The New Rules For People Married To A Thai National. Are They Fair?

[Mario2008]

I think the replies so far have shown that the reason for deleting the family income option is probably the fact that many people were able to stay in Thailand based on a false declared tax income by their Thai wife. It would be the best explanation as to why the rule wasn't grandfathered, as is normaly the case.

If the change in this respect is reasonable is something completely different. It would depend on how wide spread the practise was and why the government can't tighten the tax rules instead of the immigration rules. Cosmic surfer has voiced some good points on this subject.

Cosmic surfer raises the question why the rules don't apply equaly to man and woman. The Thai law requires this and I believe the prime minister yesterday called for the rule of law. So why isn't there an equal treatment?

I have seen the argument that the Thai man is considered the breadwinner. But is he? In the West I know many housewives, in Thailand it are mostly man and woman both working to make ends meet. You could say the man is the head of the family, but the breadwinner?

So what would be the reason behind the different treatment?

[Mario2008]

in order to comply with thai law the wording should be changed to spouse instead of using husband or wife.

I just went to immigration to apply for an extension. I have an "O" visa now and wanted to change it to a "B" visa extension. They would not let me even though I had all of the listed documents. They said that an "O" extension is easier so I had to do an "O". What they really meant is that an "O" is easier for them to process so I had to do an "O". Any way I had to have work permit, the letter from my employer, tax documents for myself and company, and bank records to back up my tax documents. So just paying the tax did not work in my case.

Yes, if the wording in the immigration rules were changed to spouse so they would be equaly applied to man and woman the problem of equality would be solved.

The declared tax option was only available to the Thai wive of a foreigner, as she only needed to show the tax documents to show here income as part of the family income.

On another note, this is the first time I heard that immigration prefers an extension of stay based on marriage.

[mijan24]

the point is that THAI men and THAI women are equal under THAI law, which is true.

until recently a Thai wife could support a foreign husband - this has now been revoked.

WHY? ask the foreign husbands without any real means of financial support (or working here illegaly) who tried to circumvent the rules in order to obtain extensions of stay.

opalhort

There is a legal distinction between "De Jure" and "De Facto".

"THAI men and THAI women are equal under THAI law"... This is DeJure... that is according to the law.... But this doesn't mean it always exists in reality... For example the "Right to Vote" as enshrined in the USA Constitution.. a "Right" that has been fought over for the last 100 plus years... and still fought over today in the last US election.

Unfortunately....

De facto.. or the situation as it Really exists..., is that Thai Women are NOT equal to men in all things in Thai society. anymore than they are in Western Countries. A case in point is the refusal to accept the fact of their ability to act as Bread Winners in a Thai Family.

The difference between "US" and "THEM" is that in Western countries, De facto situations that circumscribe the law can be rectified by taking legal action resulting in a Court Order to bring the De Facto situation into compliance with De Jure Law. In Thailand, this recourse doesn't seem to exist in any verifiable or accountable way. The lack of oversight, accountability and APPEAL, being the direct result of the legal shortcomings inherent to the Legal System here in Thailand.

As to the second point refered to... I fail to understand how the husbands supposed lack of financial resources has any impact in the ability of the family to take care of itself. It has already been established by Thai Immigration that 40,000 baht is the amount required by a Farang/Thai mixed couple to live and raise a family in Thailand... Just why does it matter how the family internally accounts for this income as long as it is legally aquired. That is the point "LEGALITY"

What business is it of ANYBODY to tell any married couple how to divide up the family responsibilities or labour. Nor does anyone have the moral authority to judge or dictate the hows and whys of Love or family arrangements for financial support....CS in a normal situation you have a valid point but in the 80/20 situation the 80% doing the right thing are being tarred with the same brush that the 20%no-hopers have earned.

As far as those Farangs that "arrange" for income to be aquired by simply paying the Tax for their spouses, this is not difficult to regulate and control by demanding verifiable proof of that income,.. ie... monthly income payment stubs, letter from employer, monthly deposits and withdrawals in a bank account demonstrating a normal living situation and not suspicious activity... or bookkeeping records for those self employed. If this stuff is good enough to prove income for the USA, Canada and UK embassys when processing Visa applications, why is it not acceptable for Thai Immigration who can more easily verify the veracity of the documentation submitted. Once again CS you must ask the question why put the onus on an already bogged (corrupt/corruptable) administration when by the simple stroke of a pen it has placed the onus on the "person who wants to live in their country" and that persons representative (Embassy) to corroborate that persons claim- at no cost or effort to Thailand.

I'll try and control my Rants,

CS

[Mario2008]

An interesting reply frommijan 24. But does it hold up? The fact that it is easier to put the onus on the foreigner doesn't make it right to do so. A government should weigh it's options and take the intrests of all parties at heart. That seems not to be the case here. With requiring more proof that the family income is indeed real and not fictous the government would have protected it's own interests and that of their Thai citizens married to a foreigner.

[Gary A]

Is it fair? I would say that it is better than a retired man having to have 65,000 per month or 800,000 in a Thai bank. The Thai government is saying that two can live cheaper than one.

[Mario2008]

Is it fair? I would say that it is better than a retired man having to have 65,000 per month or 800,000 in a Thai bank. The Thai government is saying that two can live cheaper than one.

The Thai government is free to make up it's own immigration rules for retirees. What is special about the rules for an extension based on marriage is that a Thai national is involved, the matter of family live is at issue and there is a distinction between man and woman.

[Moonrakers]

in order to comply with thai law the wording should be changed to spouse instead of using husband or wife.

I just went to immigration to apply for an extension. I have an "O" visa now and wanted to change it to a "B" visa extension. They would not let me even though I had all of the listed documents. They said that an "O" extension is easier so I had to do an "O". What they really meant is that an "O" is easier for them to process so I had to do an "O". Any way I had to have work permit, the letter from my employer, tax documents for myself and company, and bank records to back up my tax documents. So just paying the tax did not work in my case.

Oh dear.

I am hoping to get my Non-O extended based on marriage soon. I have WP and all other documents.

I do have a 'declared' salary of 50k, but no bank records and so I do hope that this is not a stumbling block for me. I know that I am jumping through a hoop by paying tax only but I will make (and pay tax on) more than that in the long run when I start to receive comissions.

If I am unable to get my Non-O extension because of this I will be more than a tad peeved because my wife can produce tax receipts AND bank records proving that she has an income of 40k/month herself.

I can understand them wanting to stop Thai wives from paying tax only to show a phony income, but in that case why don't they just demand that the wife shows bank records to prove that the income is genuine?

[Mario2008]

With a WP and a salary of 50,000 you can always also go for an extension of stay based on employment. I'm not sure if the also will want to check your bankrecords or will be satisfied with tax-receips.

For this year immigration as the discretion to take your wife's income into consideration, if you are already on an extension of stay based on your marriage.

Note that there now is also the option of showing 400,000 baht in a Thai bankaccount in your name. Money needs to be there for at least 2 monhts prior to applying for the exention.

[Artisi]

Good points form Interested Observer and opalhort. But Thai law chooses for the protection of family live and they should make that possible. Indeed foreigners should not be a burden to the host state, but that is not the case when a family can provide for it's own income.

It also raises the question how high that income must be. 40,000 a month seems a bit on the high side.

Please explain how a foreigner can be a burden to the host state (Thailand) I would be interested in knowing.

[webfact]

Good points form Interested Observer and opalhort. But Thai law chooses for the protection of family live and they should make that possible. Indeed foreigners should not be a burden to the host state, but that is not the case when a family can provide for it's own income.

It also raises the question how high that income must be. 40,000 a month seems a bit on the high side.

Please explain how a foreigner can be a burden to the host state (Thailand) I would be interested in knowing.

"....they ask too mut..."

[barky]

Why not have a 40,000 income or 400,000 at the bank or combination of both rule, just like for an extension based on retirement.

But just like Lite Beer, what is the most puzzeling is the abolishment of the family income. What is the sense behind that?

Mario, it's just their way of weeding out a few more undesirable (read, not filthy rich) westeners.

[Mario2008]

Good points form Interested Observer and opalhort. But Thai law chooses for the protection of family live and they should make that possible. Indeed foreigners should not be a burden to the host state, but that is not the case when a family can provide for it's own income.

It also raises the question how high that income must be. 40,000 a month seems a bit on the high side.

Please explain how a foreigner can be a burden to the host state (Thailand) I would be interested in knowing.

I can't, as there are no social security benefits or health care benefits. Normaly that would be a reason.

[Mario2008]

Why not have a 40,000 income or 400,000 at the bank or combination of both rule, just like for an extension based on retirement.

But just like Lite Beer, what is the most puzzeling is the abolishment of the family income. What is the sense behind that?

Mario, it's just their way of weeding out a few more undesirable (read, not filthy rich) westeners.

But why then only the male?

[Lite Beer]

Nonsensical and insulting comments towards Thais deleted.

[Lite Beer]

Mario. You asked is it fair?

According to the Immigration regulations, a Thai family that includes an alien Husband has to have an income of at least 40,000 Baht a month.

A Thai family that includes an alien Wife has to have considerably less.

I fail to see how that can be fair.

[Mario2008]

Then I'm not the only one.

There is also the following situation. A Burmese national needs an income of 25,000 baht to get a work permit and extension of stay based on work. Based on his extension of stay he can let his wife and children stay with him as his dependens. So 25,000 a month is enough to sustain a family.

But if he is married to a Thai wife and wants an extension of stay based on that he needs an income of 40,000 a month to be able to sustain a family.

[Ron]

No comment right off, but I am wondering if the 40.000 a month income is before tax deductions or after?

[Lite Beer]

No comment right off, but I am wondering if the 40.000 a month income is before tax deductions or after?

It is gross.

[TerryLH]

"I can't, as there are no social security benefits or health care benefits. Normaly that would be a reason."

This would be true for someone who hasn't worked and payed into the Social Security system. For someone who has payed into the system, they can continue to get benefits even after quitting work.

Example:

I work for 3 months, paying into Soc Sec. I stop working/paying. For the next 6 months I can use the free health care without paying any more into the system. Prior to the end of the 6 months, I can sign up for 432 baht per month and continue to reap benefits, without having to work.

I don't believe most foreigners are aware of what benefits they are eligible for, so there probably aren't many people taking advantage of it. Since it's their (Thai) own system, I don't think you could say anyone benefiting from it is abusing the system.

I think some of the differences in the amount of money we need to earn/show is based on the differences in lifestyles that the government thinks we have. I doubt if they think the lifestyle of a Burmese worker is the same as for an American or Brit.

[barky]

Why not have a 40,000 income or 400,000 at the bank or combination of both rule, just like for an extension based on retirement.

But just like Lite Beer, what is the most puzzeling is the abolishment of the family income. What is the sense behind that?

Mario, it's just their way of weeding out a few more undesirable (read, not filthy rich) westeners.

But why then only the male?

Well Mario, it's like this, Thai men (the rulers ) see all women, with the exception of their mother, as chattels, maids and/or whores, and, thererore, not worthy as being treated as an equal. And, until Thai womenfolk start "burning their bras" nothing will change.

As for foreign men, particularly western, they, (Thai men) see them as nothing more than a source of irritation and money, in either order. The irritation is tollerated only to the extent of extorting money.

However, it is interesting to note that these very same Thai men, expect, demand and get equal and fair treatment in any western country where they marry a national. It's all give and take...we give, and , they take. So, who are the fools, them or westeners?

Nevertheless, like it, or lump it, the reality is we are not living in the west, we are living in Thailand. So, choosing to remain, you have to put up with being treated poorly in this regard.

If it helps you get some balance, maybe some day, given the opportunity, you may be in a position to return the favour.

[Mario2008]

"I can't, as there are no social security benefits or health care benefits. Normaly that would be a reason."

This would be true for someone who hasn't worked and payed into the Social Security system. For someone who has payed into the system, they can continue to get benefits even after quitting work.

Example:

I work for 3 months, paying into Soc Sec. I stop working/paying. For the next 6 months I can use the free health care without paying any more into the system. Prior to the end of the 6 months, I can sign up for 432 baht per month and continue to reap benefits, without having to work.

I don't believe most foreigners are aware of what benefits they are eligible for, so there probably aren't many people taking advantage of it. Since it's their (Thai) own system, I don't think you could say anyone benefiting from it is abusing the system.

I think some of the differences in the amount of money we need to earn/show is based on the differences in lifestyles that the government thinks we have. I doubt if they think the lifestyle of a Burmese worker is the same as for an American or Brit.

These social security benefits are connected to working, not to being married.

The differences in life style argument doesn't hold up. For a teacher there is no minimum income requirement and there are lots of western teachers making a living well below 40,000 baht a month.

[Nacho]

in order to comply with thai law the wording should be changed to spouse instead of using husband or wife.

I just went to immigration to apply for an extension. I have an "O" visa now and wanted to change it to a "B" visa extension. They would not let me even though I had all of the listed documents. They said that an "O" extension is easier so I had to do an "O". What they really meant is that an "O" is easier for them to process so I had to do an "O". Any way I had to have work permit, the letter from my employer, tax documents for myself and company, and bank records to back up my tax documents. So just paying the tax did not work in my case.

Oh dear.

I am hoping to get my Non-O extended based on marriage soon. I have WP and all other documents.

I do have a 'declared' salary of 50k, but no bank records and so I do hope that this is not a stumbling block for me. I know that I am jumping through a hoop by paying tax only but I will make (and pay tax on) more than that in the long run when I start to receive comissions.

If I am unable to get my Non-O extension because of this I will be more than a tad peeved because my wife can produce tax receipts AND bank records proving that she has an income of 40k/month herself.

I can understand them wanting to stop Thai wives from paying tax only to show a phony income, but in that case why don't they just demand that the wife shows bank records to prove that the income is genuine?

Why on earth would they want to stop Thai wives from paying tax only to show a phony income? The government is still getting their tax and more. I don't think that this is the real issue at all.

[Mario2008]

Why on earth would they want to stop Thai wives from paying tax only to show a phony income? The government is still getting their tax and more. I don't think that this is the real issue at all.

A government normaly doesn't want people living in their country who don't have enough many to live on. Granted that is more the case when people can claim social benefits, which is not the case in Thailand. Nevertheless, it is a legitimate concern for a government. Same goes for opposing that people bend the rules.

But why does the governent think it only matters if a family has enough income when a foreigner has a Thai wife and not when a Thai man has a foreign wife?

Edited January 17, 2009 by Mario2008

[Nacho]

Why on earth would they want to stop Thai wives from paying tax only to show a phony income? The government is still getting their tax and more. I don't think that this is the real issue at all.

A government normaly doesn't want people living in their country who don't have enough many to live on. Granted that is more the case when people can claim social benefits, which is not the case in Thailand. Nevertheless, it is a legitimate concern for a government. Same goes for opposing that people bend the rules.

But why does the governent think it only matters if a family has enough income when a foreigner has a Thai wife and not when a Thai man has a foreign wife?

True, but then why doesn't the Thai government mind when some forigners are working for much less than this? I guess

they figure because they are contributing to the country, but I know governments love their tax money which still makes me think that this has nothing to do with it. Something that seems strange to me is that 40000 baht a month should be more than enough to raise a family in most of the provinces, however alot of families would be struggling in Bangkok on that amount. I think the change in rule has more to do with the greed of the government wanting more money brought into the country putting off the needs of their citizens needs of their fathers and husbands.

[Mario2008]

True, but then why doesn't the Thai government mind when some forigners are working for much less than this? I guess

they figure because they are contributing to the country, but I know governments love their tax money which still makes me think that this has nothing to do with it. Something that seems strange to me is that 40000 baht a month should be more than enough to raise a family in most of the provinces, however alot of families would be struggling in Bangkok on that amount. I think the change in rule has more to do with the greed of the government wanting more money brought into the country putting off the needs of their citizens needs of their fathers and husbands.

As I meantioned in an earlier post, the Thai government is of the opinion that for example a Burmeese national have enough to live on with an income of 25,000 baht. On that amount he can also bring his wife and kids over. But if one goes for an extension of stay based on marrriage the government thinks that if you are a foreign man less then 40,000 will not do. On the other hand if you are a foreign woman with a Thai husband the income doesn't matter. There doesn't seem much cosistency in the rules.

Note that the income for an extension of stay doesn't need to be from abroad. So your last argument doesn't seem valid.

[Boo]

IMO there are other, more obvious (to me) reasons too for the imbalance in rules for foreign wives of thai men. If the foreign wife is unable to work due to giving birth/ raising children, should she be penalised/refused an extension due to being the only one biologically able to have kids & wanting to be a stay at home mum or cause in general, thai men earn less due to the rules on foreign workers salary & in general foreigners commanding higher salaries?

I am not agreeing with the difference in the rules but giving some valid & obvious reasons why the rules for foreign wives are different to foreign men.

[TerryLH]

"These social security benefits are connected to working, not to being married.

The differences in life style argument doesn't hold up. For a teacher there is no minimum income requirement and there are lots of western teachers making a living well below 40,000 baht a month."

The first part of my answer was addressing the comment that there are no social welfare benefits available, so it is a non issue.

A lot of married persons are working, trying to support a family. Not everyone has income or savings to meet the imm requirements. If they quit working, they can still avail themselves of SS benefits.

Actually, if more foreighners knew what was available, more would try to find work, even if for only long enough time to qualify for the health benefits. An example, work three months, get qualified for SS, quit work and continue getting health benefits for 432 baht per month.

Why would someone do that? For one, Soc Sec will pay for pre-existing condidtions, which most other insurance companies do not.

Your comment about the teachers living on much less is understood, but those teachers usually will have a B visa, which is not for supporting a spouse/family. That they happen to do so, isn't what this thread about, either.

I used the words "I think" in giving a reason why the amounts are as they are. I don't know for sure. I don't know anyone who does. My point is that somewhere, there is someone (writing the requirements) that thinks that foreighners live at a different level of creature comforts, eating habits, etc.

Could you take care of a wife and raise a family on an average Thai salary. I'm sure there are those who do, but I couldn't. I think that's at least partially what it's all about.

Again, just my opinion.

Edited January 17, 2009 by TerryLH

[Mario2008]

IMO there are other, more obvious (to me) reasons too for the in balance in rules for foreign wives of thai men. If the foreign wife is unable to work due to giving birth/ raising children, should she be penalised/refused an extension due to being the only one biologically able to have kids & wanting to be a stay at home mum or cause in general, thai mens earn less due to the rules on foreign workers salary & in general foreigners commanding higher salaries?

I am not agreeing with the difference in the rules but giving some valid & obvious reasons why the rules for foreign wives are different to foreign men.

Interesting point. But why is it easier for Thai man to enjoy family life with a foreign woman than for a Thai woman to enjoy family live with a foreign husband? Raising children does't justify that. The question is why there are different income requirements between the 2 cases. A husband supporting a wife doesn't need less money for that then a wife supporting a husband. So you arguments don't seem valid, altough they might play a rule in the mind of the government.

[Lite Beer]

I am not agreeing with the difference in the rules but giving some valid & obvious reasons why the rules for foreign wives are different to foreign men.

Clearly not obvious to us Men. Nice to have a Womans slant on things.

It still doesn't seem right to me that if you chose to live in Thailand with your Husband you will find things a lot easier than I do living with my Wife.

Also a Thai Man knows that his Wife can stay with him in Thailand with little problem while my Wife never knows from one year to the next if I am going to still be here.

We have just had a change in the financial requirements that will hit a lot of families. Last year it was Family Income or savings. This year it has to be the Husband only. Next year? Who knows.

[Boo]

The question is why there are different income requirements between the 2 cases

Good question, IMO it is probably the same as "why is there a difference in incomes between a thai doing the same job as a foreigner & the foreigner earning double or more?" IMO until the rules of foreign pay scale are changed so that everyone earns the same as the thai person sitting next to them doing the exact same job can the visa requirements to be brought in line to match that. It's a long process that wont be changed overnight. But my first post was only to highlight a very real senario why foreign women may not be expected to show income requirement& foreign men are. Agree or not but it is valid. You can't be off work due to child birth or unemployable due to pregnancy can you?

Oh & to clarify, I am talking specifically about real reasons why the idea of bringing the rules in line so that a foreign wife has to provide income may not be implemented.