Your Thoughts On This Thailand'S Pr And Naturalisation Policies.

[gregb]

Couple of recommendations here.

First, with regard to the 1 million baht in savings. This should be extended to include the value of publicly traded equities, term deposit accounts and mutual funds. The idea behind the current 800k in passbook savings for extension of stay renewal is that the foreigner will need this much during the course of the year to support himself. Thus, he either has it in a bank where it is readily accessible, or generates it over the period of 12 months (65k X 12 = 780k).

In your scenario, your reasons for this are slightly different. You don't want this money to be used for living expenses. In fact, you are trying to encourage responsible foreigners who have accumulated savings that are not touched. Do you really want foreigners applying for PR that are so financially stupid as to leave 1 million in a passbook savings account generating 0.25% interest?

My second comment is regarding your desire to limit universal healthcare coverage to Thai citizens. Currently, permanent residents enjoy this privilege, and there is a reason for it. You will be opening up a huge can of worms if you try and limit healthcare coverage only to those with citizenship. There are thousands of stateless people in the north who currently receive medical treatment on the gold card scheme. Are you also planning on denying it to them? You will likely have to rewrite the health services act in any case to accomplish what you want. I don't think it is in your best interest to generate the anger of NGOs by restricting access to health care to the disadvantaged.

All residents, independent of citizenship, should be eligible for this coverage. That is why it is called "universal". It is an extraordinarily bad idea to try and change this. I wouldn't even want to contemplate the political fallout of denying healthcare to the stateless and disadvantaged, or to try and come up with a gordian knot of a law that tries to spell out exactly which nationalities qualify and which ones don't.

If you would instead like to make a law that says a means test is required from all Thai residents to qualify, and only residents who fall below the poverty line are eligible for the gold card scheme (thus removing the people who qualified for PR because they are too wealthy), then that might be OK, but it needs to apply equally to everyone. You can't single out a specific group.

[jayboy]

again I find myself agreeing with Jayboy.

Scary!

Wonders will never cease.But actually I'm always ready to engage in a give or take discussion.I've never claimed to be omniscient and have learned a lot from people like you with whom I usually disagree.I think what pisses people off is not my views but my hauteur.I'm working on that!

[tombkk]

Retirees are also in a clear category, although the wealth criteria should probably be raised substantially.

Why? Do you realize many retirees own their homes in Thailand? That means they pay no housing costs. Many who are renting or not renting are doing quite well on spends well under 800K baht per year. To repeat, this is elitist. The current retirees at the current levels are no burden at all on the Thai society. Rather they are a benefit. There is hardly any safety net for Thais much less retired foreigners. We pay our own way at these current levels and there is no problem with that.

Note that in the Mexico retirement visa program, those who own a home in Mexico qualify at one half the required level as those who don't (and even the upper level is under 800K baht per year income). If the financial rules are raised, at least an adjustment for those who own condos here should be strongly considered.

But the whole point of most countries retirement programmes is that it should be elitist, in other words to attract wealthy, educated and reputable retirees.

Those who just get by probably shouldn't be here at all.

How do retirees own their own homes by the way?

You are 100 percent wrong. Where did you get such a daft idea? That is not the point of most retirement visa programs globally. I know this because I have made a study of these programs globally. {...}

I would be interested in reading a copy of your study.

[Jingthing]

I would be interested in reading a copy of your study.

The statement "I have made a study" does not mean the same thing as "I have published a study."

Next ...

Edited December 14, 2010 by Jingthing

[jazzbo]

per post # 93 ... with regard to the 1 million baht in savings (it) should be extended to include the value of publicly traded equities, term deposit accounts and mutual funds... All of which according to postings elsewhere on Thaivisa 'Finance' could become worthless virtually overnight.

Edited December 15, 2010 by jazzbo

[Arkady]

Here's what a Thailand My Second Home scheme might look like, based on the Malaysian retirement visa.

{...}

Ability to buy land: No.

{...}

Importation of household goods: tax free but not car.

{...}

Ablity to bring foreign maid: No.

You have made a great suggestion, and I hope you have the ear of people in power. The items above are the only ones I disagree with, i.e.

1.) I think we should have the right to buy land (the discussion of 1 rai for own use is probably 10 years old),

2.) Many people want to bring in their car if they move here (actually it's allowed if the Ministry of Commerce - Foreign Trade Department issues an import permit, so no change of law required),

3.) Some people want to bring in their maid and why not (I understand it's quite normal in Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong).

Tom, It was not really a suggestion as such. It was more my impression of what such a scheme might look like, if the Thai authorities chose to introduce one based on the Malaysian model, which I think works for them, although Malaysia's circumstances are very different. I included those categories for comparison with Malaysia which does allow ownership of a residential plot of land, duty free importation of a car and a foreign maid. I was just guessing that Thailand would not see its way clear to offering those incentives.

Importing a maid is probably specific to expats retiring from HK or Singapore and the labour is not readily available in Malaysia anyway. So we can ignore that provision for now. Allowing the duty free import of a car would be a great incentive, if they could get around to that. Likewise ownership of a rai of residential land along the lines of the 1999 Land Code but without the need to invest B40m in specified investments would attract a lot of interest. However, land is a very emotional issue in Thailand and that might derail a scheme like this and would involve an amendment to the Land Code. I think the 1999 Land Code provision should be extended to include PRs as the first priority and that 90+ year leases should be introduced but that is for another thread.

Anyway, if the authorities really are looking at a new type of long term retirement visa to replace anachronistic current regulations that allow for permanent residence on temporary extensions, they should certainly make the incentives as attractive as possible and include land ownership, if they can. That way they would be able to justify dropping the current mass market retirees economically by getting a larger share of the high end market. Farangs would not really be in a position to complain, since that is exactly what immigration policies look like in most Western countries. As Thailand develops economically it is natural that it should want to look at models from more developed countries,such as the UK, Australia, Singapore and Malaysia. Although the wheels grind slowly, the writing is on the wall viz: the crackdown on property ownership via fake companies; the crackdown on visa runners; the crackdown on unqualified English teachers; the revival of 90 day reporting; the shelving of PR applications; & etc.

Edited December 15, 2010 by Arkady

[Arkady]

My second comment is regarding your desire to limit universal healthcare coverage to Thai citizens. Currently, permanent residents enjoy this privilege, and there is a reason for it. You will be opening up a huge can of worms if you try and limit healthcare coverage only to those with citizenship. There are thousands of stateless people in the north who currently receive medical treatment on the gold card scheme. Are you also planning on denying it to them? You will likely have to rewrite the health services act in any case to accomplish what you want. I don't think it is in your best interest to generate the anger of NGOs by restricting access to health care to the disadvantaged.

All residents, independent of citizenship, should be eligible for this coverage. That is why it is called "universal". It is an extraordinarily bad idea to try and change this. I wouldn't even want to contemplate the political fallout of denying healthcare to the stateless and disadvantaged, or to try and come up with a gordian knot of a law that tries to spell out exactly which nationalities qualify and which ones don't.

If you would instead like to make a law that says a means test is required from all Thai residents to qualify, and only residents who fall below the poverty line are eligible for the gold card scheme (thus removing the people who qualified for PR because they are too wealthy), then that might be OK, but it needs to apply equally to everyone. You can't single out a specific group.

I was not under the impression that I was entitled to healthcare as a PR. I did receive an application from to apply for a Gold Card when the scheme was introduced as my name is on a tabien baan as head of household but I assumed that was a mistake. Can some one enlighten me? It would nice to know, if I can go to a government hospital free, if I can no longer afford the rapidly increasing cost of my health insurance.

Most of the stateless people you refer to are not permanent residents but have special permission to stay that is technically only temporary, even though they have alien ID cards. (These are not the same as Alien Registration Certificates that denote permanent residence.) As far as I am aware there was some legislation in the last few years that gave access to universal health care to those with alien ID cards, including hill tribe people, displaced people of Indochinese or Burmese origin, and registered temporary unskilled workers from neighbouring countries. I don't believe holders of Alien Registration Certificates qualified but please correct me, if I am wrong.

The principle you raise is certainly correct. PRs are now a small and diminishing community (as the older Chinese PRs die off and no new ones are approved) and most can afford health care. However, the stateless people number in the hundreds of thousand and the migrant unskilled workers are now scarily well over a million and likely to continue rising. Giving these underprivileged non-Thais access to universal health care is purely an act of self preservation for Thais and is recognized as such by the Public Health Ministry. Diseases like malaria and elephantiasis are not under control in the neighbouring countries and denying health care to these people would only spread these diseases in Thailand and force the government to treat more Thai citizens with these ailments. Anyway what is the use of a sick worker to the Thai economy?

[Jingthing]

Where is this evidence, exactly, that Thailand is fixing to boot out the masses of current middle class, totally legal, retiree expats here? All I continue to hear are snobby noises with elitist tendencies. If this is really true, let's hear the evidence, and also I would encourage any big money interests in real estate in the expat centers start to lobby hard to stop this madness! That Malaysia now has a very unpopular, high cost program, a country that has VERY LITTLE APPEAL to the average retired expat in Thailand for both cost and cultural reasons is not evidence. That Australia, an established FIRST WORLD COUNTRY, has an expat retirement program for wealthy people only is not evidence. Let me remind you that Thailand is not either Malaysia or Australia.

Thailand could take some pointers from Philippines though which offers a retirement program at similar initial levels for retired age people as Thailand, but grants much more stability with approval, FIVE YEARS, instead of one. That's very good and would be very attractive. Raising the financial requirements to be massively higher than for example the typical social security pension earnings of retired Americans, that is very ill advised, that is unless you want to boot out most retirees. If that is the real intention, again, where's the evidence?

As long as we are on the subject of improvements to the retirement program, yes there could be improvements, and a path towards permanent residence (for example after five years residency) for retired expats would be a most welcome improvement, as currently there is no such path. For retirees, rather than strictly finances and taxes, I would encourage qualification based on length of continued stay, basic Thai fluency, and perhaps a minimum number of volunteer work hours giving back to the community. If nothing else, such a scheme would employ many Thai teachers!

Edited December 15, 2010 by Jingthing

[Arkady]

As a postscript to Arkady's excellent post, I suppose one consideration is that the kind of high value foreigner Thailand wants and needs (eg skilled MNC manager) is not necessarily interested in PR. From my experience these kind of people see a Thailand posting as a say 5 year interlude before returning to the mainstream in Tokyo, London, New York etc. For these people the Thai work permit/visa system is extremely efficient and trouble free.Indeed with a capable secretary/competent lawyer (which most would have) the annual renewal process would be no more hassle than signing the usual mountain of documents.So PR while of interest to some of these wouldn't really interest most of them.Therefore the kind of pressure that would make the government sit up and take notice isn't really there.

On the other hand many thousands of expats go to work in places like London, New York, Singapore or Hong Kong on much higher salaries than expats get in Thailand and end up settling permanently and retiring there. I don't think they would be happy not to have permanent residence in those countries and they are higher end financially than the expats Thailand can hope to attract as a relatively low pay country. Should Thailand really aim to get rid of all expats after 5 years, or are some of these people worth retaining?

Where is this evidence, exactly, that Thailand is fixing to boot out the masses of current middle class, totally legal, retiree expats here? All I continue to hear are snobby noises with elitist tendencies. If this is really true, let's hear the evidence, and also I would encourage any big money interests in real estate in the expat centers start to lobby hard to stop this madness! That Malaysia now has a very unpopular, high cost program, a country that has VERY LITTLE APPEAL to the average retired expat in Thailand for both cost and cultural reasons is not evidence. That Australia, an established FIRST WORLD COUNTRY, has an expat retirement program for wealthy people only is not evidence. Let me remind you that Thailand is not either Malaysia or Australia.

Thailand could take some pointers from Philippines though which offers a retirement program at similar initial levels for retired age people as Thailand, but grants much more stability with approval, FIVE YEARS, instead of one. That's very good and would be very attractive. Raising the financial requirements to be massively higher than for example the typical social security pension earnings of retired Americans, that is very ill advised, that is unless you want to boot out most retirees. If that is the real intention, again, where's the evidence?

As long as we are on the subject of improvements to the retirement program, yes there could be improvements, and a path towards permanent residence (for example after five years residency) for retired expats would be a most welcome improvement, as currently there is no such path. For retirees, rather than strictly finances and taxes, I would encourage qualification based on length of continued stay, basic Thai fluency, and perhaps a minimum number of volunteer work hours giving back to the community. If nothing else, such a scheme would employ many Thai teachers!

Personally I am not suggesting that Thailand should necessarily adopt a Malaysian style retirement scheme and abandon the current system completely. I am saying that it is quite likely they are looking at some kind of a revamp and that, if they do, they are likely to look at their Southern ASEAN neighbour. It is logical, I am sorry to say, that, if they did that, they would also raise the bar or even eliminate the current temporary system. I am also saying that, if they do run a long term retirement scheme, they should make sure the incentives are attractive enough and legally viable - we all know what happened to the Elite Card that was initially supposed to allow the right to own land.

It would probably be naive to think that Thailand would look at models from lesser developed countries like the Philippines or that the Thais will try to accommodate people living off the basic US social security pension or the UK old age pension for that matter. Western countries are not going to accommodate Thais living off the Thai social security pension. I am also sorry to say that those who decide to settle permanently in the knowledge that are only eligible for temporary visas have to accept that fact from the outset and be aware that the government may change the rules for renewal of temporary visas at any time. For example, the one year investment visa based on investment of B3 million used to be a handy way for under 50s to live without work permits but it has come and gone. Regulations for temporary visas only require the publication of a National Police Order in the Royal Gazette and they are law that day without the need for parliamentary process or public debate.

Your idea of volunteer hours as some sort of qualification for PR or whatever is a good one. Currently applicants for naturalization have to show receipts for charitable donations but volunteer work would be a good alternative. Unfortunately, however, it is illegal for people on retirement extensions to work at all and even permanent residents need work permits to do volunteer charity work without pay. The law would need to be amended to allow this and I think that allowing unpaid work for registered charities would be a good thing, either without work permits or with fast track issuance for short term WPs. People are already coming to Thailand for short stints on tourist or transit visas to work in orphanages etc without realizing they are committing serious immigration offences. Most people imagine that unpaid work doesn't require a work permit but the thinking behind the law, as it stands, is that this would put the onus on the authorities to prove that some one has received pay or other benefits. Restricting volunteers to registered charities, who have to register volunteers with the authorities, would limit the potential for abuse because the charities are not so likely to want to try to pay volunteers, so no Thai workers are losing out and no tax is being lost. Expat wives would also benefit from this.

Edited December 15, 2010 by Arkady

[Jingthing]

I am not buying for one minute that there is any logical connection between Thailand and Malaysia, and that because by coincidence they share a border that implies they are the same kinds of countries, with the same cultures, which should have the same kind of retirement visa program. By that logic, why doesn't Thailand follow Cambodia and let anyone with the money for an ersatz business visa live there indefinitely, a virtual retirement visa, as it were.

Let's break this down a bit.

The CURRENT requirements are ALREADY DOUBLE the average USA social security pension benefit.

Due to Thai baht strengthening, the hard currency requirements to meet 800K or 65K per month have ALREADY been greatly raised without any action by Thai immigration.

Thai people do not retire to the USA on retirement visas. The USA doesn't offer retirement visas for any nationality. Nor do most first world countries. Australia is an exception. The kinds of countries that do offer retirement visas are countries like Thailand, Mexico, Philippines, Equador, Argentina, Costa Rica, etc. Thailand is not a first world country and is not even close to being a first world country.

Mexico is to the south of the USA and Mexico has a retirement visa program (much lower income requirements than Thailand in a country with similar wealth level to Thailand). By the logic of Malaysia shares a border to the south, perhaps the USA should offer a retirement visa program with the same requirements as Mexico. Or perhaps not!

Edited December 15, 2010 by Jingthing

[xtr3mx7]

In Mauritius, you don't have to pay a dime in order to get a PR if you are married to a person of Mauritian nationality, be either female or male (except the administrative fee which would be equivalent to 600THB). You are entitled to the same benefit of a Mauritius citizen.

Also, no work permit is required, neither International Driving License nor a local driving license is required (if you already possessed one from your home country), no double pricing practices, either English or French is required, and etc,.

I've done the PR for my Thai wife in June 2009 and she got her PR in December 2009. After which 5 years of accumulative resident is required and she would be able to apply for her citizenship without having to renounce her Thai nationality. She thus will have a National ID card.

My in-laws and my wife want us to stay here and here we are and I'll do my first extension based on marriage in Jan 2011....

[tombkk]

I would be interested in reading a copy of your study.

The statement "I have made a study" does not mean the same thing as "I have published a study."

I see. It's a secret study, probably commissioned by the CIA. You are so cool, man. On the other hand, you might not have conducted any academic study at all...

Next ...

... and you're pretty impolite too, as usual.

[Jingthing]

I would be interested in reading a copy of your study.

The statement "I have made a study" does not mean the same thing as "I have published a study."

I see. It's a secret study, probably commissioned by the CIA. You are so cool, man. On the other hand, you might not have conducted any academic study at all...

Next ...

... and you're pretty impolite too, as usual.

OMG.

Hint, google "I have made a study" to learn how the phrase "I have made a study" is typically used in the English language. I used it in the standard way.

BTW, I have also made a study of Thai noodles and many other things. I do love learning.

More to the point, if the posters here and also Thai legislators only look at two retirement visa systems, Thailand and Malaysia, you can bet they most certainly have NOT made a study of global retirement visa systems. It would very intellectually lazy and very unlikely to result in good policy to consider those two models the only possible choices.

Edited December 15, 2010 by Jingthing

[surayu]

Off course, being Thailand so hi-so, 65.000 Baht a month definetely is not enough, let's do a million or 2 so we can brag a bit about it at the next Asean summit what's the current allowance the thai government is paying to his own citizen again per month? 500 Baht (five hundreds thai Baht)? oh falangs don't know about it, just shusshh and pretend-pretend-pretend, you don't want to loose face don't you?

[samran]

I am not buying for one minute that there is any logical connection between Thailand and Malaysia, and that because by coincidence they share a border that implies they are the same kinds of countries, with the same cultures, which should have the same kind of retirement visa program. By that logic, why doesn't Thailand follow Cambodia and let anyone with the money for an ersatz business visa live there indefinitely, a virtual retirement visa, as it were.

Let's break this down a bit.

The CURRENT requirements are ALREADY DOUBLE the average USA social security pension benefit.

Due to Thai baht strengthening, the hard currency requirements to meet 800K or 65K per month have ALREADY been greatly raised without any action by Thai immigration.

Thai people do not retire to the USA on retirement visas. The USA doesn't offer retirement visas for any nationality. Nor do most first world countries. Australia is an exception. The kinds of countries that do offer retirement visas are countries like Thailand, Mexico, Philippines, Equador, Argentina, Costa Rica, etc. Thailand is not a first world country and is not even close to being a first world country.

Mexico is to the south of the USA and Mexico has a retirement visa program (much lower income requirements than Thailand in a country with similar wealth level to Thailand). By the logic of Malaysia shares a border to the south, perhaps the USA should offer a retirement visa program with the same requirements as Mexico. Or perhaps not!

Maybe Thailand should just follow the example of the US, and get rid of retirement visas. Nor should it pay too much attention to the prevailing exhange rate.

I do have issues with the fact people can 'buy' visas - which is essentially what a retirement visa is, but being pragmatic, in the event that you don't have the capacity to vet individial immigrants for the skills they can bring, then a monetary hurdle is a blunt, but passable tool (just).

In my opinion that hurdle should be high. I don't really give a 'rats' what the US SS pension is. What bearing does that have on the price of fish? Pensioners in the main who retire to Thailand haven't contributed one cent of tax over their lives to pay for infrastructure they use when they get here, and they'll either leave - one way or another - before Thailand gets its return from the (minimal, indirect) taxes they do pay when they get here.

It is beyond me why people should insist that Thailand should accept some level of income threshold that barely above poverty levels in the west. In my opinion 60,000 baht/month is the barest amount in which one could conceiveably need so as you never approach being a drain on the Thai state and for a person to have a reasonable standard of living in Thailand.

>> Cue the 'when I were a lad' crew and the 'if it wasn't for me thailand would fall apart' mob <<

Having said all that, I've always been of the view that spouses and dependents should be granted, subject to character assessments and financial stability on application automatic residency and work rights. And a path to citizenship, eventually (and all that entails).

Again however, the current system for male spouses, while clunky, isn't too overbearing. In fact it is a red-herring. 40,000K a month is a pretty low threshold needed, and even if the requirement wasn't there, you'd be stupid to try and live in Thailand anyway on any less, especially when you are supporting someone.

It may be patriarchal, and a bunch of other unpolitically correct things, but if you are moving to Thailand (or anywhere else for that matter), and can't afford to provide an increase in the living standards to what you at least had in your previous country, then you probably shouldn't bother (or be allowed) to move. Humanitarian grounds exempted, of course.

I don't think that any immigration programme should be allowed when it essentially allows someone to come to Thailand to lower their standard of living (again, monetary values aren't the be all and end all, but are a blunt proxy which is probably the best you can hope for in Thailand).

Edited December 15, 2010 by samran

[surayu]

Maybe Thailand should just follow the example of the US, and get rid of retirement visas. Nor should it pay too much attention to the prevailing exhange rate.

I believe people in the export businesses with all the other connected workers benefiting from the exports abroad and even the people in the tourism industry and not only them, would not be very happy to see the local currency to appreciate even more of what already has methink

I do have issues with the fact people can 'buy' visas - which is essentially what a retirement visa is, but being pragmatic, in the event that you don't have the capacity to vet individial immigrants for the skills they can bring, then a monetary hurdle is a blunt, but passable tool (just).

Yes i do have issues too in making people buying for a Visa, as by coming here they are already bringing wealth from outside the country, into the country, so "taxing" somebody for giving you benefits shouldn't really be the right thing to do, pensioners are bringing into the country a source of income that otherways wouldn't have been here, with the comsequences of creating jobs and wealth for the locals, people coming to invest in business ventures here are paying tax to the governments and they are also creating jobs and/or helping the already existing ones, with money coming into Thailand from outside Thailand, too easy to just pretend these small particulars just don't exist, to kill the golden eggs goose should be included in the national sports....

In my opinion that hurdle should be high. I don't really give a 'rats' what the US SS pension is. What bearing does that have on the price of fish? Pensioners in the main who retire to Thailand haven't contributed one cent of tax over their lives to pay for infrastructure they use when they get here, and they'll either leave - one way or another - before Thailand gets its return from the (minimal, indirect) taxes they do pay when they get here.

It is beyond me why people should insist that Thailand should accept some level of income threshold that barely above poverty levels in the west.

Possible Answer: ...maybe because this is not the west? just guessing

In my opinion 60,000 baht/month is the barest amount in which one could conceiveably need so as you never approach being a drain on the Thai state and for a person to have a reasonable standard of living in Thailand.

>> Cue the 'when I were a lad' crew and the 'if it wasn't for me thailand would fall apart' mob <<

Having said all that, I've always been of the view that spouses and dependents should be granted, subject to character assessments and financial stability on application automatic residency and work rights. And a path to citizenship, eventually (and all that entails).

Again however, the current system for male spouses, while clunky, isn't too overbearing. In fact it is a red-herring. 40,000K a month is a pretty low threshold needed, and even if the requirement wasn't there, you'd be stupid to try and live in Thailand anyway on any less, especially when you are supporting someone.

It may be patriarchal, and a bunch of other unpolitically correct things, but if you are moving to Thailand (or anywhere else for that matter), and can't afford to provide an increase in the living standards to what you at least had in your previous country, then you probably shouldn't bother (or be allowed) to move. Humanitarian grounds exempted, of course.

I don't think that any immigration programme should be allowed when it essentially allows someone to come to Thailand to lower their standard of living (again, monetary values aren't the be all and end all, but are a blunt proxy which is probably the best you can hope for in Thailand).

Just one last thing i would like to add, one foreigner might well choose to live as a local, this attitude to exige that a foreigner MUST to show up a higher living standard at all costs it's from my point of view something very "thai style", perhaps you are thai indeed?

[Jingthing]

I am not buying for one minute that there is any logical connection between Thailand and Malaysia, and that because by coincidence they share a border that implies they are the same kinds of countries, with the same cultures, which should have the same kind of retirement visa program. By that logic, why doesn't Thailand follow Cambodia and let anyone with the money for an ersatz business visa live there indefinitely, a virtual retirement visa, as it were.

Let's break this down a bit.

The CURRENT requirements are ALREADY DOUBLE the average USA social security pension benefit.

Due to Thai baht strengthening, the hard currency requirements to meet 800K or 65K per month have ALREADY been greatly raised without any action by Thai immigration.

Thai people do not retire to the USA on retirement visas. The USA doesn't offer retirement visas for any nationality. Nor do most first world countries. Australia is an exception. The kinds of countries that do offer retirement visas are countries like Thailand, Mexico, Philippines, Equador, Argentina, Costa Rica, etc. Thailand is not a first world country and is not even close to being a first world country.

Mexico is to the south of the USA and Mexico has a retirement visa program (much lower income requirements than Thailand in a country with similar wealth level to Thailand). By the logic of Malaysia shares a border to the south, perhaps the USA should offer a retirement visa program with the same requirements as Mexico. Or perhaps not!

Maybe Thailand should just follow the example of the US, and get rid of retirement visas. Nor should it pay too much attention to the prevailing exhange rate.

I do have issues with the fact people can 'buy' visas - which is essentially what a retirement visa is, but being pragmatic, in the event that you don't have the capacity to vet individial immigrants for the skills they can bring, then a monetary hurdle is a blunt, but passable tool (just).

In my opinion that hurdle should be high. I don't really give a 'rats' what the US SS pension is. What bearing does that have on the price of fish? Pensioners in the main who retire to Thailand haven't contributed one cent of tax over their lives to pay for infrastructure they use when they get here, and they'll either leave - one way or another - before Thailand gets its return from the (minimal, indirect) taxes they do pay when they get here.

It is beyond me why people should insist that Thailand should accept some level of income threshold that barely above poverty levels in the west. In my opinion 60,000 baht/month is the barest amount in which one could conceiveably need so as you never approach being a drain on the Thai state and for a person to have a reasonable standard of living in Thailand.

>> Cue the 'when I were a lad' crew and the 'if it wasn't for me thailand would fall apart' mob <<

Having said all that, I've always been of the view that spouses and dependents should be granted, subject to character assessments and financial stability on application automatic residency and work rights. And a path to citizenship, eventually (and all that entails).

Again however, the current system for male spouses, while clunky, isn't too overbearing. In fact it is a red-herring. 40,000K a month is a pretty low threshold needed, and even if the requirement wasn't there, you'd be stupid to try and live in Thailand anyway on any less, especially when you are supporting someone.

It may be patriarchal, and a bunch of other unpolitically correct things, but if you are moving to Thailand (or anywhere else for that matter), and can't afford to provide an increase in the living standards to what you at least had in your previous country, then you probably shouldn't bother (or be allowed) to move. Humanitarian grounds exempted, of course.

I don't think that any immigration programme should be allowed when it essentially allows someone to come to Thailand to lower their standard of living (again, monetary values aren't the be all and end all, but are a blunt proxy which is probably the best you can hope for in Thailand).

Some points.

Actually, there are people lobbying for the US to start a retirement visa program. Of course, the model won't be Mexico, it will be a program tailored to the US. As many know, the US is of course a first world country but it is in economic decline, and can benefit from expat retirees the same as many other countries. As far as I can tell the impetus of this lobbying is the real estate industry in places like South Florida, where much housing is sold to foreigners, but they can only live in their properties for six months of the year. The feeling is they are confident they can sell a lot of the huge glut of real estate stock to foreigners IF and only IF the visa rules are changed. Not to mention it is sad thing for the expats who love living in America who have bought houses to be restricted in such a way, assuming they would be qualified for a new visa, whatever the rules.

As far as "buying" visas, an investment sort of option is a common way that countries allow for foreign residency. Those countries offering that are often the same countries offering retirement visas.

Please don't twist my previous words. I wasn't objecting to the financial obligations being DOUBLE the average US social security benefit; rather I was pointing it out that the levels are already quite a bit high compared to many other countries with retirement visa programs ALREADY. I am not suggesting they be lowered, but don't see the great logic of a current increase, much less a significant one.

Retirement visa programs ARE a benefit for the countries offering them. It is more than the taxes spent, it is the real estate industry, the annual spending, the banked money, the locals employed, etc. etc. I remember reading a while back that the Philippine government has determined that for each expat retiree (their required levels are LESS than Thailand) approximately TEN Filipinos get jobs. No benefit? Think again.

Edited December 16, 2010 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

I want to add a clarifying point to the many added jobs benefit of new money from retirees. Some people who aren't versed in economics may think I am implying each retired expat hires 10 full time Thai staff. Of course not, well not usually. The new money brought in, with spending and/or banked flows around the economy in many ways, and stimulates all kinds of economic activity. It is not a zero sum game with money, it flows all around.

To those who rudely feel retired expats are a kind of parasite on Thailand, consider why so many countries throughout the world with similar economic levels as Thailand also offer retirement visa programs, many with financial requirements below or similar to Thailand's. Do you think they do that because they love the foreign old people and have good hearts? No. They do it for the economic benefit of their countries, in their own self interest, and I don't recall ever reading about a country which has abolished an existing retirement visa program, though of course, there are sometimes various changes.

Edited December 16, 2010 by Jingthing

[samran]

I want to add a clarifying point to the many added jobs benefit of new money from retirees. Some people who aren't versed in economics may think I am implying each retired expat hires 10 full time Thai staff. Of course not, well not usually. The new money brought in, with spending and/or banked flows around the economy in many ways, and stimulates all kinds of economic activity. It is not a zero sum game with money, it flows all around.

To those who rudely feel retired expats are a kind of parasite on Thailand, consider why so many countries throughout the world with similar economic levels as Thailand also offer retirement visa programs, many with financial requirements below or similar to Thailand's. Do you think they do that because they love the foreign old people and have good hearts? No. They do it for the economic benefit of their countries, in their own self interest, and I don't recall ever reading about a country which has abolished an existing retirement visa program, though of course, there are sometimes various changes.

As someone well versed in economics (undergrad, post grad) I'd love to see the actual study from where that 10 to 1 ratio comes from.

Given that Australia's Productivity Commission is goes through the same excercise regularly and struggles to get anything more than 1 to 1."something" (and I'll take the economic credentials on the productivity commission over anything from the PH government) which is not anywhere near 10 to 1 for skilled migration. And this is from a pro-migrant country.

Granted, the countries differ, but still....10 jobs? I highly doubt it.

Edited December 16, 2010 by samran

[Jingthing]

It's new money, new consumption, new fat bank accounts of imported money, new household setups, quite often new condo and house purchases (though that can be dodgy here), not new skills only. You can't compare directly to skilled expats and you also can't compare a first world country to Thailand. The 10 - 1 ratio is just an example that the Filipinos think is true based on my recollection, but of course it would be impossible to prove with precision definitively. The point is there is a real benefit and countries throughout the world at similar economic levels as Thailand recognize that. As does Thailand, clearly, or the program wouldn't exist. If these programs are so detrimental to the host countries, rather than being very beneficial as they clearly are, can you explain why once they are established they are as far as I can tell internationally, never (or very rarely, I don't know of such a case and like I said I have made a study of these programs) abolished?

Whatever the actual ratio of new Thai jobs per new retired expat, at least we are clear that the economic benefit goes well beyond whatever Thai taxes the expats happen to pay.

In general first world countries are not very interested in these programs, and in the exceptions that do offer them, the financial requirements are appropriately higher than countries at lower levels of development, per capita income, etc. Never say never though, if you are a wealthy person for example and you would like to retire for example in France, there is a way to do that by individual application. They don't publish the exact criteria and rules for acceptance though. I reckon it's easier/different for EU people of course, but that's a separate matter entirely.

Malaysia is an interesting case. They have raised their required levels very high in relation to their actual wealth level, and in comparison to most international programs for countries at similar wealth levels. By doing that, they have put out a NOT WELCOME mat to the vast majority of potential global retired expats. Why people would suggest Thailand should follow that lead rather than glean the potential of even more benefits from new retired expats is beyond reason to me. Countries COMPETE for these expats. Malaysia has basically opted out of the mainstream competition.

Edited December 16, 2010 by Jingthing

[Arkady]

I want to add a clarifying point to the many added jobs benefit of new money from retirees. Some people who aren't versed in economics may think I am implying each retired expat hires 10 full time Thai staff. Of course not, well not usually. The new money brought in, with spending and/or banked flows around the economy in many ways, and stimulates all kinds of economic activity. It is not a zero sum game with money, it flows all around.

To those who rudely feel retired expats are a kind of parasite on Thailand, consider why so many countries throughout the world with similar economic levels as Thailand also offer retirement visa programs, many with financial requirements below or similar to Thailand's. Do you think they do that because they love the foreign old people and have good hearts? No. They do it for the economic benefit of their countries, in their own self interest, and I don't recall ever reading about a country which has abolished an existing retirement visa program, though of course, there are sometimes various changes.

I understand the concept of the trickle down effect in economics but I also understand the concept of moving up the value added ladder in the way that Singapore took a policy decision to ditch the low value added assembly industries in the 80s, even though they were still contributing to aggregate demand at the time. It will be up to the Thai planners, if they have a mind to, to decide where they want be on the retirement business value added ladder in 25 years time and plan accordingly. Economics is not the only consideration. There is an official "national security" mindset that always takes the view that Thailand is a small country with limited resources that needs to protect itself from being swamped by foreigners of various type who might otherwise threaten Thai cultural values and crowd out the Thais. If they do stop to think about it, it is unlikely that continuing to go after the mass retirement market would be a winning argument that politicians would want to promote to the electorate. It is more likely that politicians will make hay out of measures to control the large and growing populations of foreigners who have settled permanently on temporary visa extensions without any quotas, checks on criminal records, tests of knowledge of Thai language and life in Thailand, medical insurance or good behaviour bonds, and with only subsistence level financial requirements. Even if the criminal elements are only a small minority, they do exist and attract a lot of negative publicity. It is not hard to imagine this aspect being highlighted as a reason to control things. Thailand's move in 1952 to limit Chinese immigration from thousands to only 100 people a year also brought out many arguments about the economic inadvisability of doing this to nil effect and the vast majority of non-Chinese Thais wholeheartedly supported the measure.

I am still mystified as to why Thai government planners would consider the US social security pension as a benchmark, even if they could figure out how this baffling system works or what the average pension payment is likely to be. Even if they wanted to look at foreign state pensions, I think that there are far more Europeans than Americans on retirement extensions. An American friend who works for the US government told me that at 67 he will be entitled to a social security pension of US$1,000 a month. Surely Thailand is not going to make a decision to try to attract people without any other resources to settle in the country with this subsistence level income denominated in a high risk currency with appalling long term fundamentals. The UK which accounts for far more retirees in Thailand than the US pays an old age pension of only £90.70 a week, or B18,700 a month, and for pensioners living in Thailand the pension is not indexed linked. UK pensioners living in the UK get an indexed linked old age pension and they also get free medical care, means tested allowances for rent and utilities, free bus travel & etc. I assume that Americans living in the US on the basic social security pension can also claim additional benefits from the social security system and Medicare or Medicaid. Obviously foreign pensioners living in Thailand have to pay for their own medical care.

I have several friends living on retirement (and married) extensions and will undoubtedly have more in future when friends without PR or citizenship retire. I am not advocating that they should all be deported. I am simply speculating on what Thailand is likely to do if and when it gets around to revamping a system that was put in place about 30 years ago when circumstances were very different. I am not even sure that Thailand could pull off a Malaysian style scheme, if it wanted to, without the incentive of land ownership. Without that the bar on financial requirements might have to be a lot less.

Edited December 16, 2010 by Arkady

[Jingthing]

OMG. I have never said Thailand bases it's levels based on average US social security benefits! I just brought that up as a benchmark, to point out the fallacious argument that the required levels are low now, as they are already DOUBLE the average US government pension.

Mexico is an interesting case. Their requirements change a lot because they are based on a formula which uses the value of MEXICAN wages to determine the levels. So if Mexican wage levels double, the requirements double (or something like that). Mexico is a good example here as they do base directly on Mexican wages, it is a country of similar wealth level to Thailand, and the current required levels (which are adjustable) are well under the current required Thai levels. Clearly Mexico is another country that is sold on this program the same way as the Filipino government loves the program, as they actively promote and advertise it.

Edited December 16, 2010 by Jingthing

[Arkady]

I think you are not taking into account that the circumstance of the Philippines are quite different. They have only 3 million tourist arrivals, whereas Thailand has 15 million, and their exports of goods have never been very impressive compared to Thailand's. The Philippines still relies on overseas contract worker remittances as the main source of foreign exchange. With a not very successful tourism industry and being dependent on this humiliating OCW income stream which causes social dislocation due to the prolonged absences of parents and deprives the country of its own skilled workers, it is natural they would want to target other sources of foreign exchange. I am not so familiar with Mexico but its economy is extremely intertwined with the US and whatever it does to generate foreign exchange from services is obviously going to be nearly 100% targeted at the US. The concept of attracting US retirees is also more developed in Central America and there is a lot of competition amongst various retirement visa schemes from Mexico, Nicaragua and Costa Rica & etc.

Perhaps the Thai policy makers are misguided but you have to accept that they have never had a concept of attracting foreign retirees and that they don't feel they have missed out economically as a result. They probably don't appreciate the economic benefits of the large number of foreign retirees they have attracted by accident and also have a history of severely restricting any type of long term foreign settlement. When they get around to looking at it, it is realistically highly unlikely that they will try to compete with the Philippines or Mexico, whatever the merits of those systems.

Edited December 16, 2010 by Arkady

[jazzbo]

AS per post #115 They probably don't appreciate the economic benefits of the large number of foreign retirees they have attracted ... When I read a comment like that I tend to think that they DO appreciate the economic benefits but for reasons unfathomed by the commenter the Thai policy makers have their own reasons for not adjusting their policies accordingly.

[samran]

AS per post #115 They probably don't appreciate the economic benefits of the large number of foreign retirees they have attracted ... When I read a comment like that I tend to think that they DO appreciate the economic benefits but for reasons unfathomed by the commenter the Thai policy makers have their own reasons for not adjusting their policies accordingly.

Two things

1) there is a cost to retiree's, so the net effect is a lot less that people would imagine. Retiree's use a range of public infrastructure which they will never fully pay for over a life time.

2) the aim of any good economic policy is to increase productivity. Flogging rubber dog poo overseas also probably brings in lots of cash for an economy, but it is the value add stuff you want.

As such, if you are going to run an immigration policy, you go for skilled migration.

As Arkady said, Singapore made the deliberate decision years ago to shift to value adding industries. So did Japan, so did Korea. China is doing that now.

If Thailand wants to go the way of all these countries,then it has to run a complimentary immigration programme.

If it wants to become the basket case of Asia - competing with Philippines and Cambodia for that glorious prize, then I guess a relaxed retiree immigration programme would be part of that equation.

[jazzbo]

Very good Kuhn S. ergo: You know what is an enlightened immigration policy; They don't...

[Jingthing]

Singapore has among the TOP rated education systems in the world and their English proficiency standard is excellent.

Thailand has a VERY POOR education system and their English proficiency is also very poor.

Comparing Thailand to Singapore at this stage is simply laughable, surreal, pathetic actually.

Nixing the welcome on middle class retired expats is basically NOTHING compared to what the real priorities should be if Thailand is serious about the value added thing.

I think it's time for me to exit this thread; these elitist ramblings here that don't gel with the reality of Thailand are upsetting my retired stomach, and I really don't need the aggravation. Carry on.

My last word though, make the financial requirements similar to Australia and New Zealand and most of the prospects at those levels will simply go to Australia or New Zealand, etc. It would be like throwing away free money, but I wouldn't put it past them.

Edited December 16, 2010 by Jingthing

[Richard4849]

Are you nuts? I wouldn't go to Australia or New Zealand for half the price.

Most of us (I hope) are here because we love Thailand. Not because it's a bargain -- because there are certainly a lot of cheaper places out there.

Yes, maybe it's a good idea that you take a break from this thread.

[Arkady]

AS per post #115 They probably don't appreciate the economic benefits of the large number of foreign retirees they have attracted ... When I read a comment like that I tend to think that they DO appreciate the economic benefits but for reasons unfathomed by the commenter the Thai policy makers have their own reasons for not adjusting their policies accordingly.

There is an economic benefit to the foreign retirees but it a net benefit. There is a real cost, after subtracting cost of infrastructure, as Samran points out, and a perceived cost. I think the perceived cost is more of a concern because this can be whipped up to score cheap racist points in the way the Sarayudh government suddenly started ranting on about foreigners buying up the entire coastlines of Phuket and Pattaya and under the current government there was some fuss made about foreigners allegedly buying up farmland around the country. Then there is the reality of the foreign mafias. The real net benefit is measurable, if one knows how many retirees there are, and it is not completely insignificant compared to tourism because the retirees spend most of the year in Thailand and some make investments. However, have you ever heard of civil servants or politicians talking about government policy towards the retiree market? No, nor have I but I have often heard of them talking about policies to promote medical tourism, golf tourism, conventions and the like. That's why I say I doubt that they appreciate the economic benefits.

Singapore has among the TOP rated education systems in the world and their English proficiency standard is excellent.

Thailand has a VERY POOR education system and their English proficiency is also very poor.

Comparing Thailand to Singapore at this stage is simply laughable, surreal, pathetic actually.

Nixing the welcome on middle class retired expats is basically NOTHING compared to what the real priorities should be if Thailand is serious about the value added thing.

Of course you are right that Thailand needs to do many things to move up the value added ladder in manufacturing and services, including improving English proficiency. However, in the retirement market, it would simply be a question of analysing the break down of the market so as to drop the bottom layer of lowest income earners off the pyramid and pile on incentives that will expand more the upper layers of higher earners. The bottom layer is likely to be the most numerous, thereby generating the highest real and perceived cost, while generating the least aggregate demand. Thus its net benefit is low and can easily be made up by adding more people to the less numerous levels higher up the pyramid where net economic benefits are much higher due to propensity spend on current expenses, as well as add to fixed capital formation through investment.

I don't see that there is any welcome to retired expats of any class to nix. They are basically treated as tourists who come for up to a year at a time, not long term residents. There is no policy to set up retirement communities for them and they are not legally allowed to own any of the thousands of landed properties that have been dishonestly sold to them by sharks in the real estate sector. Hardly a warm welcome.

Edited December 16, 2010 by Arkady

[jazzbo]

That's why I say I doubt that they appreciate the economic benefits. You are right Kuhn A ... There is no Thailand Retirement Authority (TAR) with offices in Gibraltar and Cabo San Lucas (Mexico) to lure all those retirees to the Kingdom... If Immigration wants to know exactly how many retirement extensions have been issued that would be easy enough to do.

You make many goods points, however I tire of the attitude on TV.com that those in charge -- to be polite-- are misguided ... trying to improve the situation is fine without 'what they don't realize'-type posturings.