A Modest Proposal To Thai Immigration Regarding Money Seasoning For Retirement Extensions

[Jingthing]

People wanting to apply for annual extensions based on retirement in Thailand and are using the 800K Thai bank account method must season the money in their Thai bank account.

Two months for the first extension.

Three months for all subsequent extensions.

In the past even the first extension required three months money seasoning, but Thai immigration realized that was highly impractical for a lot of first time extenders, and liberalized the rule to be two months for the first time.

I have a proposal in the spirit of that kind of sensible thinking that also may prove to be an easy REVENUE raiser for immigration.

Sometimes, long term retirees run into mechanical issues with transferring their money into Thailand that results in them not getting the funds in the account early enough. OR some unplanned major spending event comes up and they have to spend from their account going under the 800K during the three month seasoning period. These people are not cheating. These people are NOT the target of the money seasoning rules in the first place, which was presumably people getting short term loans just before the application.

Here on the forum we hear of these cases. Surely they are tip of the iceberg. Missing the seasoning dates means a long term retiree must start all over again. (Requiring a new non-immigrant visa, etc..)

I feel this is rather over the top for longer term stable retirees with good standing at immigration and no evidence that they are actually cheaters.

So here is my modest proposal.

LONG TERM continuous retirees on the FOURTH YEAR of extending based on the bank account method, open up an OPTION of not seasoning for the three months.

Rules:

Must be on the fourth year at the minimum (in other words, have already done the extensions three times)

Money must be transferred in from outside Thailand to minimize that applicant has received a short term local loan. This is shown in the CODE in the bank passbook

Monetary FINE applied for each day the applicant is late on the three month seasoning, at a rate of 100 baht per day late. So 10 days short of the three months, the fine would be 1000 baht. 90 days late, the fine would be 9000 baht

This is a SERIOUS suggestion. I humbly suggest any reader close to the powers that be in immigration get this suggestion heard. It is a compassionate, logical, and sensible liberalization for LONG TERM retirees and also no doubt would raise quite a bit of money from the fines for Thai immigration.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Jingthing

[soi41]

In general not a bad idea. But the part, that money MUST be transferred from abroad, what about people actually making their money in Thailand, whilst still being on a retirement extension. Ie. living on a business in the wifes name or living on capital gains made in Thailand? So no WP needed and the money goes into the account FROM Thailand.

By setting the fines as low as a 100 baht a day, IMO you are just creating another loophole. Get a friend to send the money from abroad the day before the extension, pay the 9k fine and send the money back. Still cheaper than paying the 20-25k, that can make immigration look through fingers with the moneyrequirement.

[Colabamumbai]

Makes sense to me.

[Jingthing]

I think the main target was local loans. Even with 3 month seasoning, a person could get a 3 month loan already. No scheme is perfect and screens out all cheaters. Might as well have no system if that is the goal. It's a matter of incentives/penalties. It's not a loophole I am proposing. I am proposing a LIBERALIZATION to give LONG TERM people some credit and leeway. That's all. I think it would be an easier sell for immigration if they can make some money on it. Personally, if I had this option, I would probably get the money in the last month every time and just pay the 6000 baht fine. Because it is very hard to know how how much money you'll really need for three months before.

BTW, I want to clarify a detail of my suggestion about the structure of the fines. I meant that the fines should be based on the date of the APPLICATION for extension, and NOT the final ending date of the current permission to stay. Applicants typically come in for their application 30 days early.

For example:

Current permission to stay ends August 15

Applicant comes in July 15 in that case the three month required seasoning would be about April 15

Under a new rule if the money wasn't over 800K until June 15 it would be two months late, not three months late. Because the seasoning rule is always based on the date of APPLICATION and not the final date of permission to stay.

Clear?

Edited July 10, 2012 by Jingthing

[Darrel]

Personally, if I had this option, I would probably get the money in the last month every time and just pay the 6000 baht fine. Because it is very hard to know how how much money you'll really need for three months before.

I just have the 800K on time-deposit here permanently. I never touch it or even think about, except perhaps to move it to an account paying more interest. I suspect that many others do the same. The notion of not actually having to have the full amount permanently on deposit looks to me like just a helpful gesture to less well-off retirees who perhaps don't have 800K available all the time to deposit here.

A really useful thing for immigration to introduce would be some way (any way) to avoid the pain-in-the-backside 90-day reporting. It achieves nothing and wastes a lot of time and paper all round.

[Jingthing]

Personally, if I had this option, I would probably get the money in the last month every time and just pay the 6000 baht fine. Because it is very hard to know how how much money you'll really need for three months before.

I just have the 800K on time-deposit here permanently. I never touch it or even think about, except perhaps to move it to an account paying more interest. I suspect that many others do the same. The notion of not actually having to have the full amount permanently on deposit looks to me like just a helpful gesture to less well-off retirees who perhaps don't have 800K available all the time to deposit here.

A really useful thing for immigration to introduce would be some way (any way) to avoid the pain-in-the-backside 90-day reporting. It achieves nothing and wastes a lot of time and paper all round.

You are completely mistaken to believe that the idea of the 800K requirement is to never spend it down during the year. That's absurd, really.

So this liberalization doesn't interest you because you're one of the minority that doesn't touch their account. And yes, I am CERTAIN that most 800K qualifiers DO spend from their accounts. Also some people transfer out the money in order to earn more interest from the money, again, a smart thing to do and totally legitimate. You suggest there is something wrong with SPENDING the money in Thailand. No. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact it is NORMAL and typical. In fact, SOMETIMES when immigration sees an application like yours with untouched money they suspect the applicant may be working in Thailand and may ask to see where exactly the person's living funds ARE coming from. You insult the wealth levels of people who spend from that account. You don't know anything about the wealth levels of such people.

Consider other people instead of it being all about you. Like I said in the OP, we hear problems with this quite often from long term retirees who just have totally innocent issues like mechanical money transfer delays for 1000 reasons and/or unexpected major expenses during the seasoning period.

Your 90 day suggestion is NOT new. It has been suggested many many times over the years. It is totally off topic to this thread which actually IS about a suggestion that is totally new.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrMuddle]

I'm fortunate enough to be in the same position as Darrel, but this idea seems good to me. It's hard enough remembering to send in the 90 day reports on time, so for people to have to manage bank deposits 9 months after the extension, it must be well nigh impossible. Good luck with this, I can't see any good reason not to do it.

[Darrel]

So this liberalization doesn't interest you because you're one of the minority that doesn't touch their account. And yes, I am CERTAIN that most 800K qualifiers DO spend from their accounts. You suggest there is something wrong with that. No. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact it is NORMAL and typical. In fact, SOMETIMES when immigration sees an application like yours with untouched money they suspect the applicant may be working in Thailand and may ask to see where exactly the person's living funds ARE coming from. You insult the wealth levels of people who spend from that account. You don't know anything about the wealth levels of such people.

Yes, I am angry about your comment. I made a very productive suggestion that makes logical sense, would help a large number of expats, and would raise money for immigration. All you can do is insult people who use their bank accounts as designed.

Calm down, it's only an internet forum.

I was insulting anyone at all, just pointing out that to many people this is a non-issue. Yes, I'm sure that it is an issue to some other people but I still feel that they should perhaps be more thankful that the deposit isn't just a permanent requirement as it is in other countries with similar retirement visa programmes. I do disagree with you about the ratio but I doubt that either of us will ever know the truth about that.

The current situation only actually gives you 9 months out of 12 to draw down the capital before it has to be topped-up anyway. Besides which it is widely supposed that this deposit is, in fact, designed to demonstrate that the retiree has the wherewithal to provide for himself during the whole period of his stay. What better way of doing that than making it a permanent deposit?

As for spending money, I have other accounts that I use for that and I expect that many other retired people here do something similar. The withdrawals show in my bank passbooks, of course.

[Jingthing]

Fine. I now ask future posts on this topic to be directly related the RULE CHANGE PROPOSAL for the bank account method which ONLY relates to people who DO require to top it up annually. If you never touch the 800K, this does not apply to you.

BTW, just for the record.

Most countries in the world have no retirement visa option whatsoever.

Most countries that do have one, have no bank account qualifying method whatsoever. Spending down annually or not. Yes I know this.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Jingthing

[samsiam]

I agree with then 90 day find a fix.

[Jingthing]

I agree with then 90 day find a fix.

Please start another thread then. This isn't a grab bag suggestion thread. It is very specific. No expat likes the 90 day report! Edited July 10, 2012 by Jingthing

[soi41]

Fine. I now ask future posts on this topic to be directly related the RULE CHANGE PROPOSAL for the bank account method which ONLY relates to people who DO require to top it up annually. If you never touch the 800K, again clearly a MINORITY of 800K qualifiers, this does not apply to you.

His Masters Voice

On a more serious note, instead of complaning over a system, that IMO is working for a MAJORITY of people on retirement extensions here, maybe we should be grateful, that the amount of 800k has stayed the same for more than 10 years without being adjusted for inflation. Which would have brought us to 1M+ in todays money!

[QED]

Personally, if I had this option, I would probably get the money in the last month every time and just pay the 6000 baht fine. Because it is very hard to know how how much money you'll really need for three months before.

I just have the 800K on time-deposit here permanently. I never touch it or even think about, except perhaps to move it to an account paying more interest. I suspect that many others do the same. The notion of not actually having to have the full amount permanently on deposit looks to me like just a helpful gesture to less well-off retirees who perhaps don't have 800K available all the time to deposit here.

A really useful thing for immigration to introduce would be some way (any way) to avoid the pain-in-the-backside 90-day reporting. It achieves nothing and wastes a lot of time and paper all round.

You are completely mistaken to believe that the idea of the 800K requirement is to never spend it down during the year. That's absurd, really.

So this liberalization doesn't interest you because you're one of the minority that doesn't touch their account. And yes, I am CERTAIN that most 800K qualifiers DO spend from their accounts. Also some people transfer out the money in order to earn more interest from the money, again, a smart thing to do and totally legitimate. You suggest there is something wrong with SPENDING the money in Thailand. No. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact it is NORMAL and typical. In fact, SOMETIMES when immigration sees an application like yours with untouched money they suspect the applicant may be working in Thailand and may ask to see where exactly the person's living funds ARE coming from. You insult the wealth levels of people who spend from that account. You don't know anything about the wealth levels of such people.

Consider other people instead of it being all about you. Like I said in the OP, we hear problems with this quite often from long term retirees who just have totally innocent issues like mechanical money transfer delays for 1000 reasons and/or unexpected major expenses during the seasoning period.

Your 90 day suggestion is NOT new. It has been suggested many many times over the years. It is totally off topic to this thread which actually IS about a suggestion that is totally new.

Sorry was it not you proposing a law change to suit your own personal circumstances. Sure, lets change the law because Jingthing messed up the dates on his money transfer

[samsiam]

Fine. I now ask future posts on this topic to be directly related the RULE CHANGE PROPOSAL for the bank account method which ONLY relates to people who DO require to top it up annually. If you never touch the 800K, again clearly a MINORITY of 800K qualifiers, this does not apply to you.

His Masters Voice

On a more serious note, instead of complaning over a system, that IMO is working for a MAJORITY of people on retirement extensions here, maybe we should be grateful, that the amount of 800k has stayed the same for more than 10 years without being adjusted for inflation. Which would have brought us to 1M+ in todays money!

Agreed....it could be a lot worse and digging up issues that are irrelevant could make things worse.

The 90 day issue though will certainly help many people and save money...after all Immi make nothing, but cost much re the 90 day reporting.

[samsiam]

Personally, if I had this option, I would probably get the money in the last month every time and just pay the 6000 baht fine. Because it is very hard to know how how much money you'll really need for three months before.

I just have the 800K on time-deposit here permanently. I never touch it or even think about, except perhaps to move it to an account paying more interest. I suspect that many others do the same. The notion of not actually having to have the full amount permanently on deposit looks to me like just a helpful gesture to less well-off retirees who perhaps don't have 800K available all the time to deposit here.

A really useful thing for immigration to introduce would be some way (any way) to avoid the pain-in-the-backside 90-day reporting. It achieves nothing and wastes a lot of time and paper all round.

You are completely mistaken to believe that the idea of the 800K requirement is to never spend it down during the year. That's absurd, really.

So this liberalization doesn't interest you because you're one of the minority that doesn't touch their account. And yes, I am CERTAIN that most 800K qualifiers DO spend from their accounts. Also some people transfer out the money in order to earn more interest from the money, again, a smart thing to do and totally legitimate. You suggest there is something wrong with SPENDING the money in Thailand. No. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact it is NORMAL and typical. In fact, SOMETIMES when immigration sees an application like yours with untouched money they suspect the applicant may be working in Thailand and may ask to see where exactly the person's living funds ARE coming from. You insult the wealth levels of people who spend from that account. You don't know anything about the wealth levels of such people.

Consider other people instead of it being all about you. Like I said in the OP, we hear problems with this quite often from long term retirees who just have totally innocent issues like mechanical money transfer delays for 1000 reasons and/or unexpected major expenses during the seasoning period.

Your 90 day suggestion is NOT new. It has been suggested many many times over the years. It is totally off topic to this thread which actually IS about a suggestion that is totally new.

Sorry was it not you proposing a law change to suit your own personal circumstances. Sure, lets change the law because Jingthing messed up the dates on his money transfer

I think a better idea would be to be flexible with the dates or just allow the 800k average over the year period or such.

[Jingthing]

I have never missed the seasoning dates personally. Many people have, quite innocently. We hear them stressing here quite commonly here. Yes, it could happen to me, that is true.

[Jingthing]

I think a better idea would be to be flexible with the dates or just allow the 800k average over the year period or such.

The average idea is silly as people use the accounts to spend during the year and spending money in Thailand is something that is good for Thailand.

[StreetCowboy]

...

...

I think a better idea would be to be flexible with the dates or just allow the 800k average over the year period or such.

What about a raffle?

They could put the bidders' cards out and let a butterfly land on them. Everyone likes a flutter

SC

[theblether]

I can't see much wrong with the current system, if anything it gives some of our retirees something to moan about and we know how much they love moaning.

[Jingthing]

I tried.

Folks, this is the visa forum. Not f-rang pub. I guess I give up.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Jingthing

[brit1984]

I think it would be better if everyone who wants one of these retirement visas pays a deposit to the Thai government (or related financial institution). The level of this deposit could be the 800k (or the equivalent in today's money inflation adjusted from whenever the 800k number was chosen). The institution that collects the deposits could pay a monthly or annual interest rate, and the deposit could be returned whenever the person leaves Thailand (or leaves this world).

This system would be more difficult to cheat and the government could earn a margin by lending the money out at higher rates (or simply charging a fee to the institution who is allowed to hold the funds).

[Jingthing]

I think it would be better if everyone who wants one of these retirement visas pays a deposit to the Thai government (or related financial institution). The level of this deposit could be the 800k (or the equivalent in today's money inflation adjusted from whenever the 800k number was chosen). The institution that collects the deposits could pay a monthly or annual interest rate, and the deposit could be returned whenever the person leaves Thailand (or leaves this world).

This system would be more difficult to cheat and the government could earn a margin by lending the money out at higher rates (or simply charging a fee to the institution who is allowed to hold the funds).

You're going for Mr. Popularity, innit? Edited July 10, 2012 by Jingthing

[soi41]

I think it would be better if everyone who wants one of these retirement visas pays a deposit to the Thai government (or related financial institution). The level of this deposit could be the 800k (or the equivalent in today's money inflation adjusted from whenever the 800k number was chosen). The institution that collects the deposits could pay a monthly or annual interest rate, and the deposit could be returned whenever the person leaves Thailand (or leaves this world).

This system would be more difficult to cheat and the government could earn a margin by lending the money out at higher rates (or simply charging a fee to the institution who is allowed to hold the funds).

What an excellent idea!

[StreetCowboy]

I think it would be better if everyone who wants one of these retirement visas pays a deposit to the Thai government (or related financial institution). The level of this deposit could be the 800k (or the equivalent in today's money inflation adjusted from whenever the 800k number was chosen). The institution that collects the deposits could pay a monthly or annual interest rate, and the deposit could be returned whenever the person leaves Thailand (or leaves this world).

This system would be more difficult to cheat and the government could earn a margin by lending the money out at higher rates (or simply charging a fee to the institution who is allowed to hold the funds).

My apologies, JT

I rely on the money in the bank as an emergency backstop if things go badly wrong, so it doesn't bother me leaving it there all year.

SC

[samsiam]

Didn't some septic guy down in pattaya make some similar modest proposals in an open letter to the PM....that got laughed out of the asylum also.

[TommoPhysicist]

If you are so poor that you have to use that money, maybe it's time for you to go home?

[Jingthing]

Didn't some septic guy down in pattaya make some similar modest proposals in an open letter to the PM....that got laughed out of the asylum also.

Please leave your anti-American slang back in Pommie-land.

[Jingthing]

If you are so poor that you have to use that money, maybe it's time for you to go home?

You're joking right? Immigration officers LIKE to see spending on the account. That's our function. To spend.

It would be time to go home IF you are unable to top up the account for the upcoming extensions.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Jingthing

[samsiam]

If people kept the 800k overseas and got a better return on it....quite possibly better than the 9k fine....then they would not bother.

The average is a better idea by far.

[Jingthing]

If people kept the 800k overseas and got a better return on it....quite possibly better than the 9k fine....then they would not bother.

The average is a better idea by far.

The average is a horrible idea. The typical expectation is that it is a SPENDING account. How would they even CALCULATE an average? Not that they should.