On 1/26/2026 at 5:31 PM, KhunHeineken said:

Thanks for the information, but I'm not in the market for this visa. They system I have been using has been working fine for some years now. I also have privacy issues with handing over my financials for this type of visa, but that's just me. I know others have no problem with this.

It probably should be called a "Wealthy Retiree Visa" because wealthy retirees, from some countries, such as mine, have an amount of money / income that excludes them from receiving a pension, thus, they are known as self funded retirees.

I suspect we have agreement on this.

On 1/26/2026 at 5:31 PM, KhunHeineken said:

It probably should be called a "Wealthy Retiree Visa" because wealthy retirees, from some countries, such as mine, have an amount of money / income that excludes them from receiving a pension, thus, they are known as self funded retirees.

I'm fortunate to be from a country that doesn't discriminate against those who have plenty of money / income when it comes to receiving their gov't social security/pension. The longer one pays, and the more one pays into the system, the larger one's SS benefit will be, no matter their net worth. Also, one can have a company pension and still get their SS money. Fortunately, I didn't need to hand over all my financials, just my SS and company pension info. I was on Non-O extensions for many years, but I much prefer the benefits of the LTR visa. Everyone's situation is different. To each his own.

18 hours ago, JohnnyBD said:

I'm fortunate to be from a country that doesn't discriminate against those who have plenty of money / income when it comes to receiving their gov't social security/pension. The longer one pays, and the more one pays into the system, the larger one's SS benefit will be, no matter their net worth. Also, one can have a company pension and still get their SS money. Fortunately, I didn't need to hand over all my financials, just my SS and company pension info. I was on Non-O extensions for many years, but I much prefer the benefits of the LTR visa. Everyone's situation is different. To each his own.

My home country, Australia, has a scheme called Superannuation. If you are working, it's compulsory to be in a Superannuation scheme and you must pay a percentage of your salary into it, every pay day. Your employer deducts the appropriate amount. You don't get to see it, and it's basically locked away until retirement age.

The idea is, from the day you start working, to the day you retire, you have been funding your own retirement, thus, have accumulated enough money that you do not qualify for the government aged pension.

Superannuation is just your own money coming back to you in retirement, so the government / tax payer doesn't have to fund your retirement.

15 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Your employer deducts the appropriate amount. You don't get to see it, and it's basically locked away until retirement age.

You didn't mention that the government matches the super deductions (not necessarily 100% in some cases). In the main dollar for dollar. Also there is salary sacrifice option on top of compulsory contributions.

Edit: typo. Employer matches contributions

On 1/29/2026 at 7:09 AM, oldcpu said:

freehold

You are applying the western definition of "freehold" for foreign property ownership in Thailand. It's incorrect, and misleading.

A foreigner can not own property in Thailand, freehold, under the western meaning of the term.

On 1/29/2026 at 7:09 AM, oldcpu said:

at a fabulous purchase price, but insane rental prices meaning it makes far more sense to purchase, as opposed to rent.

Wrong again.

The condo I am renting has condo's for sale in the block.

I can get around 5% interest in a bank in Australia, more if the money is in my fund.

I have done the math. If I put the cost of buy a condo in my block that is "like for like" as in, same size, same view etc, into my bank, the interest more than covers my rent. Also, I have no fees, taxes, maintenance costs etc.

Thus, it makes no sense to purchase.

On 1/29/2026 at 7:09 AM, oldcpu said:

My Thai condo has gone up 70% in value since my Dec-2016 purchase.

Your condo has only gone up what the market is prepared to pay for it. You will not know that figure until it sells. Don't sell it, and your "70%" is meaningless.

On 1/29/2026 at 7:09 AM, oldcpu said:

Rental prices for the same condo have tripled thou.

That's not my experience of the rental market in Pattaya. If anything, due to massive oversupply, I see downward pressure on rents.

On 1/29/2026 at 7:09 AM, oldcpu said:

One can own foreign freehold condominiums in one's name.

Did you see the word "land" in my post?

Does your condo float in the air?

On 1/29/2026 at 7:09 AM, oldcpu said:

Hypotheticals such as this ( "pull" or modify a visa) apply to all visas. The Type-O and OA can also be changed at any time. Health insurance requirements could be changed and required from Type-O visa. All speculation, all hypothetical, just the same as any LTR visa hypotheticals.

I wouldn't call it a hypothetical, I would call it a possibility.

The mere fact that that it's possible, and Thailand has no reasonable pathway to citizenship, would you put $250,000USD into Thailand? For me, not a chance. I don't trust the Thai's, and Thailand has a long history of unstable governance. Eg. coups etc.

On 1/29/2026 at 7:09 AM, oldcpu said:

I suspect it a surprise to many (which I suspect includes you) that there are some who 'just like Thailand', who have 'Thai family' (due to marriage)

I like Thailand also, that's doesn't mean I see Thailand as a sound investment.

On 1/29/2026 at 7:09 AM, oldcpu said:

Because of family, climate and social aspects we like, Thailand has advantages, and leaving Thailand in a hurry, despite any investment here, is simply not an issue.

Never say never in Thailand. You have no rights here. You do not have PR, nor citizenship. You have a visa, so, for me, I get a visa that comes at minimal cost and minimal risk to that cost.

On 1/29/2026 at 7:09 AM, oldcpu said:

Staying in Thailand incurs no more 'relative' risk (to those person's finances) than any a visa held by others.

I disagree.

For those who have to move $250,000USD into Thailand, that money is now at risk.

On 1/29/2026 at 7:09 AM, oldcpu said:

Each to their own, and their own financial situation.

Yes, of course.

I have no problem with those who move the money here. I would also suggest a pig farm or rubber tree farm in Issan is a good investment as well. 😂

7 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

You didn't mention that the government matches the super deductions (not necessarily 100% in some cases). In the main dollar for dollar. Also there is salary sacrifice option on top of compulsory contributions.

No, the government doesn't match superannuation contributions, the employer does, although for some very low income earners I believe the government does make a contribution, however, this is not your average worker.

The cost of superannuation to the employer is just passed on to the consumers for the goods / services supplied.

The issue I have with superannuation in Australia is, if the government is going to make it compulsory, then the government should guarantee it.

This whole notion that it's compulsory for you to pay it, and it goes to a company that bets it on the stock market, and other financial products, and they lose, then you can't retire when you thought you could is unfair on individuals.

Yes, you can change superannuation companies at any time, but a crash is a crash.

10 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Yes, you can change superannuation companies at any time, but a crash is a crash

Fact is all your posts are basically expressing disdain re LTR.

Read the OP again. His question was specific.

He did not ask for pros/cons.

Your opinion re that visa option has been expressed in several your posts.

All off topic. Along with your choice to use agent for extensions.

Not relevant.

BTW: doing extensions retirement does not require money to be held in Thai Bank.

There is the option of income method.

On 1/26/2026 at 10:35 AM, Presnock said:

right, I agree that not every visa fits perfectly with each and every person. I feel that the LTR is perfect for me and I had a retirement O for almost 20 years and never had any problems with that one either and if all else does fail before my 10 years are up, I would go back to the O visa.

I have no problem with those who hand over financials and get the visa based on the over $80,000USD method.

It's those who go the $250,000USD investment route that I would caution.

1 minute ago, DrJack54 said:

Fact is all your posts are basically expressing disdain re LTR.

Fact is, I am merely pointing out the risks to those considering going down the $250,000USD route. Nothing more.

2 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

Read the OP again. His question was specific.

He did not ask for pros/cons.

Is discussing the pro / cons of the visa really worthy of starting another thread, or can it be discussed in this thread?

Not questioning moderation. Just state what you will allow and not allow.

5 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

Your opinion re that visa option has been expressed in several your posts.

All off topic.

See above question.

I note the OP hasn't posted for a while. Actually, he's only made one other post since starting the thread.

On 1/23/2026 at 11:38 PM, KhunHeineken said:

The answer to the real question is that it's a rip off, bordering on a scam.

This is just one biased repetitive post.

The very many reports of folk having obtained LTR visa singing the praises demonstrate that.

18 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

I have no problem with those who hand over financials and get the visa based on the over $80,000USD method.

Indeed you were incorrect re financial options in an earlier post of yours.

Only a guess however from the very many posts re LTR would seem the annual income of 80k USD is by far most go to option.

Further off topic posts removed.

3 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

This is just one biased repetitive post.

The very many reports of folk having obtained LTR visa singing the praises demonstrate that.

Indeed you were incorrect re financial options in an earlier post of yours.

Only a guess however from the very many posts re LTR would seem the annual income of 80k USD is by far most go to option.

Further off topic posts removed.

So, just to clarify, can we discuss the visa via the $250,000USD route, or is that off topic?

The OP did post this, "If annual passive income is between 40,000 USD and 79,999 USD, an additional investment of 250,000 USD in assets (such as Thai government bonds, direct investment in companies registered in Thailand, or Thai real estate) is required?"

55 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

My home country, Australia, has a scheme called Superannuation. If you are working, it's compulsory to be in a Superannuation scheme and you must pay a percentage of your salary into it, every pay day. Your employer deducts the appropriate amount. You don't get to see it, and it's basically locked away until retirement age.

The idea is, from the day you start working, to the day you retire, you have been funding your own retirement, thus, have accumulated enough money that you do not qualify for the government aged pension.

Superannuation is just your own money coming back to you in retirement, so the government / tax payer doesn't have to fund your retirement.

My home country is the US, and our system is called Social Security. I started working at age 18, and contributed a percentage (it's compulsory too) of my salary to the SS system each year, and when I reached age 66, I started drawing monthly payments. My employers also had to contribute the same amount as I did. It will take many years to recoup mine and my employer's contributions. So basically, I/we have been funding my own retirement also. It sounds very similar to what you described. If I pass away before recouping all of our contributions, no one in my family gets the extra. The SS system keeps the extra.

Just curious, does anyone get what's left in your Superannuation account if you pass away before you start collecting, or before you recoup what you had contributed?

22 minutes ago, JohnnyBD said:

Just curious, does anyone get what's left in your Superannuation account if you pass away before you start collecting, or before you recoup what you had contributed

II'm also Oz. With the superannuation amout it can just be held in the fund invested in share market or other options.

OR you can set up an income stream. Think of it as a pension.

You can bequeath balance upon passing to who you wish.

In other words the funds are passed on to who you wish.

In case of wife/children that can be indicated in your online account.

For others such as siblings that is via WILL.

36 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

II'm also Oz. With the superannuation amout it can just be held in the fund invested in share market or other options.

OR you can set up an income stream. Think of it as a pension.

You can bequeath balance upon passing to who you wish.

In other words the funds are passed on to who you wish.

In case of wife/children that can be indicated in your online account.

For others such as siblings that is via WILL.

Thanks. I think I understand now. So, if someone wants to take monthly withdrawals from their superannuation (like a pension), they could then use those withdrawals to qualify for a LTR-P visa, right? Just curious, are there any requirements that one must start taking withdrawals at a certain age? In the US, we have Traditional IRAs (tax-deferred) that we much start taking distributions at a certain age. In my case it's at age 73. The gov't sets the formula for how much one has to withdraw based on the balance. They want to start getting their tax money on the distributions.

15 minutes ago, JohnnyBD said:

. The gov't sets the formula for how much one has to withdraw based on the balance. They want to start getting their tax money on the distributions

Not directly answering your question, however I recently moved to extension (retirement) based on income method..

I fell tad short of 80k income.

In the main because I don't need that level of income..

So back to the OP, Thinking LTR is not best option for him if cannot satisfy for annual income.

3 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

You are applying the western definition of "freehold" for foreign property ownership in Thailand. It's incorrect, and misleading.

No. I am not applying any western definition in the sense I think you mean. I am referring to condo unit ownership. Condo's are considered property. Brush up on your English language skills. Foreigners can not own land in Thailand. There is a difference between "land" and "property" in the English language.

3 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

A foreigner can not own property in Thailand, freehold, under the western meaning of the term.

I never said a foreigner could own land. I am talking about Thai condominium property. Foreigners can own property as in a foreign freehold condo.

3 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

I have done the math.

You need to do the math again. Yours is flawed.

As I noted, rentals have gone up 3x (that 300%) in cost since I purchased my condo. My condo has also gone up in value 70% in value.

Lets see, 5% a year in your investment, from 2016 to end 2025 yields about 55%. Not 70%. Further in your case, if you were staying in the luxury condo where I live, but you were only renting, in addition to only seeing an increase of 55% for your 5% investment (every year since ~2016) you would also be paying 300x as much for the luxury condo rental at the end of 2025, compared to what rental prices were at the end of 2016. 3x !! Your net worth would have decreased over the years. Your 5% per year simply was not good enough to pay for the luxury condo. As I noted, buying made sense.

3 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

If I put the cost of buy a condo in my block that is "like for like" as in, same size, same view etc, into my bank, the interest more than covers my rent. Also, I have no fees, taxes, maintenance costs etc.

Again , 5% would not pay for the rent in the luxury condo where I live. Its not enough. 5% would have been about 10,000 baht a month short in year 2016, and today in year 2026 you would be massively short by over 100,000 baht per month (above what 5% yields you) to pay for the rent. ... Rental prices have sky rocketed for some luxury condos.

3 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Thus, it makes no sense to purchase.

No. It does not. One needs to look at each case, and do valid math. Not wrong generalizations.

3 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Your condo has only gone up what the market is prepared to pay for it. You will not know that figure until it sells. Don't sell it, and your "70%" is meaningless.

I own the condo unit. It has my name on the chanote. Currently, I don't pay rent. My condo fees are a fraction of rental fees for this luxury condo.

So I am already massively financially ahead, compared to if I had been financially less astute and had mistakenly decided not to buy back in 2016.

3 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

The mere fact that that it's possible, and Thailand has no reasonable pathway to citizenship, would you put $250,000USD into Thailand?

I already have more than one citizenship. I don't need, nor do I want any more.

I have legal tax advantages living in Thailand, as a non-resident, and as a non-Thai citizen, due to the DTA (with Thailand) of my income source country, that in itself would make it silly financially to want Thai citizenship. In addition to that, my having the LTR-WP visa is the icing on the cake.

Thai citizenship? Thankyou, but no. Thai citizenship would cost me money. Cost me much more money.

3 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Never say never in Thailand. You have no rights here. You do not have PR, nor citizenship. You have a visa, so, for me, I get a visa that comes at minimal cost and minimal risk to that cost.

There is massively more to rights than just PR and citizenship in Thailand. I guess you never checked Thai law nor even Thai tax law. Foreigners are not the same as Thai citizens, but to say foreigners have no rights, is incorrect. Thailand like many countries has laws that apply to all who reside.

Your focus is rather narrow here IMHO, on land ownership and on citizenship.

And as noted, I have legal tax advantages that are significant due to DTA and visa, with each in itself indicating that Thai citizen would be an expensive tax proposition and a mistake (in my case) for me to go for it.

3 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

I have no problem with those who move the money here. I would also suggest a pig farm or rubber tree farm in Issan is a good investment as well. 😂

You can go ahead and lose your money on a pig farm or rubber tree.

In the mean time i will watch the condo unit I purchased go up in value. ... I also note in the district in Phuket where I live, the condos in the complex where I own are the least expensive in the neighbourhood( ie 2 km to 3km approx radius around my condo location). And I note the asking price for Thai freehold condos in the luxury complex where I live is currently is 27-million Thai baht. And yes, people are paying that much (for Thai freehold no less ! ). I bet that is a massive surprise to you. Further, that is a Thai freehold price - foreign freehold typically sell for more. Why the high price? Well guess what ... some months ago one sold for that price, and as I noted, our condo is the least expensive of condos (where owners can buy) in our neighbourhood. Prices all around Thailand do NOT all fall in line with "your" Pattaya case in point(?) nor are prices all around Thailand in line with those in Phuket where I abide.

So as I noted, best wishes to you in your pig farm or rubber tree example ( ... obviously I 'jest' re: pig-farm/rubber tree) . In my case, I will stick with a condo that has done better than your 5% example, and in the neighbourhood where I live, the price trend indicates the price will go higher. And instead of paying massive rent every month, I have a relatively small condo fee to pay. I am ahead financially, not behind. I would be behind in this condo complex, had I chosen to rent.

Time to relook at your math, or perhaps consider there are people with a different perspective than yours, who are doing very well financially, here in Thailand, by adopting an approach different than that which works for you.

57 minutes ago, oldcpu said:

Lets see, 5% a year in your investment, from 2016 to end 2025 yields about 55%. Not 70%. Further in your case, if you were staying in the luxury condo where I live, but you were only renting, in addition to only seeing an increase of 55% for your 5% investment (every year since ~2016) you would also be paying 300x <<<<< should read 3x <<< as much for the luxury condo rental at the end of 2025, compared to what rental prices were at the end of 2016. 3x !! Your net worth would have decreased over the years. Your 5% per year simply was not good enough to pay for the luxury condo. As I noted, buying made sense.

This should read 'would also be paying 3x as much , not 300x. I'm bad re: that typo.

1 hour ago, oldcpu said:

I have legal tax advantages living in Thailand, as a non-immigrant-resident <<<<<< corrected my typo .., and as a non-Thai citizen, due to the DTA (with Thailand) of my income source country, that in itself would make it silly financially to want Thai citizenship. In addition to that, my having the LTR-WP visa is the icing on the cake.

That should read 'non-immigrant-resident' ... not read "non-resident". Another bad typo there also by me.

19 hours ago, oldcpu said:

No. I am not applying any western definition in the sense I think you mean. I am referring to condo unit ownership. Condo's are considered property. Brush up on your English language skills. Foreigners can not own land in Thailand. There is a difference between "land" and "property" in the English language.

I never said a foreigner could own land. I am talking about Thai condominium property. Foreigners can own property as in a foreign freehold condo.

You need to do the math again. Yours is flawed.

As I noted, rentals have gone up 3x (that 300%) in cost since I purchased my condo. My condo has also gone up in value 70% in value.

Lets see, 5% a year in your investment, from 2016 to end 2025 yields about 55%. Not 70%. Further in your case, if you were staying in the luxury condo where I live, but you were only renting, in addition to only seeing an increase of 55% for your 5% investment (every year since ~2016) you would also be paying 300x as much for the luxury condo rental at the end of 2025, compared to what rental prices were at the end of 2016. 3x !! Your net worth would have decreased over the years. Your 5% per year simply was not good enough to pay for the luxury condo. As I noted, buying made sense.

Again , 5% would not pay for the rent in the luxury condo where I live. Its not enough. 5% would have been about 10,000 baht a month short in year 2016, and today in year 2026 you would be massively short by over 100,000 baht per month (above what 5% yields you) to pay for the rent. ... Rental prices have sky rocketed for some luxury condos.

No. It does not. One needs to look at each case, and do valid math. Not wrong generalizations.

I own the condo unit. It has my name on the chanote. Currently, I don't pay rent. My condo fees are a fraction of rental fees for this luxury condo.

So I am already massively financially ahead, compared to if I had been financially less astute and had mistakenly decided not to buy back in 2016.

I already have more than one citizenship. I don't need, nor do I want any more.

I have legal tax advantages living in Thailand, as a non-resident, and as a non-Thai citizen, due to the DTA (with Thailand) of my income source country, that in itself would make it silly financially to want Thai citizenship. In addition to that, my having the LTR-WP visa is the icing on the cake.

Thai citizenship? Thankyou, but no. Thai citizenship would cost me money. Cost me much more money.

There is massively more to rights than just PR and citizenship in Thailand. I guess you never checked Thai law nor even Thai tax law. Foreigners are not the same as Thai citizens, but to say foreigners have no rights, is incorrect. Thailand like many countries has laws that apply to all who reside.

Your focus is rather narrow here IMHO, on land ownership and on citizenship.

And as noted, I have legal tax advantages that are significant due to DTA and visa, with each in itself indicating that Thai citizen would be an expensive tax proposition and a mistake (in my case) for me to go for it.

You can go ahead and lose your money on a pig farm or rubber tree.

In the mean time i will watch the condo unit I purchased go up in value. ... I also note in the district in Phuket where I live, the condos in the complex where I own are the least expensive in the neighbourhood( ie 2 km to 3km approx radius around my condo location). And I note the asking price for Thai freehold condos in the luxury complex where I live is currently is 27-million Thai baht. And yes, people are paying that much (for Thai freehold no less ! ). I bet that is a massive surprise to you. Further, that is a Thai freehold price - foreign freehold typically sell for more. Why the high price? Well guess what ... some months ago one sold for that price, and as I noted, our condo is the least expensive of condos (where owners can buy) in our neighbourhood. Prices all around Thailand do NOT all fall in line with "your" Pattaya case in point(?) nor are prices all around Thailand in line with those in Phuket where I abide.

So as I noted, best wishes to you in your pig farm or rubber tree example ( ... obviously I 'jest' re: pig-farm/rubber tree) . In my case, I will stick with a condo that has done better than your 5% example, and in the neighbourhood where I live, the price trend indicates the price will go higher. And instead of paying massive rent every month, I have a relatively small condo fee to pay. I am ahead financially, not behind. I would be behind in this condo complex, had I chosen to rent.

Time to relook at your math, or perhaps consider there are people with a different perspective than yours, who are doing very well financially, here in Thailand, by adopting an approach different than that which works for you.

I've been cautioned by a Mod for going off topic, but I will very briefly address a few things in your post.

Firstly, you don't own the land your condo sits on. Simple as that. The x30 x 30 is also not enforceable in Thai law. Also, you are out voted at 51% to 49% within the building. The list goes on and on, and have been well debated in the past.

You mentioned you are a non resident. If you are in Thailand for 180 days a year, you are a tax resident of Thailand. If you are not in Thailand fora 180 days a year, what a waste of money buying a useless condo for 6 months of the year. Which one is it?

I was speaking in general terms, not specific to your circumstances. More for people considering their option in 2026.

So, getting back on topic, in 2026, would YOU go down the $250,000USD route for this visa if you were recently retired, given the oversupply of condo's, and the poor shape the Thai economy is in, should you were to chose another for of investment?

If you would, why? If you wouldn't, why? Remember, it's 2026 when you reply.

22 hours ago, JohnnyBD said:

If I pass away before recouping all of our contributions, no one in my family gets the extra.

22 hours ago, JohnnyBD said:

Just curious, does anyone get what's left in your Superannuation account if you pass away before you start collecting, or before you recoup what you had contributed?

As Jack said, yes, you can leave the funds to a beneficiary.

I think that is a very poor system you are in, whereby you work all your life, build up retirement nest egg, possibly die a week after retiring, be it by natural causes or say a car accident, and your family gets none of your accumulated wealth throughout your working life. I think that is disgraceful.

Has anyone considered that if you go the $80,000USD route, given the Thailand tax on remitted funds, one may be exposed to this tax?

Yes, I know, it's been well debated that it's too hard for the Thai's to collect. Too much paperwork for them. It will never happen. Etc, Etc.

It's was just a thought.

21 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

So back to the OP, Thinking LTR is not best option for him if cannot satisfy for annual income.

If he's got hundreds of thousands in super that he can access, would you advise him to take $250,000USD equivalent of it and move it to Thailand so he can get the visa?

If not, why not. If so, why?

24 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

If he's got hundreds of thousands in super that he can access, would you advise him to take $250,000USD equivalent of it and move it to Thailand so he can get the visa?

Give it a rest. I looked into this visa option however as posted earlier I was tad short of the $80k USD income.

I have no desire to withdraw funds from my Oz super fund that has long term history of 8%+ return.

You referred to LTR as a "scam"

Repeat... For those that qualify based on income it's possible best visa option available.

As Tod Daniels posted early in thread.

OP should seek advice from BOI.

35 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Has anyone considered that if you go the $80,000USD route, given the Thailand tax on remitted funds, one may be exposed to this tax?

Yes, I know, it's been well debated that it's too hard for the Thai's to collect. Too much paperwork for them. It will never happen. Etc, Etc.

It's was just a thought.

LTR-WP has an exemption (by Royal Decree) that means previous year’s income is not taxable.

FWIW I plan on buying a Condo > $250K, nothing to do with potential financial gains/losses, I just like to have my own place to live and security in the fact that my landlord can’t jack the rent up or kick me out.

Edit: Also, the “30+30 leases” don’t come into it, you own the Condo freehold so no lease involved.

44 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Has anyone considered that if you go the $80,000USD route, given the Thailand tax on remitted funds, one may be exposed to this tax?

Clearly you have very poor research on LTR.

Just dropping this here..

I already posted in the Thai Motoring Forum

Summary: If you have an LTR-P (and maybe any other BOI facilitated LTR visa), when renewing your driving license, you need to go through BOI at One Bangkok again to get the Cor prior to the LTD driving license appt - I found out the hard way by going to Changwattana for my Certificate of Residence, who then sent me all the way back across town to BOI/IMM at One Bangkok. Also note, they won't send it to you by mail in five days anymore - nope - you need to return to the same location to get the letter 2-3 weeks after applying.

5 minutes ago, ronnie50 said:

Just dropping this here..

I already posted in the Thai Motoring Forum

Summary: If you have an LTR-P (and maybe any other BOI facilitated LTR visa), when renewing your driving license, you need to go through BOI at One Bangkok again to get the Cor prior to the LTD driving license appt

Great info.

I assumed that you could just go to CW for your COR with a LTR.

Your post is a good heads up.

I'm very surprised. Even folk on tourist visa/visa exempt can obtain COR at CW.

5 day process

21 minutes ago, ronnie50 said:

Just dropping this here..

I already posted in the Thai Motoring Forum

Summary: If you have an LTR-P (and maybe any other BOI facilitated LTR visa), when renewing your driving license, you need to go through BOI at One Bangkok again to get the Cor prior to the LTD driving license appt - I found out the hard way by going to Changwattana for my Certificate of Residence, who then sent me all the way back across town to BOI/IMM at One Bangkok. Also note, they won't send it to you by mail in five days anymore - nope - you need to return to the same location to get the letter 2-3 weeks after applying.

Did you explain to them that you are on a a wealthy pensioner visa? Perhaps they were not aware of the status of the visa?

Troll post removed

2 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Firstly, you don't own the land your condo sits on. Simple as that. The x30 x 30 is also not enforceable in Thai law. Also, you are out voted at 51% to 49% within the building. The list goes on and on, and have been well debated in the past.

That is correct. But as for the underlying land, your perception is not exact.

In Thailand, foreigners are generally prohibited from owning land. However, foreigners may own condominium units as "foreign" freehold, provided that foreign ownership does not exceed 49% of the total saleable floor area of all units in the condominium. As membership and voting rights in the condominium juristic person are derived from unit ownership (including the foreigners), foreign participation in the condominium juristic person is accordingly limited to 49% by floor area. The condominium juristic person consists of ALL of the coowners. The land on which the condominium is built is legally owned by the condominium juristic person.

Re: only 49%. If you go to the Condo AGMs and participate in the Committee of condominiums, you will discover it is very rare that it is 49% vs 51% on issues. ie. it typically does not break down to all foreign vote combined against all Thai vote. Typically that is not the case. Every co-owner typically wants the condo to look better ... at least it is that way for LUXURY condominiums such as what I bought into. ... and given that, its very rare votes are spit 49/51.

2 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

You mentioned you are a non resident.

That was a typo that I corrected. I inadvertently backspaced to fix a typo and the 'immigrant' was deleted. I only detected that typo after the ability to edit a post times out. So I replied further down to address the typo.

What I corrected it to read was 'non-'immigrant-resident' which is something completely different from being a non-resident.

2 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

So, getting back on topic, in 2026, would YOU go down the $250,000USD route for this visa if you were recently retired, given the oversupply of condo's, and the poor shape the Thai economy is in, should you were to chose another for of investment?

For 2026 its up to everyone to assess the risk in terms of their money.

In my case, with my finance? I would look at where i want to live. I would look at rental costs. I would look at condo (foreign freehold) purchase costs. And if i chose the condo where I live now in my own foreign freehold, then yes, I would without hesitation buy. Lets assume it can be bought for 30-million thai baht. That's ~950,000 US$. And you know what? Given the high rental costs. ... 5% of $950,000 US$ only gives $47,000 US$ or $3,900 U$/month, which is ~124,600 THB/month.

That won't pay for the rent of this luxury condo. So yes, its better to buy.

Having typed that, how many have the ~950,000 US$ to slap down on the table to buy? Most don't.

I do.

The LTR-WP (where WP stands for "WEALTHY PENSIONER" ) is for those who do have the money.

2 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

If you would, why? If you wouldn't, why? Remember, it's 2026 when you reply.

You have your answer.

As I typed before , time to relook at your math, or perhaps consider there are people with a different perspective than yours, who are doing very well financially, here in Thailand, by adopting an approach different than that which works for you.