Regarding retirement visas-- I am 34, and have taken to the philosophy of "Retire Early, Retire Often." When the nest-egg gets to half of its original value, it is time to go back to the real world and save up again.

This has a few interesting effects when it comes to spending money here:

-Daily expenses aren't a concern. Monthly expenses aren't a major issue.

-Placing money into a Thai bank account rather than my investment portfolio is unattractive. 2/3 of my living expenses can easily be made off of my capital gains; the remainder slowly reduces my nest egg unless there is some other form of income.

-Purchasing property is unattractive. You can't really own it, so it is not a high quality investment.

-Opening a business is an option, but really a last resort. My goal is to live a relaxed life for a couple years, not deal with the "fun" of running a business in paradise.

-When the stock market crashed after 9/11, I had to start packing up, looking for a job, etc. This was something I understood and was prepared to do. Having non-liquid economic ties to Thailand complicates that matter significantly.

There's a big difference between spending money here and investing it here. Quite frankly, I don't think Thailand is as interested in "investment" as it is in you just being a consumer here.

Whatever the real solution will be, I hope they are able to think of the long-term impact of thier decisions. Looking at Hong Kong, it's easy to live without English teachers, but it is dangerous long-term to turn away the young and impressionable people from your doors on the basis that they don't spend enough money.

Isn't there some sort of human rights issue involved in marriage? I mean, the government can seperate families and deport people because they don't have enough money?

Even in the UK, such human rights are subordinate to the right of the state to have an effective immigration policy. As far as I understand it, Thai wives in the UK can be deported in the first two years of residence not only for the marriage breaking up, but also for the family losing the wherewithal to support and accommodate itself without recourse to public funds. (I understand there's a concession in that children growing up will not cause the family to be deported for lack of adequate accommodation.)

What the UK does (did?) have is a concession, extra-statutory I believe, that once you've been in the UK legally for four years you will be allowed to stay indefinitely provided you behave yourself. There are exceptions to this concession (e.g. for diplomatic visas), but I believe it would cover cases such as a sudden loss of assets. I did know one family that had to go the investment route when the diplomatic connection was lost - the children were definitely Londoners.