Bank statement for the new multiple tourist visa

[chiang mai]

2k baht a day seems low to me, I own a home here and don't live an extravagant lifestyle by any means and my average budget is 2k per day, adding hotel and restaurant costs to that increases the spend hugely.

[JDGRUEN]

400,000 Baht in the bank for a couple to get a 6 month visa for Thailand, someone has lost the plot.

Why ? Genuine tourists who can afford to travel for 6-9 months of a year can surely afford, (and would need), that money.

But the requirement mistakenly assumes that people only live on savings ... there are things like annuities, dividends, delayed salary allotments, salary while on sabbatical, government retirement or private pension for people under age 50, and a host of other ways a person could have a continuing income stream - not related to money in the bank in a static amount ...

When TAT finally figures out that the METV is a tourism killer Influence will be brought to bear and such tunnel vision policies will be tossed aside,

Edited November 2, 2015 by JDGRUEN

[ubonjoe]

The criteria seems to be world wide, except for a few countries so far (Norway has no money criteria yet).

Rounded up to about 200.000 bath seems like a norm, but the highest amount I have seen so far, is 8000 dollars. A bit extreme I think.

It seems 200k baht is the number set by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Embassies are then putting a local or USD amount on it. The embassy in Cambodia posted the $8000 number using an exchange rate of 25 baht to the dollar which is the same rate used to get the $200 number for the visa fee that is 5000 baht.

The embassy in the US has $7000 which is better at 28.6 but still is not close to the current exchange rate of a little over 35 baht to the dollar.

I don't understand whey they don't just state 200,000 baht and use the current exchange rate on the date of application. But of course that would make it hard for someone to guess what it will be 6 months later when they put their money in the bank.

[Seizetheday]

I think you are both missing the point, from previous postings, one of the criteria is that you have an average balance of 200,000, probably 400,000 Baht for a couple, in your bank account for 6 months before you apply for a visa.

I'm reasonably wealthy ( you can see my house on the house thread!!! ) I would never have a running balance of much more that $5,000 in my bank account.

The people this visa is designed for, won't be able to afford it.

Does being "reasonably wealthy" mean you spend less than 2000/baht a day on accommodation, food, transportation etc. when taking a holiday away from home ?

No, I have my own accommodation in Thailand, access to about 3 million baht in overdraft and credit cards, but never a running balance over 400,000 baht in my bank accounts.

[aneliane]

The average American savings amounts to $ 5.900.

If even the richest country in the world cannot afford the METV, who are they expecting?

Edited November 2, 2015 by ubonjoe
removed a unacceptable word to be used here

[ubonjoe]

The average American savings amounts to $ 5.900.

If even the richest country in the world cannot afford the METV, who are they expecting?

I don't think that is a reasonable example. How many people did they use for the average.

Many people could not afford to to buy the ticket to here and that would be the same for all countries.

A person would not have to be all that rich to have the equivalent of 200k baht in the bank.

[SaintLouisBlues]

My son and his wife will be here in Jan, 2016 but will NOT be visiting Pattaya !

It doesn't sound like much fun for your son!

[ironbark]

What about banks like Aust where people often have mortgage offset accounts to minimise interest.

Any wages/income is automatically credited to their mortgage and they draw down progressively during the month for living expenses. They never have a credit account.

[TheKnave]

400,000 Baht in the bank for a couple to get a 6 month visa for Thailand, someone has lost the plot.

Why ? Genuine tourists who can afford to travel for 6-9 months of a year can surely afford, (and would need), that money.

Boy, am I getting sick of these self-appointed arbiters of tourist 'genuineness'. Many of us saw a fair-sized chunk of Thailand, on tourist visas, before most of you could find it on a map, I'd wager.

Stick your 'genuine' in your fundament, kids.

Edited November 2, 2015 by TheKnave

[AYJAYDEE]

400,000 Baht in the bank for a couple to get a 6 month visa for Thailand, someone has lost the plot.

Boy, am I getting sick of these self-appointed arbiters of tourist 'genuineness'. Many of us saw a fair-sized chunk of Thailand, on tourist visas, before most of you could find it on a map, I'd wager.

Stick your 'genuine' in your fundament, kids.

Why ? Genuine tourists who can afford to travel for 6-9 months of a year can surely afford, (and would need), that money.

AND get 6-9 months off work? not enough of those to make this visa worthwhile

[AYJAYDEE]

The average American savings amounts to $ 5.900.

If even the richest country in the world cannot afford the METV, who are they expecting?

I don't think that is a reasonable example. How many people did they use for the average.

Many people could not afford to to buy the ticket to here and that would be the same for all countries.

A person would not have to be all that rich to have the equivalent of 200k baht in the bank.

i dont know that many that leave that kind of money idling in a bank account when it could be working

[TheKnave]

As I said on another thread, this 'visa' is nothing more than a smokescreen for getting rid of double and triple-entry tourist visas. Few people will use it.

[VBF]

As I said on another thread, this 'visa' is nothing more than a smokescreen for getting rid of double and triple-entry tourist visas. Few people will use it.

I agree - and as I said on another thread, few people will be able to use it!

[TheKnave]

I'm sure they'd accept savings accounts too. But if not, realistically, how many people plan a long term trip anywhere with less than six months before traveling!

Incredibly obtuse post.

Of course people plan with much less lead time. Maybe not burger-flippers, who might hold such an opinion, but people with flexible working arrangements certainly do.

I have a friend who buys and sells certain collectibles. He travels SEA for six or more months a year, often returning with more money than he started with. He has assets, but travels when his finances warrant it.

He has a long history in Thailand, with extended family there. He uses Thailand as a base for his travels, using 1,2 or 3- entry tourist visas to suit his plans. The METV would hamper his lifestyle arbitrarily.

How incredibly arrogant can you be, Travel Boy?

[asdecas]

I think you are both missing the point, from previous postings, one of the criteria is that you have an average balance of 200,000, probably 400,000 Baht for a couple, in your bank account for 6 months before you apply for a visa.

I'm reasonably wealthy ( you can see my house on the house thread!!! ) I would never have a running balance of much more that $5,000 in my bank account.

The people this visa is designed for, won't be able to afford it.

If this proves to be true - and experience teaches that in Thailand such arbitrary regulations are usually bent or ignored over time - then I'm afraid this new visa will be an own goal.

Who, with any financial acumen at all, wants to keep the equivalent of 200k Baht (or 400k for a family) in the bank for six months, earning close to nothing in interest? Many people who take an extended vacation, for which this visa is presumably designed, will, for example, have investment income, interest, dividends, or other funds that arrive in increments over the period of the visa, and not in a lump sum doing nothing in the bank.

Perhaps they will resent being told what to do with their money in order to qualify?

It strikes me that the requirements of this visa, if enforced, may prove too onerous for many people, and they may therefore consider spending more time in alternative destinations.

[Vandadavid]

Thailand will soon see the negative effects on the country and this is basically the new Junta doing

It's all hog wash and again there Thai power games that they become famous for. How do they expect positive feed back when all they ever want is $$$$

They funny people

[Thaidream]

Few people will be able to use it and few will use it. People will still come to Thailand using the single entry tourist Visa but will leave for another country and not return giving that country their money Thailand could have had it but instead of going after those people abusing the system they would rather complicate things unnecessarily. I seriously doubt people are going to show employment documentation and bank statements for 6 months to travel to Thailand on an METV. The Visa is an example of poor coordination and flawed thought process. If they really think that Chinese tourists are going to fill the gap for lost business they are mistaken. The Chinese do not purchase like Westerners or use local facilities.I see a big impact on smaller hotels. apartments and condominium,s that rent to digital nomads or other long stay people as well as restaurants, bars and clubs. The Chinese come on packaged tours normally providing income to Chinese owned establishments. If I was an entrepreneur or wanting to invest in the tourist industry in Thailand- I would give it a pass. Numbers do not reflect what is really happening.

[jmd8800]

Maybe the discerning visitor is avoiding Jomtien and Pattaya?

There are many other much more pleasant places in Thailand for "farang" to visit.

My son and his wife will be here in Jan, 2016 but will NOT be visiting Pattaya !

Yes they are all headed to Chiang Mai! Just kidding..but seriously, the Bangkok Post had an article on 26 October that headlined "Chiang Mai revels in year round-boom"

From the article: Hoteliers in the northern province are enjoying booming trade, with the average occupancy rate hitting 70%-80% in what would have been the low season.

And: This year, the TAT forecasts Chiang Mai will welcome 10 million tourists, both local and international.

The lady being interviewed said "I can say that Chiang Mai no longer has a low season"

Note: I hope this cut and paste works out. There were credits automatically included and I deleted them as BKK Post links are not acceptable here and credit was given to BKK Post in this post.

[JackThompson]

Just from my own experience where I am at, and from all other shop owners in the area.

I have never experienced this low a season all year around, and neither have all people I know working in shops, and the people I talk with in the area of Jomtien and Pattaya. Here it has always been packed with farang people.

At least the russians are causing a hit here, due to their economy. And this area was feeding on russians for a long time.

At markets I hardly see farangs anymore. It is no doubt in my mind that the number here has been going pretty much down the last couple of years. All the shops shutting down every week are a good pointer.

it is exactly the point.

Getting rid of tourists living within the thai community and upping numbers at Malls and resorts.

Groups especially Chinese are more numerous in Central World, they even have tours in Mega Bangna.

The vast majority of shops shutting down and shops in trouble here, are owned or leased by thais.

Maybe I misunderstood you, but the ones I mentioned here are all thais, (our shop is owned by my wife, I take no part in it) and they just need more farang coming, short or long stay.

The Chinese "tour" there, but most do not "buy" much. The tour operators rent blocks of hotel-rooms for a fraction of the retail price.

I have been watching as the asking-price on "for sale" signs continue to drop, on the closed store-fronts, to spite large groups of Chinese tourists walking by them. Clearly, they aren't buying.

[phuketrichard]

There plenty of people that have the money over 6 months

but how many can /want to take 6 months off?

seems if ur rich u dont need anything but the 30 days visa exempt to go in and out of Thailand as often as u like in a 6 month/ year period,

if ur NOT living here and only using thailand as a base to visit Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar etc

I still dont know who this visa is supposed to appeal to?

[LivinLOS]

I would imagine Thailand makes little or loses money on these "poor" souls.

How does Thailand lose money on arrivals who bring direct foreign exchange into the country and spend more than average Thai incomes ??

They claim benefits and housing ??

they make use of the world class free healthcare ??

[onni4me]

If it isn't broken, don't fix it...and that's just what Thais do time after time.

I came here first time 15 years ago when I could get Non-O just filling the paper stating my name etc. and paid about 4000 Baht at the time. Got the visa next day and on my way I was.

Instead of making it easier to visit the country shorter or longer periods, they like to rub the thing in the face of people. That will cause badwill in the long run. It is a sign saying you are not truly welcome but we want your money.

How about in the case - like mine - my personal income is pretty low but I have assets that I invest monthly (morgages outside Thailand) and I use my credit cards to pay my way and settle the amount in the end of month? I do not keep cash reserves on an bank account for obvious reasons.

I consider this to be just another example of monkeys running the shop.

[KonaRain]

Less 'Europeans'.. at the Market may mean less expats, more tourists..

Good info as usual..

Alohz

[LukKrueng]

Maybe they have realised that the majority of tourists enter with single entry tourist visas, visa exempt entries and visa on arrival and the majority of those using double/triples are the tourists they don't want.

Based on the criteria that is emerging I doubt they expect to sell many METV's and only want to sell them to people with money in their bank and a job to go back home to.

I don't think it will make a blind bit of difference to tourism as the vast majority of tourists stay less than 60 days.

I just can`t see why they shouldn`t want the todays tourists with double and triple entries. If they are going after people working in Thailand, there are better ways to do that.

As for now, every tourist should count for Thailand. There is a huge number of them on these visas today, and they leave behind much money in the long run.

The tourism is in fact taking a big hit already, and with these new requirements for the METV, in addition to the new, harsh penalties for overstaying coming up, it won`t exactly get better.

I can`t see it any other way.

IMO although someone could be a tourist forever Thailand categorises a tourist as a short term visitor. I think the changes to tourist visas will have no effect on that category of tourist.

There are undoubtedly people living here under 50 that can support themselves from income/investments abroad but they are surely in the minority of people using double/triple entry visas. Most under 50's support their stay from working while they are here. I think their view of their effect on the economy is overstated.

The last report I read said that visitor numbers were on target for a record 28 million so I don't see a big hit happening. We've had mobs in Bangkok, bombings, coups, and people still come.

The overstay penalties won't effect the majority of tourists or most overstayers come to that. No penalty (ban) for 90 days unless you get caught. Less than 1% of visitors overstay. I doubt most tourists would be put off coming as they would never expect to overstay anyway.

The definition of a tourist is a person who visits a location other than his own home.

The definition of visit is to go to and stay with (a person or family) or at (a place) for a short time for reasons of sociability, politeness, business, curiosity, etc.

I think everyone here understand the definition of "short time"....

Basically a tourist is someone who comes to visit and TOUR a place for a short time. A person who takes residence in one place for few months (which is shortER time than few years, yet not SHORT time...) is basically a temporary resident, not a tourist.

As for the statistics of tourists flow into Thailand shown by TAT, I am not sure they don't include non-immigrants living here and go out of the country on business or other trips and return. I am sure they actually include all the visa runners though, which means whatever number is shown doesn't really reflect the actual number of tourists VISITING Thailand.

In any case, a tourist who comes here for SHORT time is inclined to spend more per day than those staying here for long periods. And (whether TV members like it or not) these are the quality tourists TAT is talking about.

[HerbalEd]

I think you are both missing the point, from previous postings, one of the criteria is that you have an average balance of 200,000, probably 400,000 Baht for a couple, in your bank account for 6 months before you apply for a visa.

I'm reasonably wealthy ( you can see my house on the house thread!!! ) I would never have a running balance of much more that $5,000 in my bank account.

The people this visa is designed for, won't be able to afford it.

Does being "reasonably wealthy" mean you spend less than 2000/baht a day on accommodation, food, transportation etc. when taking a holiday away from home ?

You totally missed his point. It's not about how much he spends in Thailand per day, it' about how much one normally has in their banking acct. One can be worth millions (in stock, bonds, certificates,etc.) and yet only keep a much smaller amount in their banking acct.

[onni4me]

In any case, a tourist who comes here for SHORT time is inclined to spend more per day than those staying here for long periods. And (whether TV members like it or not) these are the quality tourists TAT is talking about.

So spending money equals to being a "quality" person? According to TAT, I suppose? Or you?

In that case, the most "quality" person would be a fornicator splashing his money around and preferably engaging himself in a criminal behavior subject to blackmail.

I somehow see other qualities determining persons standing in this sort of a scale.

Here we see endless bickering about people who consider themselves higher-than-thou claiming their money, nothing else about them, makes them somehow special. I don't simply agree. I like simple lifestyle and could probably spend as little as 15000 Baht a month still enjoying my life. I have paid house, paid car and income from rentals so I could probably "retire" if I would like to. I don't however.

I can only take a dosage of TV vitriol and hatred so I limit myself to observing my happy family and neighbors. Yes, they are happy and so am I. Seems that some get what they deserve for regarding the posts here.

Edited November 2, 2015 by onni4me

[oncearugge]

I think you are both missing the point, from previous postings, one of the criteria is that you have an average balance of 200,000, probably 400,000 Baht for a couple, in your bank account for 6 months before you apply for a visa.

I'm reasonably wealthy ( you can see my house on the house thread!!! ) I would never have a running balance of much more that $5,000 in my bank account.

The people this visa is designed for, won't be able to afford it.

Does being "reasonably wealthy" mean you spend less than 2000/baht a day on accommodation, food, transportation etc. when taking a holiday away from home ?

You totally missed his point. It's not about how much he spends in Thailand per day, it' about how much one normally has in their banking acct. One can be worth millions (in stock, bonds, certificates,etc.) and yet only keep a much smaller amount in their banking acct.

"stock, bonds, certificates,etc" are not cash nor can the "money" nominally represented by these financial instruments be easily accessed.

[JackThompson]

In any case, a tourist who comes here for SHORT time is inclined to spend more per day than those staying here for long periods. And (whether TV members like it or not) these are the quality tourists TAT is talking about.

I do not think this is the case for those coming on package-tours, which are the "increasing numbers" being touted from China.

But, even if this were deomonstrably the case, decreasing the number of long-stayers does not increase the number of short-stayers. One group's presence or absence does not have any bearing on the other. We do not live in the same types of residences, or reduce the availability of Thai goods and services available to the other group.

[Suradit69]

400,000 Baht in the bank for a couple to get a 6 month visa for Thailand, someone has lost the plot.

That's only Baht 65,000 a month available for a family of 4. If you think that's excessive, someone has indeed lost the plot.

It just needs to be available, it doesn't have to be spent or sequestered.

[AYJAYDEE]

400,000 Baht in the bank for a couple to get a 6 month visa for Thailand, someone has lost the plot.

That's only Baht 65,000 a month available for a family of 4. If you think that's excessive, someone has indeed lost the plot.

It just needs to be available, it doesn't have to be spent or sequestered.

not many folks tie up that kind of money in a bank acccount when it could be working for you