BOI Wealthy Pensioner LTVor continue OA extensions

[oldcpu]

30 minutes ago, TerraplaneGuy said:

The problem of course is that governments change, policies change, and there's no way to know for sure what might be required in 5 years when it's time for a new "permission".  Just look at how often Immigration (and various regional offices) change the rules for "extensions of stay" under OA visas.  Let's keep our fingers crossed with the LTR 🙂

 

Yes I agree.  Lets keep fingers crossed with the LTR.

 

In regards to change in policies with visas, one need look no further than the Type-OA.  When I obtained my Type-OA, there was no requirement for proving Health Insurance.  But by the time my close to 2 years (on that one year visa) was up, health insurance requirements (with insurance from the Thai branch of a health insurance company) were put in place.  

 

A number of us then left Thailand (either sooner or later) without a re-entry permit to invalidate our Type-OA visas and re-entered Visa Exempt, and then applied for and obtained Type-O visas which did not have a Health Insurance requirement. 

 

Many nay sayers claimed (and still claim) that there will come a day when Type-O visa holders will have to get health insurance (similar to Type-OA) but that has not happened yet - but it could happen.  And it might not.

 

Still, I like the LTR visa approach to Health Insurance, where one can either self insure (by proving $100k US$ equivalent in any savings account around the world), or show commercial health insurance up to a Thai specified coverage, where BoI do NOT require this (for LTR visa) to be from the Thai branch of a health insurance company.  Instead if one can show (to BoI satisfaction) that the foreign health insurance meets their specified health insurance requirements, then that will suffice (where I have read some users have done that by a letter which specifically states the BoI health insurance required coverage).

 

My speculation is as the years roll by, the health insurance requirements, and the requirement in how such coverage is shown, could continue to evolve - possibly for both the Type-OA and the LTR Visa, and maybe other visas as well.

 

As you note, governments and policies change.

 

 

 

[DrJack54]

9 minutes ago, oldcpu said:

My speculation is as the years roll by, the health insurance requirements, and the requirement in how such coverage is shown, could continue to evolve - possibly for both the Type-OA and the LTR Visa, and maybe other visas as well.

Good summary. Think important option is to include "self insure" option as many elderly expats have exclusions that makes insurance almost impossible.

Requiring eg $100k USD (equivalent) in a bank account is stone age.

Some folk have sizable superannuation funds (shares)

[TerraplaneGuy]

35 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

Good summary. Think important option is to include "self insure" option as many elderly expats have exclusions that makes insurance almost impossible.

Requiring eg $100k USD (equivalent) in a bank account is stone age.

Some folk have sizable superannuation funds (shares)

Is the requirement really to have $100k CASH in a bank account?   Are T-bills, other bonds etc. not allowed?

[DrJack54]

3 hours ago, TerraplaneGuy said:

Is the requirement really to have $100k CASH in a bank account?   Are T-bills, other bonds etc. not allowed?

I'm not up to speed with your question.

Bit off topic ...I had friend visit Thailand recently. 

Oz guy and had health travel insurance. 

He had heart arrhythmia in Pattaya.

The hospital required 100k baht to admit him which I transferred. 

[JohnnyBD]

3 hours ago, TerraplaneGuy said:

Is the requirement really to have $100k CASH in a bank account?   Are T-bills, other bonds etc. not allowed?

Yes, $100k USD or the equivalent in other currencies such as; {THB, Pound, Euro, etc.) in a bank account for at least 12 months prior to applying for the LTR visa. I had $100k+ in my brokerage account, but they would not accept it. So, I used the insurance method to start, and will move the money to a bank account before age 70 when the premiums go up.

[Middle Aged Grouch]

LTR is a global flop. One needs to re qualify annualy and go to part of the immigration hassle process each year. Really not worth as it really does not make it much simple. You send them what they ask and then they come back a week later asking again for some absurd document or health coverage.

[JohnnyBD]

14 minutes ago, Middle Aged Grouch said:

LTR is a global flop. One needs to re qualify annualy and go to part of the immigration hassle process each year. Really not worth as it really does not make it much simple. You send them what they ask and then they come back a week later asking again for some absurd document or health coverage.

I dont know where you are getting that one has to qualify annually. It was very easy for me. They accepted my Social Security and company pension which was more than the $80k minimum required. I was approved quickly. I'm good to go until 2029 when my "stay permit" expires. I will just need to update my docs again in 2029 to get the next 5-year "stay permit". I won't even have to do the annual reporting because I go home every year, and that resets the 1-year reporting clock.

Edited 1 hour ago by JohnnyBD

[TerraplaneGuy]

21 minutes ago, JohnnyBD said:

Yes, $100k USD or the equivalent in other currencies such as; {THB, Pound, Euro, etc.) in a bank account for at least 12 months prior to applying for the LTR visa. I had $100k+ in my brokerage account, but they would not accept it. So, I used the insurance method to start, and will move the money to a bank account before age 70 when the premiums go up.

So that costs something like $3,000 or more in lost income since you could probably earn at least 3% more in another kind of investment than in a bank account.  

[JohnnyBD]

30 minutes ago, TerraplaneGuy said:

So that costs something like $3,000 or more in lost income since you could probably earn at least 3% more in another kind of investment than in a bank account.  

I was earning 5.0% on my cash up until a few weeks ago, but it went down to 4.61% as of today. Just check the MM rates on Fidelity if you don't believe me. I don't need to keep 100% of my money in stocks. That's not smart at my age. That $100k is a very small percentage of my total investments. I like to keep that much or more in cash just in case of an emergency or for the wife to live on in case something happens to me, while they divy up my estate.

Edited 38 minutes ago by JohnnyBD

[JohnnyBD]

44 minutes ago, TerraplaneGuy said:

So that costs something like $3,000 or more in lost income since you could probably earn at least 3% more in another kind of investment than in a bank account.  

Capital One bank in US is paying 4.10% right now on their high yield savings accounts, but I'm keeping my money in Fidelity right now.

 

Yes, i could earn more in another type of investment, but I like to keep a small amount of cash available so I don't have sell assets just to raise money.

Edited 20 minutes ago by JohnnyBD