Property Ownership Contributing Towards Retirement Visa

[mgsrus]

Possibly a subject that has been aired before but I haven't seen the thread.

Just a daydream but one about which I would like to solicit the opinion of the positive contributors to this forum; plus others whose opinion is not simply dismissive or abusive.

We all know that the requirement of 800K baht, or the equivalent in pension funds or other proven income, is far in excess of what the average Thai family lives [even thrives] upon. That's fair enough; as we are guests and being farangs we must dance to the rhythm of a different drumbeat. However, a farang who is serious about choosing to live 'long-term' in the LOS has a different agenda to those who are treating this as a sojourn for escapism, gap year, mid life crisis or lower-self reasons. If we create a solid base here by way of buying a condo or 'leasing' land and building a house in order to establish a home for our Thai partner and family, and probably their dependants, why should this investment not be taken account of when justifying the continuance of your 'retirement' visa; or whatever alternative has worked for you? Of course I don't expect it to happen TIT :D but if we discuss such matters just maybe some representation can be made to someone in the 'new' government who actually wants to move forward; apologies for that being far more than a daydream.

Sensible opinions welcomed as I haven't been here that long and am happy to learn from those who have acrued wisdom and knowledge.

[MeaMaximaCulpa]

I can't help you much, just tell you how it was up to 1 October 2006, with the so-called investment (investor?) visa (or rather extension of stay based on investment in Thailand).

There was a low-level investment possible, 3 million Baht put into a government bank (you did get reasonable interest), into government bonds, or into a condo owned in your own name (some are owned by nominee companies, and would not qualiyfy I think). The condo had to be baught new by you, not a second hand place. I went the money route, so can not give details. And I believe a house owned by you on leased land would not qualify either. Why? (Sorry, I must stop asking why, silly me. Just accept). But I guess it could be that a house on leased land is a very poor buy for someone else, so this investment would only have value for the original owner as a place to live, not for speculation or real investment purpose with expected positive return.

So it has been done in the past, but not for retirement. Since I guess the monetary requirements are there so you have money to live for. You cannot have your condo and eat it...

[naka]

I think the financial requirements are there partly to give the 'powers that be' some small measure

of assurance that the foreigner is not going to be (or be less) tempted to get involved in dodgy deals

or work without the proper paperwork in order to be able to put food on the table, pay bills etc.

As previously said ... You cannot have your condo and eat it...

Naka.

[sweetchariot]

As you will see on many other threads, especially the one about border runs, to ask 'why' in LOS is the same as to ask 'why are we here' in your home country - there is no answer.

65k per month pension?? It would take an extended family of over 20 people to earn that here.

Why?? Because!

[tablewater]

You can't eat your house. Can you? So it's only common sense not to be taken account of when it comes to the retirement extension.

<sweetchariot: 65k per month pension?? It would take an extended family of over 20 people to earn that here.>

But it takes just 1 Farang to spend it.

[mgsrus]

You can't eat your house. Can you? So it's only common sense not to be taken account of when it comes to the retirement extension.

Hopefull that's more like uncommon sense!

It's common sense that a farang who is paying rent instead of 'owning' a house has that much less to live on.

[Arkady]

As you will see on many other threads, especially the one about border runs, to ask 'why' in LOS is the same as to ask 'why are we here' in your home country - there is no answer.

65k per month pension?? It would take an extended family of over 20 people to earn that here.

Why?? Because!

They are not interested in the comparison of retired foreigners' incomes with the incomes of the poorest Thais and why should they be? Their concern is that is foreigners have enough to support themselves on they know that most foreign retirees are not interested in living in a shack in Isaan sleeping on a mud floor with a dozen Thais.

Leasing land would be a useless qualification since it is a liability. You have no right to sell it and have to pay rent on it whether you use it or not. Condo ownership was taken in account under the investment visa requirements for until 2006 when this exact type of visa was scrapped as they thought the terms were too easy for people to stay here and work illegally, be involved in organized crime, paedophilia and all the other things they assume farangs will get up to at the drop of a hat. Anyway this only really applied to under 50s who couldn't get a retirement visa which has always been an easy option. Unfortunately we come full circle to the fact that the retirement is indeed the easiest option and that those who can't make the financial requirements are regarded by Thai officials as undesirable "farang khee nok" (bird sh*t farangs) and they don't care how many dependents they may have in Isaan. There is a logic to applying a flat rate to all foreigners but my sympathies for any one who falls below the bar.

Edited April 6, 2008 by Arkady

[selftaopath]

Possibly a subject that has been aired before but I haven't seen the thread.

Just a daydream but one about which I would like to solicit the opinion of the positive contributors to this forum; plus others whose opinion is not simply dismissive or abusive.

We all know that the requirement of 800K baht, or the equivalent in pension funds or other proven income, is far in excess of what the average Thai family lives [even thrives] upon. That's fair enough; as we are guests and being farangs we must dance to the rhythm of a different drumbeat. However, a farang who is serious about choosing to live 'long-term' in the LOS has a different agenda to those who are treating this as a sojourn for escapism, gap year, mid life crisis or lower-self reasons. If we create a solid base here by way of buying a condo or 'leasing' land and building a house in order to establish a home for our Thai partner and family, and probably their dependants, why should this investment not be taken account of when justifying the continuance of your 'retirement' visa; or whatever alternative has worked for you? Of course I don't expect it to happen TIT but if we discuss such matters just maybe some representation can be made to someone in the 'new' government who actually wants to move forward; apologies for that being far more than a daydream.

Sensible opinions welcomed as I haven't been here that long and am happy to learn from those who have acrued wisdom and knowledge.

I think it is a great idea. Like you stated however TIT and I think those who "own it" don't want the have nots or farangs meddling with their treasure. Oh and unfortunately I will not be getting notices of this or any other post as apparently thaivisas is not putting these through to me. ???? Humn did one of my previous posts make to much "sense"???

K