I think there is going to be closer scrutiny of all classes of people staying in Thailand.

Governments use so called terrorist attacks as an excuse to crack down on lots of other things. This precedent was undoubtedly set by the US after 9/11. I doubt Thailand will be any different. Asean border controls theoretically are lifted on January 1st 2016. There is not much talk here, of what that will really mean. If implemented one can expect an influx of people from other Asean countries who will seek employment in lower paid jobs. Lower income foreigners will therefore be less attractive to Thai authorities. Many of these do not pay tax and do not contribute greatly to the Thai economy. They will be encouraged to leave by more stringent visa enforcement and other restrictions. That's how I read it, but hope I am wrong!

Quote Lower income foreigners will therefore be less attractive to Thai authorities. Many of these do not pay tax and do not contribute greatly to the Thai economy. unquote. I find this line of thinking hard to follow. I must have a 65,000 baht a month proven pension or 800,000 bahts in the bank. I have a g/f I provide for so who are these lower income foreigners and how would they be allowed to stay here? I feel I contribute to the Thai economy. Strange one.

I am married with a 12 year old son and my MIL lives with us is a small house we built for her.

All my pension money is spent in Thailand on my family and as aresult we support the local shopkeepers, the local markets and once a month, BigC and Makro.

I think there is going to be closer scrutiny of all classes of people staying in Thailand.

As I mention in this post concerning the conviction and subsequent dropping of charges in lieu of simple parole of a convicted Thai national.

At least in this court, Thai convict are given less stringent reporting requirements that foreign expatiates, i.e., a parolee reports 6 times in two years; a foreign expat reports 5 times a year (four 90 day reports and one visit to process an extension) not to mention home visits.

So in this case, a convicted felon only has to report 3 times a year to his parole office; foreigner have to report 5 times - So question in point: who is viewed a the most serious national security risk?

It would be interesting to know if this is standard practice in assigning parole, but in my book, every foreigner is a suspected convict and needs to be watched with more diligence than convicted Thai criminals. Interesting?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/854536-phuket-jail-term-suspended-for-tiger-disco-inferno-deaths/page-2#entry9834399

Not stri8ctly correct as I only visit Immigration 4 times a year and for 3 of them I could post my 90 day reports and the 4th report is in conjunction with my retirement extension.

As for quote "It would be interesting to know if this is standard practice in assigning parole, but in my book, every foreigner is a suspected convict and needs to be watched with more diligence than convicted Thai criminals. Interesting?"

Not so much interesting but your opinion only not backed up by any links, reports or anything else.

It is worth as much as my opinion that all farangs are paedophiles. It isn't true of course, but it is an opinion and totally worthless to boot.

Not only will it increase tourism in neighbouring countries.

It will mean many long termers will move as well.

No point staying where we are not wanted. Best to spend our money elsewhere where is it more appreciated and where visas are easier to obtain.

Oh and many will move to places where the locals are not totally xenophobic and can speak English.

Have not witnessed this exodus.Are you going? If so where?

It is common sense that people will move if visa conditions here become onerous.

No it isn't. Some people may move on but IMHO most will stay.

Not only will it increase tourism in neighbouring countries.

It will mean many long termers will move as well.

No point staying where we are not wanted. Best to spend our money elsewhere where is it more appreciated and where visas are easier to obtain.

Oh and many will move to places where the locals are not totally xenophobic and can speak English.

Have not witnessed this exodus.Are you going? If so where?

It is common sense that people will move if visa conditions here become onerous.

No it isn't. Some people may move on but IMHO most will stay.

IMHO people will move on.

There you go we have different opinions. Wow how strange eh?

I think there is going to be closer scrutiny of all classes of people staying in Thailand.

Governments use so called terrorist attacks as an excuse to crack down on lots of other things. This precedent was undoubtedly set by the US after 9/11. I doubt Thailand will be any different. Asean border controls theoretically are lifted on January 1st 2016. There is not much talk here, of what that will really mean. If implemented one can expect an influx of people from other Asean countries who will seek employment in lower paid jobs. Lower income foreigners will therefore be less attractive to Thai authorities. Many of these do not pay tax and do not contribute greatly to the Thai economy. They will be encouraged to leave by more stringent visa enforcement and other restrictions. That's how I read it, but hope I am wrong!

Quote Lower income foreigners will therefore be less attractive to Thai authorities. Many of these do not pay tax and do not contribute greatly to the Thai economy. unquote. I find this line of thinking hard to follow. I must have a 65,000 baht a month proven pension or 800,000 bahts in the bank. I have a g/f I provide for so who are these lower income foreigners and how would they be allowed to stay here? I feel I contribute to the Thai economy. Strange one.

The B65K income or B800K bank balance reqts have no bearing on the discussion as they are merely evidence that you will not be a burden on the Thai economy, not that you actually contribute anything significant on an ongoing basis to it. A person who is simply able to scrape that much together isn't "big money", really can't be all that attractive to Thai authorities, and is certainly "expendable" in terms of Thai politics and the regular gimmicks intended to stir up the public over the "problems caused by foreigners". The g/f you're supporting is, sadly, just as "expendable" in the big game as you are. How one foreigner or another "feels" about how or what he contributes to the Thai economy is trumped by these other "tangible" considerations.

I think there is going to be closer scrutiny of all classes of people staying in Thailand.

Governments use so called terrorist attacks as an excuse to crack down on lots of other things. This precedent was undoubtedly set by the US after 9/11. I doubt Thailand will be any different. Asean border controls theoretically are lifted on January 1st 2016. There is not much talk here, of what that will really mean. If implemented one can expect an influx of people from other Asean countries who will seek employment in lower paid jobs. Lower income foreigners will therefore be less attractive to Thai authorities. Many of these do not pay tax and do not contribute greatly to the Thai economy. They will be encouraged to leave by more stringent visa enforcement and other restrictions. That's how I read it, but hope I am wrong!

Quote Lower income foreigners will therefore be less attractive to Thai authorities. Many of these do not pay tax and do not contribute greatly to the Thai economy. unquote. I find this line of thinking hard to follow. I must have a 65,000 baht a month proven pension or 800,000 bahts in the bank. I have a g/f I provide for so who are these lower income foreigners and how would they be allowed to stay here? I feel I contribute to the Thai economy. Strange one.

The B65K income or B800K bank balance reqts have no bearing on the discussion as they are merely evidence that you will not be a burden on the Thai economy, not that you actually contribute anything significant on an ongoing basis to it. A person who is simply able to scrape that much together isn't "big money", really can't be all that attractive to Thai authorities, and is certainly "expendable" in terms of Thai politics and the regular gimmicks intended to stir up the public over the "problems caused by foreigners". The g/f you're supporting is, sadly, just as "expendable" in the big game as you are. How one foreigner or another "feels" about how or what he contributes to the Thai economy is trumped by these other "tangible" considerations.

Of course that's not "big money" by western standards but this is not the west.

I imagine that it's not particularly pleasant for a westerner to live in Thailand on under say 40k baht a month, sure it can be done but for the vast majority of westerners that represents a pretty restricted and spartan lifestyle. That's an annual spend of almost 500k baht per year, a spend which, if that person were Thai, would put them very firmly in the middle class spending bracket and well above the average income figure of 13,500 per month (160k per year). Most westerners that I know spend a minimum of 60k baht a month here (800k baht) with many spending over a one million per year and that doesn't include the capital cost of new cars and real estate.

So when you say that people at that spending level don't contribute anything significant to the Thai economy I think you are wrong, even at the lower figure of 40k baht per month they contribute at a rate that is higher than circa 80% of the native population.

No it isn't. Some people may move on but IMHO most will stay.

IMHO people will move on.

There you go we have different opinions. Wow how strange eh?

Not really. It is similar to people who believe a glaas is either half full or half empty.

Besides the forum would be a very bland place if everybody shared the same opinion.

It will be very difficult to find the numbers of those who will move and those who will stay.

Governments use so called terrorist attacks as an excuse to crack down on lots of other things. This precedent was undoubtedly set by the US after 9/11. I doubt Thailand will be any different. Asean border controls theoretically are lifted on January 1st 2016. There is not much talk here, of what that will really mean. If implemented one can expect an influx of people from other Asean countries who will seek employment in lower paid jobs. Lower income foreigners will therefore be less attractive to Thai authorities. Many of these do not pay tax and do not contribute greatly to the Thai economy. They will be encouraged to leave by more stringent visa enforcement and other restrictions. That's how I read it, but hope I am wrong!

Quote Lower income foreigners will therefore be less attractive to Thai authorities. Many of these do not pay tax and do not contribute greatly to the Thai economy. unquote. I find this line of thinking hard to follow. I must have a 65,000 baht a month proven pension or 800,000 bahts in the bank. I have a g/f I provide for so who are these lower income foreigners and how would they be allowed to stay here? I feel I contribute to the Thai economy. Strange one.

The B65K income or B800K bank balance reqts have no bearing on the discussion as they are merely evidence that you will not be a burden on the Thai economy, not that you actually contribute anything significant on an ongoing basis to it. A person who is simply able to scrape that much together isn't "big money", really can't be all that attractive to Thai authorities, and is certainly "expendable" in terms of Thai politics and the regular gimmicks intended to stir up the public over the "problems caused by foreigners". The g/f you're supporting is, sadly, just as "expendable" in the big game as you are. How one foreigner or another "feels" about how or what he contributes to the Thai economy is trumped by these other "tangible" considerations.

Of course that's not "big money" by western standards but this is not the west.

I imagine that it's not particularly pleasant for a westerner to live in Thailand on under say 40k baht a month, sure it can be done but for the vast majority of westerners that represents a pretty restricted and spartan lifestyle. That's an annual spend of almost 500k baht per year, a spend which, if that person were Thai, would put them very firmly in the middle class spending bracket and well above the average income figure of 13,500 per month (160k per year). Most westerners that I know spend a minimum of 60k baht a month here (800k baht) with many spending over a one million per year and that doesn't include the capital cost of new cars and real estate.

So when you say that people at that spending level don't contribute anything significant to the Thai economy I think you are wrong, even at the lower figure of 40k baht per month they contribute at a rate that is higher than circa 80% of the native population.

...not comparable to the native population, as the native population are, well, duh, the native population! Whether or not they're a "burden" on, or may or may not contribute to, the economy doesn't figure in this at all. THIS discussion concerns the role foreigners play, and if the best a foreigner can do is say he's "contributing" as much or even more than a local, he might as well just keep quiet & try to stay under the radar. Trust me, a foreigner who's contributing only as much as a native is less than mincemeat to the Thai establishment, and, as I say, entirely expendable, definitely NOT "quality", and pretty darn close to being undesirable. If you want better standing, you're going to have to do a lot better than to merely be able to say you spend more than a local!

And some do. I wouldn't like to say how many or by how much, but I'm sure there certainly are some affluent among the foreign riff-raff. But my guess is that the numbers of these well-to-do foreigners are dwindling to an even greater degree than is true of the more middle class, and many of them are choosing to move on.

Of course that's not "big money" by western standards but this is not the west.

I imagine that it's not particularly pleasant for a westerner to live in Thailand on under say 40k baht a month, sure it can be done but for the vast majority of westerners that represents a pretty restricted and spartan lifestyle. That's an annual spend of almost 500k baht per year, a spend which, if that person were Thai, would put them very firmly in the middle class spending bracket and well above the average income figure of 13,500 per month (160k per year). Most westerners that I know spend a minimum of 60k baht a month here (800k baht) with many spending over a one million per year and that doesn't include the capital cost of new cars and real estate.

So when you say that people at that spending level don't contribute anything significant to the Thai economy I think you are wrong, even at the lower figure of 40k baht per month they contribute at a rate that is higher than circa 80% of the native population.

...not comparable to the native population, as the native population are, well, duh, the native population! Whether or not they're a "burden" on, or may or may not contribute to, the economy doesn't figure in this at all. THIS discussion concerns the role foreigners play, and if the best a foreigner can do is say he's "contributing" as much or even more than a local, he might as well just keep quiet & try to stay under the radar. Trust me, a foreigner who's contributing only as much as a native is less than mincemeat to the Thai establishment, and, as I say, entirely expendable, definitely NOT "quality", and pretty darn close to being undesirable. If you want better standing, you're going to have to do a lot better than to merely be able to say you spend more than a local!

And some do. I wouldn't like to say how many or by how much, but I'm sure there certainly are some affluent among the foreign riff-raff. But my guess is that the numbers of these well-to-do foreigners are dwindling to an even greater degree than is true of the more middle class, and many of them are choosing to move on.

"Whether or not they're a "burden" on, or may or may not contribute to, the economy doesn't figure in this at all". How can that possibly be, that's exactly what the issue is! The subject of this thread is the potential difficulty foreigners may have remaining in Thailand, part of the equation is the value they add to the economy and spending is 90% of that.

According to you, a foreigner who spends at the same rate as the top 20% of the native population doesn't make them, what, not quality as far as Thailand is concerned, makes them potential cannon fodder, undesirable even? It that's what you think I suggest you are ever so slightly deluded as to wealth in the context of a country like Thailand. BTW that 800k baht a year figure, it's only slightly lower than the US requires for income of a married immigrant who wants to settle in the US on a Green Card! http://asl-lawfirm.com/blog/income-requirements-for-fiance-and-marriage-visa-processing/

Of course that's not "big money" by western standards but this is not the west.

I imagine that it's not particularly pleasant for a westerner to live in Thailand on under say 40k baht a month, sure it can be done but for the vast majority of westerners that represents a pretty restricted and spartan lifestyle. That's an annual spend of almost 500k baht per year, a spend which, if that person were Thai, would put them very firmly in the middle class spending bracket and well above the average income figure of 13,500 per month (160k per year). Most westerners that I know spend a minimum of 60k baht a month here (800k baht) with many spending over a one million per year and that doesn't include the capital cost of new cars and real estate.

So when you say that people at that spending level don't contribute anything significant to the Thai economy I think you are wrong, even at the lower figure of 40k baht per month they contribute at a rate that is higher than circa 80% of the native population.

...not comparable to the native population, as the native population are, well, duh, the native population! Whether or not they're a "burden" on, or may or may not contribute to, the economy doesn't figure in this at all. THIS discussion concerns the role foreigners play, and if the best a foreigner can do is say he's "contributing" as much or even more than a local, he might as well just keep quiet & try to stay under the radar. Trust me, a foreigner who's contributing only as much as a native is less than mincemeat to the Thai establishment, and, as I say, entirely expendable, definitely NOT "quality", and pretty darn close to being undesirable. If you want better standing, you're going to have to do a lot better than to merely be able to say you spend more than a local!

And some do. I wouldn't like to say how many or by how much, but I'm sure there certainly are some affluent among the foreign riff-raff. But my guess is that the numbers of these well-to-do foreigners are dwindling to an even greater degree than is true of the more middle class, and many of them are choosing to move on.

"Whether or not they're a "burden" on, or may or may not contribute to, the economy doesn't figure in this at all". How can that possibly be, that's exactly what the issue is! The subject of this thread is the potential difficulty foreigners may have remaining in Thailand, part of the equation is the value they add to the economy and spending is 90% of that.

According to you, a foreigner who spends at the same rate as the top 20% of the native population doesn't make them, what, not quality as far as Thailand is concerned, makes them potential cannon fodder, undesirable even? It that's what you think I suggest you are ever so slightly deluded as to wealth in the context of a country like Thailand. BTW that 800k baht a year figure, it's only slightly lower than the US requires for income of a married immigrant who wants to settle in the US on a Green Card! http://asl-lawfirm.com/blog/income-requirements-for-fiance-and-marriage-visa-processing/

Actually, "cannon fodder" is probably a pretty good word for it. "Delusional" might be better though. The first time a whipping boy is needed because the economy is sinking, or the public is upset with particularly violent crime that's been reported, or the international press says something bad about Thailand, or, say, a bomb goes off, guess who's right up there at the head of the line. For Thai politicians and editorial writers (and some others I won't go into to avoid getting OT) you're just low-hanging fruit. And you think your measly $2K/mo pension is your get-out-of-jail-free card in Thailand, and will have them all bowing down to you? LOL. Simply because it's more than most Thais can ever hope to make?? ROFL. You just keep telling 'em how much richer you are than they are - they'll eventually love you for it! Again, because that's your INCOME doesn't mean it's what you SPEND. I told you that already. And even if in your case you do spend that much, or even much more, it won't make you a Thai, only that much more resented and that much more ripe for exploitation.

As a class, the bell sure sounds like it's tolling for foreigners, for the farang component at least. Continue to live the dream since you evidence the symptoms, but you really should try and remember it's just a dream. You may eventually wake up wondering what the heck you were drinking last night.

Of course that's not "big money" by western standards but this is not the west.

I imagine that it's not particularly pleasant for a westerner to live in Thailand on under say 40k baht a month, sure it can be done but for the vast majority of westerners that represents a pretty restricted and spartan lifestyle. That's an annual spend of almost 500k baht per year, a spend which, if that person were Thai, would put them very firmly in the middle class spending bracket and well above the average income figure of 13,500 per month (160k per year). Most westerners that I know spend a minimum of 60k baht a month here (800k baht) with many spending over a one million per year and that doesn't include the capital cost of new cars and real estate.

So when you say that people at that spending level don't contribute anything significant to the Thai economy I think you are wrong, even at the lower figure of 40k baht per month they contribute at a rate that is higher than circa 80% of the native population.

...not comparable to the native population, as the native population are, well, duh, the native population! Whether or not they're a "burden" on, or may or may not contribute to, the economy doesn't figure in this at all. THIS discussion concerns the role foreigners play, and if the best a foreigner can do is say he's "contributing" as much or even more than a local, he might as well just keep quiet & try to stay under the radar. Trust me, a foreigner who's contributing only as much as a native is less than mincemeat to the Thai establishment, and, as I say, entirely expendable, definitely NOT "quality", and pretty darn close to being undesirable. If you want better standing, you're going to have to do a lot better than to merely be able to say you spend more than a local!

And some do. I wouldn't like to say how many or by how much, but I'm sure there certainly are some affluent among the foreign riff-raff. But my guess is that the numbers of these well-to-do foreigners are dwindling to an even greater degree than is true of the more middle class, and many of them are choosing to move on.

"Whether or not they're a "burden" on, or may or may not contribute to, the economy doesn't figure in this at all". How can that possibly be, that's exactly what the issue is! The subject of this thread is the potential difficulty foreigners may have remaining in Thailand, part of the equation is the value they add to the economy and spending is 90% of that.

According to you, a foreigner who spends at the same rate as the top 20% of the native population doesn't make them, what, not quality as far as Thailand is concerned, makes them potential cannon fodder, undesirable even? It that's what you think I suggest you are ever so slightly deluded as to wealth in the context of a country like Thailand. BTW that 800k baht a year figure, it's only slightly lower than the US requires for income of a married immigrant who wants to settle in the US on a Green Card! http://asl-lawfirm.com/blog/income-requirements-for-fiance-and-marriage-visa-processing/

Actually, "cannon fodder" is probably a pretty good word for it. "Delusional" might be better though. The first time a whipping boy is needed because the economy is sinking, or the public is upset with particularly violent crime that's been reported, or the international press says something bad about Thailand, or, say, a bomb goes off, guess who's right up there at the head of the line. For Thai politicians and editorial writers (and some others I won't go into to avoid getting OT) you're just low-hanging fruit. And you think your measly $2K/mo pension is your get-out-of-jail-free card in Thailand, and will have them all bowing down to you? LOL. Simply because it's more than most Thais can ever hope to make?? ROFL. You just keep telling 'em how much richer you are than they are - they'll eventually love you for it! Again, because that's your INCOME doesn't mean it's what you SPEND. I told you that already. And even if in your case you do spend that much, or even much more, it won't make you a Thai, only that much more resented and that much more ripe for exploitation.

As a class, the bell sure sounds like it's tolling for foreigners, for the farang component at least. Continue to live the dream since you evidence the symptoms, but you really should try and remember it's just a dream. You may eventually wake up wondering what the heck you were drinking last night.

You seem to confuse the minimum financial requirements for a long stay Thai visa and the spending habits and actual wealth of the people who obtain those visa's, two totally different things, the former is public knowledge whilst you haven't got a clue about the latter of anyone apart from yourself!

You seem to confuse the minimum financial requirements for a long stay Thai visa and the spending habits and actual wealth of the people who obtain those visa's, two totally different things, the former is public knowledge whilst you haven't got a clue about the latter of anyone apart from yourself!

No. I'm afraid you're the one that has it backwards. I'm the one saying the minimum financial requirements are NOT an indicator of spending (and therefore NOT an indicator of what they may be "contributing to the economy"). YOU'RE the one who jumped on elgordo's financial requirements bandwagon, as if they had some relevance to this whole "contributes to the economy" question, which they clearly do not.

You seem to confuse the minimum financial requirements for a long stay Thai visa and the spending habits and actual wealth of the people who obtain those visa's, two totally different things, the former is public knowledge whilst you haven't got a clue about the latter of anyone apart from yourself!

No. I'm afraid you're the one that has it backwards. I'm the one saying the minimum financial requirements are NOT an indicator of spending (and therefore NOT an indicator of what they may be "contributing to the economy"). YOU'RE the one who jumped on elgordo's financial requirements bandwagon, as if they had some relevance to this whole "contributes to the economy" question, which they clearly do not.

I think you're probably trolling on all of this if you cannot accept that a minimum spend that in the top 20% of all residents (800K baht) is of value to the Thai economy and is seen as such by government, if that is not the case then why ever on earth do you think the government set it at that level and why do they even offer "retirement visa's", if not attract such funds.Over and out.

You seem to confuse the minimum financial requirements for a long stay Thai visa and the spending habits and actual wealth of the people who obtain those visa's, two totally different things, the former is public knowledge whilst you haven't got a clue about the latter of anyone apart from yourself!

No. I'm afraid you're the one that has it backwards. I'm the one saying the minimum financial requirements are NOT an indicator of spending (and therefore NOT an indicator of what they may be "contributing to the economy"). YOU'RE the one who jumped on elgordo's financial requirements bandwagon, as if they had some relevance to this whole "contributes to the economy" question, which they clearly do not.

I think you're probably trolling on all of this if you cannot accept that a minimum spend that in the top 20% of all residents (800K baht) is of value to the Thai economy and is seen as such by government, if that is not the case then why ever on earth do you think the government set it at that level and why do they even offer "retirement visa's", if not attract such funds.Over and out.

This is silly. I think you're probably being deliberately obtuse on this if you cannot see that the requirements set by the government, as I've said BEFORE (and you trollishly pretend to ignore), are there to ensure the foreigner wanting to enter the country will not become a burden on the economy and economic (and other, for that matter) resources - such as, say, law enforcement services... - intended to benefit the native Thai population, as is the B20K - loosely enforced - requirement for even a visa exempt entry stamp. Precisely the same purpose as that for which similar requirements, and related ones such as sponsor financial responsibility affidavits, exist in the U.S. and other countries. It's not some magical predictor of what they will spend, only evidence that they can indeed support themselves for the applicable periods of stay. Obviously, some people can subsist on less than these required amounts, and some will spend more. Some guy entering on a visa exempt stamp who stays only a couple of days and/or is a backpacker may very well spend much less than the B20K he's required to have, so the B20K is no predictor. The same is true of visa- and visa extension holders. Some guy who has his B800K in the bank may even just leave it there and never spend a single satang of it so as never to have to concern himself with it or the "aging requirements" (which are something less than an incentive to be actively spending from that account, BTW) when renewing his visa or extension.

It's an insurance policy, or a kind of bondedness. And statistically speaking, nothing more. In countries with mandatory auto insurance, can you infer the total amount expended on claims from the sum total of their liability insurance coverage (also required by govt, and in specified amounts; also intended to insure claims can be satisfied; and also ludicrous to suggest as intended to "attract more drivers")? Of course not.

"Over and out"

Yeap, that's for sure.

You seem to confuse the minimum financial requirements for a long stay Thai visa and the spending habits and actual wealth of the people who obtain those visa's, two totally different things, the former is public knowledge whilst you haven't got a clue about the latter of anyone apart from yourself!

No. I'm afraid you're the one that has it backwards. I'm the one saying the minimum financial requirements are NOT an indicator of spending (and therefore NOT an indicator of what they may be "contributing to the economy"). YOU'RE the one who jumped on elgordo's financial requirements bandwagon, as if they had some relevance to this whole "contributes to the economy" question, which they clearly do not.

I think you're probably trolling on all of this if you cannot accept that a minimum spend that in the top 20% of all residents (800K baht) is of value to the Thai economy and is seen as such by government, if that is not the case then why ever on earth do you think the government set it at that level and why do they even offer "retirement visa's", if not attract such funds.Over and out.

This is silly. I think you're probably being deliberately obtuse on this if you cannot see that the requirements set by the government, as I've said BEFORE (and you trollishly pretend to ignore), are there to ensure the foreigner wanting to enter the country will not become a burden on the economy and economic (and other, for that matter) resources - such as, say, law enforcement services... - intended to benefit the native Thai population, as is the B20K - loosely enforced - requirement for even a visa exempt entry stamp. Precisely the same purpose as that for which similar requirements, and related ones such as sponsor financial responsibility affidavits, exist in the U.S. and other countries. It's not some magical predictor of what they will spend, only evidence that they can indeed support themselves for the applicable periods of stay. Obviously, some people can subsist on less than these required amounts, and some will spend more. Some guy entering on a visa exempt stamp who stays only a couple of days and/or is a backpacker may very well spend much less than the B20K he's required to have, so the B20K is no predictor. The same is true of visa- and visa extension holders. Some guy who has his B800K in the bank may even just leave it there and never spend a single satang of it so as never to have to concern himself with it or the "aging requirements" (which are something less than an incentive to be actively spending from that account, BTW) when renewing his visa or extension.

You're the first to mention the 20k and backpacker element and now you're being completely silly and grasping at straws! Backpackers are tourists who visit Thailand but do not stay the same way that long term visa holders do, those who are required to deposit 800K.

The minimum requirement of 800K baht is a bar that is set far higher than one that merely ensures foriegners don't become a burden, it's set at that level to bring revenue into the country, not solely as an insurance against becoming a burden.

And exactly how a retiree keeps 800K baht in his/her bank all year without spending a single satang on any form of living expenses escapes me! Of course people (like me) lodge 800k baht into a long term fixed deposit and forget about until visa extension time, living expenses, the far greater sum, come from a separate account.

I think you're probably trolling on all of this if you cannot accept that a minimum spend that in the top 20% of all residents (800K baht) is of value to the Thai economy and is seen as such by government, if that is not the case then why ever on earth do you think the government set it at that level and why do they even offer "retirement visa's", if not attract such funds.Over and out.

This is silly. I think you're probably being deliberately obtuse on this if you cannot see that the requirements set by the government, as I've said BEFORE (and you trollishly pretend to ignore), are there to ensure the foreigner wanting to enter the country will not become a burden on the economy and economic (and other, for that matter) resources - such as, say, law enforcement services... - intended to benefit the native Thai population, as is the B20K - loosely enforced - requirement for even a visa exempt entry stamp. Precisely the same purpose as that for which similar requirements, and related ones such as sponsor financial responsibility affidavits, exist in the U.S. and other countries. It's not some magical predictor of what they will spend, only evidence that they can indeed support themselves for the applicable periods of stay. Obviously, some people can subsist on less than these required amounts, and some will spend more. Some guy entering on a visa exempt stamp who stays only a couple of days and/or is a backpacker may very well spend much less than the B20K he's required to have, so the B20K is no predictor. The same is true of visa- and visa extension holders. Some guy who has his B800K in the bank may even just leave it there and never spend a single satang of it so as never to have to concern himself with it or the "aging requirements" (which are something less than an incentive to be actively spending from that account, BTW) when renewing his visa or extension.

You're the first to mention the 20k and backpacker element and now you're being completely silly and grasping at straws! Backpackers are tourists who visit Thailand but do not stay the same way that long term visa holders do, those who are required to deposit 800K.

The minimum requirement of 800K baht is a bar that is set far higher than one that merely ensures foriegners don't become a burden, it's set at that level to bring revenue into the country, not solely as an insurance against becoming a burden.

And exactly how a retiree keeps 800K baht in his/her bank all year without spending a single satang on any form of living expenses escapes me! Of course people (like me) lodge 800k baht into a long term fixed deposit and forget about until visa extension time, living expenses, the far greater sum, come from a separate account.

"The minimum requirement of 800K baht is a bar that is set far higher than one that merely ensures foriegners don't become a burden, it's set at that level to bring revenue into the country, not solely as an insurance against becoming a burden."

Nope. Mere conjecture, and unsupported conjecture at that. Talk about grasping at straws. The amount is higher because the period of stay being authorized will obviously be longer.

"And exactly how a retiree keeps 800K baht in his/her bank all year without spending a single satang on any form of living expenses escapes me! Of course people (like me) lodge 800k baht into a long term fixed deposit and forget about until visa extension time."

Good job! You answered your own question!

"living expenses, the far greater sum, come from a separate account"

How nice for you. They would no doubt be for me as well. And for many I expect. Not necessarily true for everyone though that actual living expenses are the far greater sum. Furthermore, if an individual uses the income method rather than the fixed B800K deposit method, there's absolutely no way of even guessing how much money is actually being brought into the country to spend! A visa authorizes extended stays in the country, it doesn't require them. You have no way of correlating visa status even with total time spent in-country, much less how much money is actually spent there. The most you can do is assert that a visa holder probably spends more time and money in-country than a non-visa holder, and even that's a generalization. The financial requirements of the Immigration Dept merely satisfy the risk posed by the non self-sufficient, the freeloaders, and someone who might for example fall victim to an expensive mishap or claim, and are neither here nor there.

I've read members claiming that the amounts required are actually unrealistically low compared to some other countries. So let me ask you. If Thailand were to raise the minimum amount from B800K to, say, B2M, do you think that would serve as an "attraction" to more retirees (not that there aren't other visa categories which we'd have to address as well...)? Do higher minimum amounts "attract" more retirees (and others) and more money to Thailand, or do just the opposite and disincentivize them? You claim these requirements "attract" money to Thailand, so higher minimums must be even more "attractive", no? So, gee, why stop at B2M. Why not B10M? B50M?? B1B??? The more the amount required, the more money "attracted" to Thailand, right?

This is silly. I think you're probably being deliberately obtuse on this if you cannot see that the requirements set by the government, as I've said BEFORE (and you trollishly pretend to ignore), are there to ensure the foreigner wanting to enter the country will not become a burden on the economy and economic (and other, for that matter) resources - such as, say, law enforcement services... - intended to benefit the native Thai population, as is the B20K - loosely enforced - requirement for even a visa exempt entry stamp. Precisely the same purpose as that for which similar requirements, and related ones such as sponsor financial responsibility affidavits, exist in the U.S. and other countries. It's not some magical predictor of what they will spend, only evidence that they can indeed support themselves for the applicable periods of stay. Obviously, some people can subsist on less than these required amounts, and some will spend more. Some guy entering on a visa exempt stamp who stays only a couple of days and/or is a backpacker may very well spend much less than the B20K he's required to have, so the B20K is no predictor. The same is true of visa- and visa extension holders. Some guy who has his B800K in the bank may even just leave it there and never spend a single satang of it so as never to have to concern himself with it or the "aging requirements" (which are something less than an incentive to be actively spending from that account, BTW) when renewing his visa or extension.

You're the first to mention the 20k and backpacker element and now you're being completely silly and grasping at straws! Backpackers are tourists who visit Thailand but do not stay the same way that long term visa holders do, those who are required to deposit 800K.

The minimum requirement of 800K baht is a bar that is set far higher than one that merely ensures foriegners don't become a burden, it's set at that level to bring revenue into the country, not solely as an insurance against becoming a burden.

And exactly how a retiree keeps 800K baht in his/her bank all year without spending a single satang on any form of living expenses escapes me! Of course people (like me) lodge 800k baht into a long term fixed deposit and forget about until visa extension time, living expenses, the far greater sum, come from a separate account.

"The minimum requirement of 800K baht is a bar that is set far higher than one that merely ensures foriegners don't become a burden, it's set at that level to bring revenue into the country, not solely as an insurance against becoming a burden."

Nope. Mere conjecture, and unsupported conjecture at that. Talk about grasping at straws. The amount is higher because the period of stay being authorized will obviously be longer.

"And exactly how a retiree keeps 800K baht in his/her bank all year without spending a single satang on any form of living expenses escapes me! Of course people (like me) lodge 800k baht into a long term fixed deposit and forget about until visa extension time."

Good job! You answered your own question!

"living expenses, the far greater sum, come from a separate account"

How nice for you. They would no doubt be for me as well. And for many I expect. Not necessarily true for everyone though that actual living expenses are the far greater sum. Furthermore, if an individual uses the income method rather than the fixed B800K deposit method, there's absolutely no way of even guessing how much money is actually being brought into the country to spend! A visa authorizes extended stays in the country, it doesn't require them. You have no way of correlating visa status even with total time spent in-country, much less how much money is actually spent there. The most you can do is assert that a visa holder probably spends more time and money in-country than a non-visa holder, and even that's a generalization. The financial requirements of the Immigration Dept merely satisfy the risk posed by the non self-sufficient, the freeloaders, and someone who might for example fall victim to an expensive mishap or claim, and are neither here nor there.

I've read members claiming that the amounts required are actually unrealistically low compared to some other countries. So let me ask you. If Thailand were to raise the minimum amount from B800K to, say, B2M, do you think that would serve as an "attraction" to more retirees (not that there aren't other visa categories which we'd have to address as well...)? Do higher minimum amounts "attract" more retirees (and others) and more money to Thailand, or do just the opposite and disincentivize them? You claim these requirements "attract" money to Thailand, so higher minimums must be even more "attractive", no? So, gee, why stop at B2M. Why not B10M? B50M?? B1B??? The more the amount required, the more money "attracted" to Thailand, right?

They have the elite visa don't they?

I think you're probably trolling on all of this if you cannot accept that a minimum spend that in the top 20% of all residents (800K baht) is of value to the Thai economy and is seen as such by government, if that is not the case then why ever on earth do you think the government set it at that level and why do they even offer "retirement visa's", if not attract such funds.Over and out.

This is silly. I think you're probably being deliberately obtuse on this if you cannot see that the requirements set by the government, as I've said BEFORE (and you trollishly pretend to ignore), are there to ensure the foreigner wanting to enter the country will not become a burden on the economy and economic (and other, for that matter) resources - such as, say, law enforcement services... - intended to benefit the native Thai population, as is the B20K - loosely enforced - requirement for even a visa exempt entry stamp. Precisely the same purpose as that for which similar requirements, and related ones such as sponsor financial responsibility affidavits, exist in the U.S. and other countries. It's not some magical predictor of what they will spend, only evidence that they can indeed support themselves for the applicable periods of stay. Obviously, some people can subsist on less than these required amounts, and some will spend more. Some guy entering on a visa exempt stamp who stays only a couple of days and/or is a backpacker may very well spend much less than the B20K he's required to have, so the B20K is no predictor. The same is true of visa- and visa extension holders. Some guy who has his B800K in the bank may even just leave it there and never spend a single satang of it so as never to have to concern himself with it or the "aging requirements" (which are something less than an incentive to be actively spending from that account, BTW) when renewing his visa or extension.

You're the first to mention the 20k and backpacker element and now you're being completely silly and grasping at straws! Backpackers are tourists who visit Thailand but do not stay the same way that long term visa holders do, those who are required to deposit 800K.

The minimum requirement of 800K baht is a bar that is set far higher than one that merely ensures foriegners don't become a burden, it's set at that level to bring revenue into the country, not solely as an insurance against becoming a burden.

And exactly how a retiree keeps 800K baht in his/her bank all year without spending a single satang on any form of living expenses escapes me! Of course people (like me) lodge 800k baht into a long term fixed deposit and forget about until visa extension time, living expenses, the far greater sum, come from a separate account.

"The minimum requirement of 800K baht is a bar that is set far higher than one that merely ensures foriegners don't become a burden, it's set at that level to bring revenue into the country, not solely as an insurance against becoming a burden."

Nope. Mere conjecture, and unsupported conjecture at that. Talk about grasping at straws. The amount is higher because the period of stay being authorized will obviously be longer.

"And exactly how a retiree keeps 800K baht in his/her bank all year without spending a single satang on any form of living expenses escapes me! Of course people (like me) lodge 800k baht into a long term fixed deposit and forget about until visa extension time."

Good job! You answered your own question!

"living expenses, the far greater sum, come from a separate account"

How nice for you. They would no doubt be for me as well. And for many I expect. Not necessarily true for everyone though that actual living expenses are the far greater sum. Furthermore, if an individual uses the income method rather than the fixed B800K deposit method, there's absolutely no way of even guessing how much money is actually being brought into the country to spend! A visa authorizes extended stays in the country, it doesn't require them. You have no way of correlating visa status even with total time spent in-country, much less how much money is actually spent there. The most you can do is assert that a visa holder probably spends more time and money in-country than a non-visa holder, and even that's a generalization. The financial requirements of the Immigration Dept merely satisfy the risk posed by the non self-sufficient, the freeloaders, and someone who might for example fall victim to an expensive mishap or claim, and are neither here nor there.

I've read members claiming that the amounts required are actually unrealistically low compared to some other countries. So let me ask you. If Thailand were to raise the minimum amount from B800K to, say, B2M, do you think that would serve as an "attraction" to more retirees (not that there aren't other visa categories which we'd have to address as well...)? Do higher minimum amounts "attract" more retirees (and others) and more money to Thailand, or do just the opposite and disincentivize them? You claim these requirements "attract" money to Thailand, so higher minimums must be even more "attractive", no? So, gee, why stop at B2M. Why not B10M? B50M?? B1B??? The more the amount required, the more money "attracted" to Thailand, right?

I have not claimed that the minimum amounts are attractive to retirees in Thailand, some claim the amount is too high, most don't express a view. What I did say is that the government of Thailand wishes to attract inbound funds by offering a retirement visa, why else would they offer such a thing.

But let's get back on track with what we were discussing: even if retirees spend at the minimum rate of 800k baht per year, that still puts them in the top 20% of spenders in the country and that meets the governments objectives at the outset, capital inflows. On that basis, retirees who spend at that rate are of value to the Thai government and the Thai economy and have absolutely no need whatsoever to "stay under the radar" because they are low spenders, as you claimed at the outset.

As for the minimum being too low compared to other countries: no it is not, not when you compare the amount against average wage, GDP or GDP per capita, at least the US doesn't think so!

Finally, if a retiree goes to the extent of obtaining a retirement visa, I think it's fairly safe to presume that the vast majority, better than 95% I imagine, will not have done so in order to make the odd visit here, most will have done so with the intention of living here, ergo time spent and money spent is easily likely to be the minimum or above. The rationale for that is that wealthy retirees might come and go because they have a second home elsewhere and can afford the cost of frequent air travel, such behavior is indicative of them spending larger amounts whilst in Thailand. Less well off expats will not be able to afford the second home or the travel hence they will remain here year round and spend accordingly, at a rate that is less than that of their native country but greater than the minimum visa ammount here.

And here I thought this thread was about

Is it going to be more difficult for foreigners to stay in Thailand due to the bombings?

The B65K income or B800K bank balance reqts have no bearing on the discussion as they are merely evidence that you will not be a burden on the Thai economy, not that you actually contribute anything significant on an ongoing basis to it. A person who is simply able to scrape that much together isn't "big money", really can't be all that attractive to Thai authorities, and is certainly "expendable" in terms of Thai politics and the regular gimmicks intended to stir up the public over the "problems caused by foreigners". The g/f you're supporting is, sadly, just as "expendable" in the big game as you are. How one foreigner or another "feels" about how or what he contributes to the Thai economy is trumped by these other "tangible" considerations.

Yes its true that one person is always expandable, but how about ten thousand people? or a hundred thousand?

If you add up the money foreigners living in Thailand bring in annually, it adds up to a very large sum.

Contrary to what many people here think, Thailand is not a rich country (far from it actually), and can find good use to any additional Dollar or Euro that comes in.

And here I thought this thread was about

Is it going to be more difficult for foreigners to stay in Thailand due to the bombings?

It is.

The B65K income or B800K bank balance reqts have no bearing on the discussion as they are merely evidence that you will not be a burden on the Thai economy, not that you actually contribute anything significant on an ongoing basis to it. A person who is simply able to scrape that much together isn't "big money", really can't be all that attractive to Thai authorities, and is certainly "expendable" in terms of Thai politics and the regular gimmicks intended to stir up the public over the "problems caused by foreigners". The g/f you're supporting is, sadly, just as "expendable" in the big game as you are. How one foreigner or another "feels" about how or what he contributes to the Thai economy is trumped by these other "tangible" considerations.

Yes its true that one person is always expandable, but how about ten thousand people? or a hundred thousand?

If you add up the money foreigners living in Thailand bring in annually, it adds up to a very large sum.

Contrary to what many people here think, Thailand is not a rich country (far from it actually), and can find good use to any additional Dollar or Euro that comes in.

180 countries in the world and 100 poorer than Thailand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita