurance, there was no law passed in 2014/2015. what are you talking about?

 The only compulsory requirement for tourists to have insurance was during the covid years. ,  If people want to travel without insurance it is up to them and nothing to do with you

 

"If a tourist arrives with no travel insurance then they should not be allowed to clear immigration until they purchase a policy at a booth/s that could be easily set up before arriving at immigration."

 

No wish to sound patronising but there is a little more to providing insurance cover than "setting up a booth" 

 

You seem obsessed with inflicting more rules and regulations on people, and it looks to me that it's all because you were badly advised and consequently made a  poor choice when choosing your own visa, and are somewhat envious of those who found a better solution than you.    Non O -A  really ???? ???

[Mike Teavee]

48 minutes ago, mokwit said:

In fairness Mike that's your personal circumstances affecting visa your visa choice. Take your point about UK O.

I agree 100% & I wouldn't have even bothered getting a Visa at that time if it wasn't for the fact that I was spending almost every other weekend in Bangkok & got stopped on entry at Don Muang one time to explain why, haven't flown from/to DMK since.

 

Penang was by far the easiest place for me to get a Non-IMM O & as a bonus they gave me the 12 month multi-entry variant, at that time getting a Non-IMM O from the UK wasn't possible ( @Bday Pranghas kindly explained that it is now possible even though the Website suggests you need a State Pension) & getting it in Singapore wasn't an option as I didn't go for PR before I hit 50. 

 

 

I think in fairness to long term Non-IMM OA holders, it was a great Visa before the Health Insurance requirements kicked in as you could do 1 trip home every 2 years (Border Bounce just before the end of the 1st year) & get a new one, so never needed to do an extension or even have a Thai Bank account (although it seems when  @TigerandDog got his he had to put 800K in the bank after 3 months, am not doubting him but this is the 1st time I've heard anybody having to do that & have read of many guys who are happy with the fact that they don't need to have any money in Thailand with their Non-IMM OA). 

 

 

 

 

[Bday Prang]

39 minutes ago, TigerandDog said:

BUT it was mandatory to open a Thai account and have the 800k in that account within 3 months of arrival.

Who on earth told you that??

Edited August 7, 2023 by Bday Prang

[K2938]

2 hours ago, Mike Teavee said:

Make this kind of stuff mandatory for New Visas by all means, but retrospectively making changes for existing holders that they cannot meet is simply unfair.

So how fair is it that the Thai Elite Easy Access visa was sold us upgradable to a longer term over its exisiting life (20 years instead of 5) and now this upgrade possibility is suddenly only available to Aug. 15?  And on top of this people are only informed about this approximately two weeks in advance?  Is this fair?

[Captain Monday]

1 hour ago, mokwit said:

We don't receive preferential treatment, we just opted for a better visa/extension type. You could have had an O just like us if you had come on a VE or TR and converted in country. I find it hard to believe your country offers OA but not O, as OA is much more recent.

I am on O/A actually an multiple entry permit of last years entry during the validity period

I would like to go to O next year but there does not seem to be a way to do it, without taking off a lot of my work (overseas)

 

Makes more sense to keep paying for the useless redundant Thai insurance. I used to have a signature line "Constant Internatioanl travel". Too much time is required in Thailand to process the conversion from visa exempt and get the extension.

 

Now, could I get the O from the Thai Consulate in the US? Then how long would it take to get the one year extension in Thailand ?  I could be here for a month in January maybe swing 6 weeks without a pay loss.

 

[Mike Teavee]

17 minutes ago, Captain Monday said:

I am on O/A actually an multiple entry permit of last years entry during the validity period

I would like to go to O next year but there does not seem to be a way to do it, without taking off a lot of my work (overseas)

 

Makes more sense to keep paying for the useless redundant Thai insurance. I used to have a signature line "Constant Internatioanl travel". Too much time is required in Thailand to process the conversion from visa exempt and get the extension.

 

Now, could I get the O from the Thai Consulate in the US? Then how long would it take to get the one year extension in Thailand ?  I could be here for a month in January maybe swing 6 weeks without a pay loss.

 

You 1st need to wait until your re-entry permit expires & then leave the country ending your current permission to stay and Non-IMM OA Visa.  

 

You then have a choice of coming back in Visa Exempt/Tourist Visa & doing a conversion (would need at least 15 days) OR do a long weekend in Laos/Vietnam OR go back to your home country to get the Single Entry 90 Day Non-IMM O Visa. 

 

Once you have the 90 day Visa you can apply up to 30 (45 days in some places e.g. Jomtien) in advance of it expiring for a 1 year extension which just takes 1 day.... If you did need to leave Thailand in the 1st 60/45 days you would just get a Re-Entry permit & as long as you return with a couple of days left before it ends, can do your 1 year extension when you get back. 

 

 

[Captain Monday]

11 minutes ago, Mike Teavee said:

 

 

Once you have the 90 day Visa you can apply up to 30 (45 days in some places e.g. Jomtien) in advance of it expiring for a 1 year extension which just takes 1 day.... If you did need to leave Thailand in the 1st 60/45 days you would just get a Re-Entry permit & as long as you return with a couple of days left before it ends, can do your 1 year extension when you get back. 

 

 

Thank you, My agent contact ( Chiang Mai ) said if I enter with Non-O or visa exempt I had to stay in Thailand during the whole period until I get the one year extension sorted.

[Mike Teavee]

18 minutes ago, Captain Monday said:

Thank you, My agent contact ( Chiang Mai ) said if I enter with Non-O or visa exempt I had to stay in Thailand during the whole period until I get the one year extension sorted.

I don’t believe that’s true you can get a Re-Entry permit for the Non-IMM O to protect your permission to stay for the whole 90 days from your 1st entry so nothing to stop you leaving & then doing your extension when you get back. 

Obviously you can’t get a Re-Entry permit if you’re Visa Exempt & I think you would probably need to remain in-Country for at least 15 days until you got your Non-IMM O.

 

it’s possible that your Agent will be converting you to the 90 day visa + getting the 1st year extension in 1 shot (quite a common way to do the conversion in Pattaya, costs 23,500b, takes a couple of days & you get the 90 day visa + 1st years extension so good for 15 months) I don’t know the implications of travelling before your extension “kicks in”, would suggest you ask the question of somebody like Maneerat (Visa Agent in Pattaya who have done all of my friends conversions) who should be able to give you a definitive answer about whether you can travel outside of Thailand in the period between getting your Non-IMM O and being on the extension that the agent has got for you with it. 

[jerrymahoney]

I guess I am not well informed about the O and O-A visa requirements. I never had an O. I had 2 one year multiple-entry 'B' visas which became the basis of my first retirement exension in 2007 and then every year since.

Edited August 7, 2023 by jerrymahoney

[lamyai3]

4 hours ago, TigerandDog said:

you still haven't explained why O visa gets preferential treatment, viz. NO health insurance and NO police check. All other long term visas require both so why is O getting preferential treatment.

O/A requires no monies to be brought into Thailand. Until a few years ago it was easy to apply for one in your home country, use it for the maximum two years, then repeat the process based on just showing a home country bank statement, no seasoning was even required. The insurance requirements were bought in to take the shine off this visa and remove it's considerable advantage over those visa classes that require money to be held on deposit here (which at least could be drawn on for medical costs in an emergency). 

[jerrymahoney]

13 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

14 hours ago, TigerandDog said:

BUT it was mandatory to open a Thai account and have the 800k in that account within 3 months of arrival.

Who on earth told you that??

I guess it was someone on earth but, at least so far, he ain't telling.