Valid Tourist Visa Activity Now Triggers Immigration-Computer Hold

[hawker9000]

7 hours ago, sometimewoodworker said:

 

A valid visa is never, and has never been a guarantee of entry to any country. It is always at the discretion if the IO. 

 

However most countries require the refusal to be based on immigration rules 

 

But application of the immigration rules can simply be a matter of "suspicion" by the IO.  He's required to prove nothing.  That creates a crack for "discretion" and subjective enforcement a mile wide.  We've known for years how much the "rules" vary from one border checkpoint to another; the experts here routinely remind those inquiring which ones are best avoided!  The "based on immigration rules" talking point gets a real workout in Thailand...

[Thaidream]

Whoever  added the computer alert- did this in line with the Immigration Departments stated policy that they do not want people living in thailand long term without the proper Visa or working illegally.  Reports on this board would indicate that after 6 visits on a visa free basis- the computer alerts and the Io questions. It certainly can be tweaked to ask questions on a person who has a valid visa and enters and re-enters a certain number of times within a certain period of time.  While there have been many reports of people being questioned- I can not remember but one report of a person being officially refused entry with a valid visa and his passport stamped as such. It appears rejection is rare, but the Io questions will continue because the computer alert mandates the questioning.

[jspill]

1 hour ago, swampdonkey said:

There is a difference between the correct visa
and a valid visa.
A tourist visa is not for someone who is spending most of their time living in Thailand

 

 

There isn't a definition of what a Thai tourist visa is for, and no set limits. You can't produce any Thai document saying we shouldn't live here using them, or how many we can have back to back. 

 

All it says is 'for the purpose of tourism' so a circular definition. They don't define tourism, except to say it's for up to 90 days at a time. Doesn't say anything about living here, or whether you have to go see temples and beaches with it. 

 

Same applies to many developing countries that derive a decent chunk of their GDP from tourism, all across SE Asia and South America. If anyone is upset about people living on tourist visas I'd suggest getting out more and taking up some hobbies. 

Edited August 9, 2016 by jspill

[jspill]

I've just spent the last 180 days on visa exemptions and before that had a long overstay, stamp is still in my passport. Have had no problems flying in and out (and never via Cambodia). 

[bkkcanuck8]

30 minutes ago, KenKadz said:

If we knew who (individual - contractor - organization) was performing the IT (internet technology) and programing work for Thai Immigration we might have a better understanding of all the situation.

Thai immigration officers are doing their jobs according to the information they are supplied by the  computer system.

Remember in Thailand a person gets a job/contract through family contacts, not necessarily education, work history, or other Western concepts like being able to do the job.

And every young man in Thailand will tell you he is a *computer expert*.

The immigration system is probably not custom, I think there are at least 4 large systems available but have been unable to figure out which one it is.  I have a suspicion that if it is a commercial one it is just a matter of adding a rule to alert based on selectable criteria.

[SaintLouisBlues]

I know from a friend who worked in Malaysia for a couple of years, doing visa runs every 60 days, under their visa exemption rules, that two years of doing that was about the limit before people got stopped at the airport and questioned closely. It's not just a "Thailand problem"

[JayBird]

Regarding 'What is a tourist'.  An acceptable definition and cut off time would be: Anyone spending more than 180 days (either continuously or non-continuously) in a country is not a tourist.  At that point, you are generally considered a resident (especially for tax purposes, and nothing is more binding than taxes).  So if you do use an METV to stay in Thailand for more than 180 days, you are technically becoming a resident of Thailand.  You may even have some tax liabilities!

 

Regarding 'A visa is my ticket in!'.  Well, A Visa means you have permission to travel to that country and enter.  IT can of course be immediately cancelled/rejected upon arrival if they have sufficient reason.  This won't be Thailand specific.  You get a Visa for country XYZ and leave 30 days later.  But 10 days before you arrive your home country and XYZ have sanctions imposed, you may not be allowed in.  However, it is a good 'pre-vet' thing and allows you a different way to enter the country than 'visa exempt' or 'visa on arrival' options might.

 

Regarding 'The rules aren't clear'. Yes.  Not sure if anyone caught this, but a year or so the General was stating that he had no issues with people coming to Thailand he just wanted them to have the *RIGHT* Visa.  This is a bit different before the old days when it was pretty more wild and chaotic.  And it takes a while to push these rules and regulations to all the embassies/consulates of the world.  So it may be a few more years before they are all on the same page.  Lame, yes, but Thailand is not Switzerland when it comes to clear rules and regulations, so don't expect it to be as pristine.  Also, it should be noted that at the same time he lifted the limitations on how often G7 countries can get back-to-back entries.  And there seems to be additional considerations given to G7 citizens.

 

 

[bkkcanuck8]

38 minutes ago, JayBird said:

Regarding 'What is a tourist'.  An acceptable definition and cut off time would be: Anyone spending more than 180 days (either continuously or non-continuously) in a country is not a tourist.  At that point, you are generally considered a resident (especially for tax purposes, and nothing is more binding than taxes).  So if you do use an METV to stay in Thailand for more than 180 days, you are technically becoming a resident of Thailand.  You may even have some tax liabilities!

 

 

 

Resident status (immigration status) is a specific status that is not easy to get in Thailand.  I can leave Canada and I will still be liable for taxes since before I become a non-resident for tax purposes I have to sever ties to Canada and/or be out of Canada for more than 3 years (quite a bit longer than 180 days).  You are just making up things to support a point of view (i.e. have point of view, then construct reasons why your way should be the way it is).   The standard enforced in Thailand as to what is and what is not Thailand is of no concern to the peanut gallery of people who are not Thai.  If they change it then so be it, but until then... it is not for foreigners to make up stuff about how Thailand should enforce their own regulations.

 

BTW, In Canada visa waiver will give you 6 months on entry.... more than your 180 days straw man argument.... should all those people suddenly be classified as residents?  (The 6 months is extendable if you have sufficient funds from outside the country).

Edited August 9, 2016 by bkkcanuck8

[bkkcanuck8]

The fact that the "average person" cannot fathom being able to afford to take any more than a couple weeks off, does not mean that everybody is in the same boat.  Many people are affluent and may or may not work as they see fit.   Some people can actually afford a life of leisure and a tourist is just someone that travels for pleasure.  The arbitrary rules on how long a person can travel and be a tourist are just made up rules as an attempt to make enforcement of immigration a little more uniform....  Some countries have strict rules, others .... are more relaxed.  Immigrations job is to protect the country from unwanted individuals (by whatever policy is in effect at the time) - which usually translates into protecting a closed labour market or criminal activity etc.  If a person is not a burden on society and has sufficient funds from outside the country then I really could care less whether they are a tourist for 1 day, 180 days, or 3 years.  

 

Lets face it anyone that is here in Thailand is here at the pleasure of the Thai people represented by whatever government is in place at the time.  If you do not have permanent resident status or citizenship then you are a foreigner and stay here as long and only as long as the government deems acceptable.  If the government wanted to restrict foreign influence through market oriented means and decided that they would limit tourism, or restrict the number of retirees by requiring a pension and 3,000,000 baht on deposit minimum (during their stay) in a Thai bank.... then that is up to them.... as a person without resident (immigration) status - you (generally speaking) have no say.   The fact that an individual had expectations that they could stay here till death is of no consequence since at no time did a majority of retirees get granted any status other than temporary of a specific time-frame.

Edited August 9, 2016 by bkkcanuck8

[Dumbastheycome]

I  cannot help  but  be  amused  at the  change in overall debates on issues  such as this.

less  than  1 year ago there  were  many basically  saying  ^ How  dare they ? I am a  farang and I  spend / have  spent  lots of  money ! Do  they  not realize  how  valuable  we   Farang are  to  the Thai economy?  Hmmph!^.

Now? Its  Spot  the  Buffaloe  !

[bkkcanuck8]

9 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

I  cannot help  but  be  amused  at the  change in overall debates on issues  such as this.

less  than  1 year ago there  were  many basically  saying  ^ How  dare they ? I am a  farang and I  spend / have  spent  lots of  money ! Do  they  not realize  how  valuable  we   Farang are  to  the Thai economy?  Hmmph!^.

Now? Its  Spot  the  Buffaloe  !

 

I also find it funny.  I find it funny at how many people think since they have been granted temporary status for a set period of time that that qualifies them to be rewrite or reinterpret Thai immigration laws....  I find it funny that people on temporary visas think they have any rights what-so-ever in regards to right of abode.  A temporary visa is just that.... it can be renewed or it can be rejected based on the rules of the day or how they want to interpret them at that time.  The fact that so few people qualify for anything other than a temporary visa .... should be a good indicator of how much value is placed on them.  (BTW, should it not be Spot the Whale )

Edited August 9, 2016 by bkkcanuck8

[JackThompson]

Rule in Thailand on taxes - foreign-sourced money is only taxable if brought in within the same year it is earned.  If your savings are greater than what you xfer here in a year, and newly earned funds are not transferred here directly, you are in the clear. 

 

Other countries do have a 180-day rule, though - so must be careful of that when living abroad.

 

You are correct on 'expectations' - we have no "right to be here."  But they did grandfather-law in the retirees who were already here, when they raised the amount.  This shows a degree of fairness - at least at the time that change was made. 

 

Let us hope they make a set-rule on how long we can stay per year, if there is to be a limit, so we can plan accordingly.  What is happening with the exempt-entries is sad - no set rule, just random harassment based on a mystery-algorithm popping up on a computer screen - affecting people who are clearly NOT visa-runners.  Now the same is being applied with many visa-types - even Non-O folks reporting issues.

 

If they continue this, or make a "stay out" period too long, many people under 50 who might have otherwise retired here will, instead, plant roots in the Philippines, Cambodia, India, and other more welcoming locales.  That would amount to Untold Billions of Baht in foreign-currency transfers being lost, over those people's lifetimes.

 

That is the fastest-growing demographic of people "with money to spend."  Growing as fast as the Internet.  I hope they do the Smart Thing and ask for verification of foreign-sourced income, and leave it at that.

Edited August 9, 2016 by JackThompson
part of what I typed did not show up.

[bkkcanuck8]

53 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Rule in Thailand on taxes - foreign-sourced money is only taxable if brought in within the same year it is earned.  If your savings are greater than what you xfer here in a year, and newly earned funds are not transferred here directly, you are in the clear. 

 

Not sure how they would be able to determine that type of information.   I have only cashed two cheques in my Thai account a long time ago, and any new money comes in via SWIFT transfers between financial institutions.  I am not sure, but I don't think most transactions have much more information than who is sending it, who is receiving it and the amount.   I cannot find if there is a "source of funds" indication on international transmissions etc.  With so much foreign money coming in for living expenses etc.  -- it might be a little difficult to find if the income is new or old.   I know that in Canada the financial institutions must report any transfers over $10,000 to FinTRAC which is used to try and determine if money laundering is going on.  Starting in 2015, the same information has to be given to the CRA (Canada's IRS - but without agents pulling guns on citizens  ).   If a company transfers money or an individual transfers money and it is under that amount it is not visible typically.  I would be very surprised if there is any way to determine if the source of funds is taxable or not given the volume and number of payments made for the purposes of retirement -- which I gather retirees are not required to file tax forms generally speaking.  Of course if you are on a WP and you are earning money locally, you would then be on the radar of the tax authorities like any other Thai.... but until then you are more or less invisible.  I could be wrong.... and I am sure if I am someone will correct me (hopefully politely  )

[elviajero]

4 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

 

Not sure how they would be able to determine that type of information.   I have only cashed two cheques in my Thai account a long time ago, and any new money comes in via SWIFT transfers between financial institutions.  I am not sure, but I don't think most transactions have much more information than who is sending it, who is receiving it and the amount.   I cannot find if there is a "source of funds" indication on international transmissions etc.  With so much foreign money coming in for living expenses etc.  -- it might be a little difficult to find if the income is new or old.   I know that in Canada the financial institutions must report any transfers over $10,000 to FinTRAC which is used to try and determine if money laundering is going on.  Starting in 2015, the same information has to be given to the CRA (Canada's IRS - but without agents pulling guns on citizens  ).   If a company transfers money or an individual transfers money and it is under that amount it is not visible typically.  I would be very surprised if there is any way to determine if the source of funds is taxable or not given the volume and number of payments made for the purposes of retirement -- which I gather retirees are not required to file tax forms generally speaking.  Of course if you are on a WP and you are earning money locally, you would then be on the radar of the tax authorities like any other Thai.... but until then you are more or less invisible.  I could be wrong.... and I am sure if I am someone will correct me (hopefully politely  )

Thailand has a self assessment system so it would be up to the 'Tax Resident' to submit a tax return to declare any taxable income.

Edited August 9, 2016 by elviajero

[bkkcanuck8]

Just now, elviajero said:

Thailand has a self assessment system so it would be up to the Tax Resident to submit a tax return to declare any taxable income.

That is what I figured, I just don't see them auditing the masses of foreigners (majority probably being retirees) bank accounts if they are not here on a WP -- asking them the source of funds for each transfer.

[Ronuk]

 

3 hours ago, elviajero said:

Thailand has a self assessment system so it would be up to the 'Tax Resident' to submit a tax return to declare any taxable income.

I regularly transfer money in to the country. All the information is there for the bank to see exactly where it came from. Kasikorn Bank for instance uses 2 lots of coding.

If you look at your account you will see 'TRN' after the date the money arrived. This denotes it was an International transfer. Move further along the line of that particular transfer and you will see the another code at the end. In mine for instance it says 'MCL' and then a series of numbers. This denotes in my instance that the funds came from the UK and which institution sent it. 

As you are most likely aware, a foreign individual even working and paying taxes legally in Thailand cannot buy property for instance with any money earned in Thailand and that includes condos. The company can buy the property yes, but not an individual. Individuals can only buy property in there own name and right with funds sourced outside of Thailand.

Hence an individual needs to aquire from the bank what is called a 'TOR TOR SAM' basically that is a paper that proves the individual moved the funds in to Thailand from a foreign source and even then each movement of money needs to be recorded at the time of transfer as solely for the use of buying a property. This can be done in minutes at your bank and isn't a problem with legitimate money.

Just to finish, the banking system in Thailand knows exactly where the money is coming from ☺ 

Edited August 9, 2016 by Ronuk
Spelling!

[bkkcanuck8]

When I talk about source of funds, I am not talking about where the funds came from but whether the funds are taxable or not.  If you have money transferred from a financial institution in which you hold a retirement account (non-taxable) -- or you have a company pay you directly using SWIFT to transfer funds (potentially taxable).... it likely does not have anything indicating whether the source of funds is from new income or savings.... they are both just international transfers.    

[Ronuk]

1 hour ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

When I talk about source of funds, I am not talking about where the funds came from but whether the funds are taxable or not.  If you have money transferred from a financial institution in which you hold a retirement account (non-taxable) -- or you have a company pay you directly using SWIFT to transfer funds (potentially taxable).... it likely does not have anything indicating whether the source of funds is from new income or savings.... they are both just international transfers.    

In that case, in any investigation you may find yourself involved with, the onus would be on you to provide evidence that you have been complying with the Tax rules. It is the same worldwide. You need to comply with the rules of that particular country. Remember Tax avoidance isn't illegal, Tax evasion is ?

[bkkcanuck8]

45 minutes ago, Ronuk said:

In that case, in any investigation you may find yourself involved with, the onus would be on you to provide evidence that you have been complying with the Tax rules. It is the same worldwide. You need to comply with the rules of that particular country. Remember Tax avoidance isn't illegal, Tax evasion is ?

 

Agreed, but have you ever heard of a retiree or tourist being audited?  The audit pool is likely selected randomly from a pool of taxpayers.  The number of foreign accounts for retiree and taxpayers is considerably large, and the odds of finding one account out of so many non-taxable accounts would make the process of auditing retirees and tourists as being more trouble than it is worth by far -- which is why they more or less ignore them... especially since you would not be talking about much money in the end.  The blended tax rate on maybe 3,000,000 of income is somewhere around 11% to 12% after deductions etc so maybe 330,000 baht if they find a needle that is making a sizable foreign income instead of just transfers.   Digital nomads take advantage of the fact that they are "not resident" in any country for enough time, but the truth is that it is not that that has generally saved them from paying taxes -- it is that they are unlikely to get selected for audit if they are not a known taxpayer, citizen, permanent resident or hold a work permit.  If they were audited the default would be is that the income is taxable unless you can show them you are legally a tax resident somewhere else AND not living more than n number of days in the country of the audit.  Americans though have no such luck as they must file tax income forms as long as they don't renounce citizenship and are taxed on world-wide income regardless (minus deductions).  BTW, a proper audit would require foreign bank accounts - so the audited individual would require complete transaction histories from any accounts that money transferred in from, and if there are transfers into those accounts the source of those transfers accounts would need full statements as well -- so the fallacy that directly depositing income directly is no less dangerous than depositing in a 3rd party offshore account.... and in the end the whole thing would be a financial settlement.

 

It is not about the legality, it is about the practicality.  The vast majority of international travelers from Canada have violated the law at some time (customs import/export) -- i.e. understating value, wearing stuff purchased and pretending you have owned it for a long time etc.   The majority are not caught unless they push the envelop too far and get noticed - or are randomly selected (which is much more likely for travelers than retirees in Thailand).

Edited August 10, 2016 by bkkcanuck8

[Ronuk]

No. I have never heard of a retiree being investigated over normal day to day living here. As I said in a previous post, it is really only when it comes to buying property here, you need to have everything in order and proof of where and how the funds came here in order to purchase and not have an issue.

We all know there are 'Other' ways around it but I like to sleep easy and not be thinking that at anytime there could be a knock on the door ?

Trouble is here, they don't tend to tell you that you've been a naughty boy and you need to pay a couple of quid. Invariably, you end up losing the lot! Trust me, I know a few who it has happened too.

[elviajero]

22 hours ago, jspill said:

I've just spent the last 180 days on visa exemptions and before that had a long overstay, stamp is still in my passport. Have had no problems flying in and out (and never via Cambodia). 

Are you claiming that you've had 6 back to back visa exempt entries, or 3 with 3 extensions of stay?

[JayBird]

19 hours ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

 

 

Resident status (immigration status) is a specific status that is not easy to get in Thailand.  I can leave Canada and I will still be liable for taxes since before I become a non-resident for tax purposes I have to sever ties to Canada and/or be out of Canada for more than 3 years (quite a bit longer than 180 days).  You are just making up things to support a point of view (i.e. have point of view, then construct reasons why your way should be the way it is).   The standard enforced in Thailand as to what is and what is not Thailand is of no concern to the peanut gallery of people who are not Thai.  If they change it then so be it, but until then... it is not for foreigners to make up stuff about how Thailand should enforce their own regulations.

 

BTW, In Canada visa waiver will give you 6 months on entry.... more than your 180 days straw man argument.... should all those people suddenly be classified as residents?  (The 6 months is extendable if you have sufficient funds from outside the country).

 

I'm not sure why you want to turn this into a discussion of Canada Tax Laws... anyways:

http://www.rd.go.th/publish/6045.0.html

Resident” means any person residing in Thailand for a period or periods aggregating more than 180 days in any tax (calendar) year

 

So, I suppose you could say you are a 'Resident Tourist' if you are here non-stop... but I think that's more of a spiritual argument rather than a legal argument

 

Also note: The validity of a visa does not portend the intent to remain for the entire duration of that validity.  In other words: You have 6 months to use the visa, does not mean you are expected to remain there for 6 months.  Same when you go to US Or UK btw.  Get a 6-month stamp, does not mean they expect you to stay there for 6 months

 

 

Edited August 10, 2016 by JayBird

[darrendsd]

I was in Vientiane on Monday on a visa trip and returned yesterday via Nong Khai, nobody on our trip, 4 vans full, were refused entry, there were maybe 20 vans in total from various visa companies and it didn't seem like anyone from them were refused either

[bkkcanuck8]

1 hour ago, JayBird said:

 

I'm not sure why you want to turn this into a discussion of Canada Tax Laws... anyways:

http://www.rd.go.th/publish/6045.0.html

Resident” means any person residing in Thailand for a period or periods aggregating more than 180 days in any tax (calendar) year

 

So, I suppose you could say you are a 'Resident Tourist' if you are here non-stop... but I think that's more of a spiritual argument rather than a legal argument

 

Also note: The validity of a visa does not portend the intent to remain for the entire duration of that validity.  In other words: You have 6 months to use the visa, does not mean you are expected to remain there for 6 months.  Same when you go to US Or UK btw.  Get a 6-month stamp, does not mean they expect you to stay there for 6 months

 

 

It turned a bit because someone suggested the test for immigration be the tax status of the individual -- these are two completely different and independent departments with their own classifications.  Tax status of resident has nothing to do with immigration, in fact you can be an illegal alien with a tax status of resident.....  The immigration department is responsible for immigration rules and regulations etc.  not us, not anyone on a temporary visa, not even the immigration department.

[jspill]

13 hours ago, elviajero said:

Are you claiming that you've had 6 back to back visa exempt entries, or 3 with 3 extensions of stay?

 

3 with 3 extensions. 

[jspill]

8 hours ago, darrendsd said:

I was in Vientiane on Monday on a visa trip and returned yesterday via Nong Khai, nobody on our trip, 4 vans full, were refused entry, there were maybe 20 vans in total from various visa companies and it didn't seem like anyone from them were refused either

 

Yeah I get the impression things are actually getting a bit easier, like 2014 was a bad year and 2015 not great but now things are looking up. The Laos consulate has definitely gotten easier. 

[JayBird]

13 hours ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

It turned a bit because someone suggested the test for immigration be the tax status of the individual -- these are two completely different and independent departments with their own classifications.  Tax status of resident has nothing to do with immigration, in fact you can be an illegal alien with a tax status of resident.....  The immigration department is responsible for immigration rules and regulations etc.  not us, not anyone on a temporary visa, not even the immigration department.

 

Yes, Tax regulations and Immigration regulations are different.  But I'm using the concept of 'Resident for Tax Purposes' as a suggestion or basis for what could be the line between a Tourist and Non-Tourist (not as a legally binding argument, just a good suggestion).  I've not seen anywhere that states officially what a 'Tourist' is, so this is the next best argument.

[bkkcanuck8]

2 hours ago, JayBird said:

 

Yes, Tax regulations and Immigration regulations are different.  But I'm using the concept of 'Resident for Tax Purposes' as a suggestion or basis for what could be the line between a Tourist and Non-Tourist (not as a legally binding argument, just a good suggestion).  I've not seen anywhere that states officially what a 'Tourist' is, so this is the next best argument.

 

I prefer the simple test of "show me the money" so I know you are not a burden and are not going to work illegally (in a closed labour market).   Visa waiver should be changed to maybe 90 days on first entrance during year, 30 days next entry, 3 days on each successive entry (enough for transit) -- after that you need a visa and they will vet you for sufficient funds outside of Thailand that you are not working (tourist visa maximum length 90 days period - each time same vetting).  I have friends that have visited Canada - the longest on consecutive tourist waiver / extensions was 18 months.... even had an overstay another time....  no real hassles since she opened a Canadian bank account and transferred somewhere nearing 6 digits into the account and it provided proof she had no need to work (she could have transferred more if she needed).   She probably could have applied for permanent residence and stayed on that -- but it was not possible because of cultural reasons... parents would not have understood (only poor people immigrate).

[elviajero]

14 hours ago, JayBird said:

 

Yes, Tax regulations and Immigration regulations are different.  But I'm using the concept of 'Resident for Tax Purposes' as a suggestion or basis for what could be the line between a Tourist and Non-Tourist (not as a legally binding argument, just a good suggestion).  I've not seen anywhere that states officially what a 'Tourist' is, so this is the next best argument.

I think everyone understands what a 'tourist' is, being someone entering the country for tourism. The only thing causing debate/confusion is the absence of an official limit of how long someone can stay in any period for tourism. If Thailand decide to change things I think 6 months in each year, being in line with the qualification for resident for tax, should be adopted. 

[JackThompson]

23 hours ago, elviajero said:

I think everyone understands what a 'tourist' is, being someone entering the country for tourism. The only thing causing debate/confusion is the absence of an official limit of how long someone can stay in any period for tourism. If Thailand decide to change things I think 6 months in each year, being in line with the qualification for resident for tax, should be adopted. 

 

Resident-tax does not apply to foreign-income earned in previous years.  Unless they open up a new avenue for 'non-elite' folks under 50, there would be personal and economic consequences to such a change.

 

Many people would forced apart because someone "wasn't 50 yet" - to spite having enough foreign-income to support themselves just as over 50s do.   This would also cost billions of lost foreign-income from people who will move to other countries, more likely retire there, and spend the rest of their lives pumping money into those economies, instead of Thailand.  Not good for the Thai economy or Thai people who rely on it. 

 

OTOH, if you are suggesting they make that change in conjunction with dropping the "50 years old" rule, so that Non-O-based stays were possible, then I agree, entirely.  After all, 'being 50' would in no way prevent someone doing something bad (like taking a Thai job or breaking other laws) that a 40-year-old might do. If that were the logic, then 80 might be a better age to ensure most were unable to work or rob a bank.

 

What could be better for a country than welcoming people who do nothing but live peacefully and dump foreign-currency into the economy?  What possible good could it serve to cause harm to those people, their Thai contacts, and the Thai economy, with such a change?