Govt approves 10 year visas for foreigners over 50

[sjaak327]

6 minutes ago, digibum said:

 

While I take no joy in what might happen to others, I don't think it's a bad move for Thailand.  65K is less than $1,900 USD a month and 800K in the bank is less than $23,000 USD.  Realistically, these people are not making a major contribution to the Thai economy.  They don't have enough disposable income to do more than rent a condo, feed themselves, and buy a few beers now and then.  

 

Bumping it up to about $3,000 USD a month leaves a little change left over to be able to spend it in the Thai economy.  Likewise having $85K USD liquid means a person probably isn't scraping every last penny to meet the minimum requirements.  

 

So, yeah, for Thailand this makes total sense.  

 

I know a lot of people might be saying, "But, I can't live on my pension/savings back home."  And Thailand is saying, "That's a problem between you and your home country.  We're not a dumping ground for the world's underfunded pensioners."  

 

It doesn't mean that they're bad people.  It's just that Thailand is under no obligation to offer someone a visa if they don't feel that they're obtaining some sort of benefit from it and apparently they have looked at what the current policies have resulted in and decided they don't want that anymore.

 

And not to rub it in but anybody who feels this is unfair or that they're owed something from Thailand, come on man, it's Thailand.  If you were under any illusion that Thailand saw you as anything more than a walking ATM, you probably believe 20 year old girls have a fetish for 60 year old men.  The Thai government has no loyalties.  They don't care about what's fair.  You were useful to them until you weren't and if you ever thought anything other than that, well, you sorta deluded yourself.  

 

That's just the reality of it.  

 

 

Hmm, not sure if I agree wtih this. In a country where the average income hovers around 40.000 a month (give or take a few baht), I find it a bit over the top to expect people on retirement to have 100.000 baht disposable income. In that light, the current 65.000 mark is much more suitable.

 

In fact, even in western countries that kind of money is already considered in the higher range for WORKING people. Let alone retired people who generally have less disposable income.

 

I personally don't even think they are going to abolish the 65K/800K yearly requirements, as that would be a mistake. Fact is, affluent retirees are lower in numbers, and don't necessarily spend more of their money. I believe that people that meet the 65K will certainly bring more money into the economy than their own average citizens, not to mention the huge part that has to live on 9000-13.000 a month.

 

 

 

[anotheruser]

1 hour ago, Thaiwrath said:

 

The majority of people I have met here are not of the higher income bracket, and most of them are real, down to earth people, not like some of the pretentious <deleted> you see on here. 

 

Get used to the rest of us. Some old ass hombres about to depart.

Edited November 22, 2016 by anotheruser

[anotheruser]

1 minute ago, sjaak327 said:

Hmm, not sure if I agree wtih this. In a country where the average income hovers around 40.000 a month (give or take a few baht), I find it a bit over the top to expect people on retirement to have 100.000 baht disposable income. In that light, the current 65.000 mark is much more suitable.

 

In fact, even in western countries that kind of money is already considered in the higher range for WORKING people. Let alone retired people who generally have less disposable income.

 

I personally don't even think they are going to abolish the 65K/800K yearly requirements, as that would be a mistake. Fact is, affluent retirees are lower in numbers, and don't necessarily spend more of their money. I believe that people that meet the 65K will certainly bring more money into the economy than their own average citizens, not to mention the huge part that has to live on 9000-13.000 a month.

 

 

 

 

Who are we to argue? It is an amount and they are adjusting for inlfation. How long ago was the 65,000 limit set? It no longer holds true.

[sjaak327]

1 minute ago, anotheruser said:

 

Who are we to argue? It is an amount and they are adjusting for inlfation. How long ago was the 65,000 limit set? It no longer holds true.

Hmm the inflation must have sky rocketed. The minimum wage and averge wage figures are pretty recent, so you are saying that pensioners should have more than double the disposable income as average workers and about 7 times that of people on minimum wage ?

 

Thailand seems to think it is a first world country, it isn't not by a long stretch.

 

I am not arguing, just simply doing a little math.

[anotheruser]

I am saying that 65,000 back then isn't much different than 100K now. As many of our brexiteering friends must now  be realizing.

Edited November 22, 2016 by anotheruser

[digibum]

9 minutes ago, gigman said:

Those who made this idea ..it must be to much sun into their heads...

Show me who can have such high retirement money in the 1 month.

Sorry guys  but Vietnam is more friendly and more beautiful ..at least for next 5 years it will be only better for expats.

 

$3,000 USD is a lot of money in retirement?  Americans are probably the least looked after workers in terms of government benefits and pensions (social security).  The top end of the social security system pays out over $3,000 USD if you wait until you're 65.  

 

Now, if you decided to take an early retirement the government is going to pay you substantially less.  If you didn't save or invest anything for the previous 50 years on this planet, well, yeah, you probably don't have much monthly income.  

 

But the point is, why does Thailand owe anyone a cheap cost of living in their retirement?  Hey, I feel for those who for whatever reason can't meet those income requirements but maybe they should be back in their own countries and taking advantage of whatever benefits the governments there offer rather than trying to scrape by in a country that already has its own poverty problem. 

[anotheruser]

5 minutes ago, digibum said:

 

$3,000 USD is a lot of money in retirement?  Americans are probably the least looked after workers in terms of government benefits and pensions (social security).  The top end of the social security system pays out over $3,000 USD if you wait until you're 65.  

 

Now, if you decided to take an early retirement the government is going to pay you substantially less.  If you didn't save or invest anything for the previous 50 years on this planet, well, yeah, you probably don't have much monthly income.  

 

But the point is, why does Thailand owe anyone a cheap cost of living in their retirement?  Hey, I feel for those who for whatever reason can't meet those income requirements but maybe they should be back in their own countries and taking advantage of whatever benefits the governments there offer rather than trying to scrape by in a country that already has its own poverty problem. 

The top tier of social security does not pay over $3,000. It pays around 95,000 I added the figure in a previous post. You can not qualify solely based upon social security  benefits. You would if you were in the top tier of tax payers to begin with have to find the other 5,000 Baht a month. Social security alone won't put you over the top.

 

Bare in mind that 8s the top tax bracket and assumes you paid that for 30 years or more. 

Edited November 22, 2016 by anotheruser

[tonray]

10 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Hmm, not sure if I agree wtih this. In a country where the average income hovers around 40.000 a month (give or take a few baht), I find it a bit over the top to expect people on retirement to have 100.000 baht disposable income. In that light, the current 65.000 mark is much more suitable.

 

In fact, even in western countries that kind of money is already considered in the higher range for WORKING people. Let alone retired people who generally have less disposable income.

 

I personally don't even think they are going to abolish the 65K/800K yearly requirements, as that would be a mistake. Fact is, affluent retirees are lower in numbers, and don't necessarily spend more of their money. I believe that people that meet the 65K will certainly bring more money into the economy than their own average citizens, not to mention the huge part that has to live on 9000-13.000 a month.

 

 

 

Average income of 40,000 baht a  month ? That is a 'bit'" high considering the average Thai Uni grad starts out at about 15 to 17 K per month.

[sjaak327]

1 minute ago, tonray said:

Average income of 40,000 baht a  month ? That is a 'bit'" high considering the average Thai Uni grad starts out at about 15 to 17 K per month.

 

I got the figure from some of those statistics websites, if it's less, the 100K amount is put into more question I would say.

[Stanley78]

Generally speaking, when retiring to a foreign country you are expected to be better off than the average citizen of that country in order to be granted longterm residence. How much better off is obviously up to each country to decide. But you shouldn't simply be able to scrape by.

 

I'm currently on the Thai Elite visa mainly because I am too young for a retirement visa. But even if I wasn't I really doubt I'd be willing to leave 3m THB in a bank account for a year to be granted this new visa. I'd rather spend 1m THB for the recently added 20 year TE visa and not need to care about wasting my time on caring about visas. Time is money. :) So I'm not sure how big their target group would be.

 

But to each to their own. I for one certainly hope they keep the old retirement system as well (800k savings or 65k a month) . Not because I'd ever want to apply for it but I think the requirements are pretty good as they are and the people on it should be allowed to continue to be so.

[tonray]

All those poor Thai girls are now going to have to chase 'skint' backpackers on tourist visas as the stable older gentlemen stop coming here. Society is going to get a big shock. I am going to have the 'talk' with the girl soon if we find out the details of this new program. I will NEVER leave 3 million baht in a Thai bank, NEVER.

[tonray]

3 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

 

I got the figure from some of those statistics websites, if it's less, the 100K amount is put into more question I would say.

It is more like 14,000 a month. 

 

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/thailand/wages

[anotheruser]

1 minute ago, Stanley78 said:

Generally speaking, when retiring to a foreign country you are expected to be better off than the average citizen of that country in order to be granted longterm residence. How much better off is obviously up to each country to decide. But you shouldn't simply be able to scrape by.

 

I'm currently on the Thai Elite visa mainly because I am too young for a retirement visa. But even if I wasn't I really doubt I'd be willing to leave 3m THB in a bank account for a year to be granted this new visa. I'd rather spend 1m THB for the recently added 20 year TE visa and not need to care about wasting my time on caring about visas. Time is money. :) So I'm not sure how big their target group would be.

 

But to each to their own. I for one certainly hope they keep the old retirement system as well (800k savings or 65k a month) . Not because I'd ever want to apply for it but I think the requirements are pretty good as they are and the people on it should be allowed to continue to be so.

i am on the same visa. It is called a privilege visa and not an entitlement visa for a reason. You are expected to make more if you leave your country of origin.

[sjaak327]

15 minutes ago, digibum said:

 

$3,000 USD is a lot of money in retirement?  Americans are probably the least looked after workers in terms of government benefits and pensions (social security).  The top end of the social security system pays out over $3,000 USD if you wait until you're 65.  

 

Now, if you decided to take an early retirement the government is going to pay you substantially less.  If you didn't save or invest anything for the previous 50 years on this planet, well, yeah, you probably don't have much monthly income.  

 

But the point is, why does Thailand owe anyone a cheap cost of living in their retirement?  Hey, I feel for those who for whatever reason can't meet those income requirements but maybe they should be back in their own countries and taking advantage of whatever benefits the governments there offer rather than trying to scrape by in a country that already has its own poverty problem. 

Wow you Americans must all be rich. In my country a pension of 3000 USD or in Euros 2823 is well well above average. In fact in the Netherlands the average wage is probably in the 2200 euro range, give or take. Now even IF someone waits until they are 65, the most they can hope to get is about 1800 euro maybe a hundred more if they are lucky.

 

And now Thailand is claiming that someone with that disposable income in the Netherlands could not easily live of that same money in Thailand. Can I have what these people are smoking please ?

 

I agree with Stanley78 about expecting more disposable income from retired (foreign) people as opposed to the natives, but 100K is stretching it beyond imagination, inflation or not.

Edited November 22, 2016 by sjaak327

[soalbundy]

7 hours ago, Johnniey said:

So you added another 100 rai of land on to make yourself appear rich?

 

Maybe it was 1 rai. 

No, i am way past such games of keeping up with the Joneses, the missus has 220 rai but 100 rai is the largest plot, the rest is split up into smaller plots of 10, 15, 20 rai etc.

[gigman]

Just now, digibum said:

 

$3,000 USD is a lot of money in retirement?  Americans are probably the least looked after workers in terms of government benefits and pensions (social security).  The top end of the social security system pays out over $3,000 USD if you wait until you're 65.  

 

Now, if you decided to take an early retirement the government is going to pay you substantially less.  If you didn't save or invest anything for the previous 50 years on this planet, well, yeah, you probably don't have much monthly income.  

 

But the point is, why does Thailand owe anyone a cheap cost of living in their retirement?  Hey, I feel for those who for whatever reason can't meet those income requirements but maybe they should be back in their own countries and taking advantage of whatever benefits the governments there offer rather than trying to scrape by in a country that already has its own poverty problem. 

As a single and divorced and having $435 dol. per WEEK in Australia I must consider spend rest of my life being on very very strict budget to survive. If I do not have paid off mortage and do not own any roof above your head then it is living as very poor man.

Just imagine how you can live if first spent money will be for dumpy room for $250 a week then how good living you will have on balance of $185 dol where just simple food you will spent around $100 dol per week....

What about your bills like water ,power, gas for car , your phone....

That's why I am back in Europe in my parents country where I can live like normal human ...

I have spent 1 year in Thailand and it cost me $1000 bth a month   ...so not to bad but more expensive then I spending now in Europe and Every year I can have 3 month worry free vacations anywhere in the world after a year savings from my Australian retirement money .

In Australia I could not even afford vacations in another state....

That's the truth guys and other parts in the western world a having similar situation and specialy when you are old and alone.

Thailand does not really know our problems  and really why we was looking to spend worry free life there.

For those with nice life savings this news about 10 years visa are nothing special   but for others this is  just joke.

[soalbundy]

18 minutes ago, digibum said:

 

$3,000 USD is a lot of money in retirement?  Americans are probably the least looked after workers in terms of government benefits and pensions (social security).  The top end of the social security system pays out over $3,000 USD if you wait until you're 65.  

 

Now, if you decided to take an early retirement the government is going to pay you substantially less.  If you didn't save or invest anything for the previous 50 years on this planet, well, yeah, you probably don't have much monthly income.  

 

But the point is, why does Thailand owe anyone a cheap cost of living in their retirement?  Hey, I feel for those who for whatever reason can't meet those income requirements but maybe they should be back in their own countries and taking advantage of whatever benefits the governments there offer rather than trying to scrape by in a country that already has its own poverty problem. 

I get around 80,000, have a house, car,motorbike, three kids one who i put through university, i wouldn't call that scraping by.

[digibum]

7 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Hmm, not sure if I agree wtih this. In a country where the average income hovers around 40.000 a month (give or take a few baht), I find it a bit over the top to expect people on retirement to have 100.000 baht disposable income. In that light, the current 65.000 mark is much more suitable.

 

In fact, even in western countries that kind of money is already considered in the higher range for WORKING people. Let alone retired people who generally have less disposable income.

 

I personally don't even think they are going to abolish the 65K/800K yearly requirements, as that would be a mistake. Fact is, affluent retirees are lower in numbers, and don't necessarily spend more of their money. I believe that people that meet the 65K will certainly bring more money into the economy than their own average citizens, not to mention the huge part that has to live on 9000-13.000 a month.

 

 

 

 

Well, it should be blindingly apparent that the Thai government couldn't give a hoot about what you think is suitable.  

 

Where is $3,000 a month considered a higher range for working people?  That's $36,000 a year.  Most university graduates make more than $36,000 a year.  My wife make that working full time in a Thai restaurant when tips are factored in.  

 

Let's do the math though.  

 

If you earned the median income in the US, of $57,000 a year, at the age of 65 social security would pay you $1464 (according the the social security website).  100,000 baht at 35 baht to the USD is $2,857 which leaves you $1393 short.  

 

Now, the 3 million baht you have to have in the bank is $85,714.  Assuming you were earning 8% (average return on equities is 10%) that would be $6,857 a year or $571 a month.  

 

So, now you're short just $822 a month.  

 

But, according to Investopedia, the median retirement savings for someone in their sixties is not $85,714, it's $172,000.  So, instead of $571 a month, you could/should be earning closer to $1,146 a month which leaves you short only $247 a month.  

 

So, the bottom line is that even if someone had the median everything, they're pretty darn close to 100,000 baht per month.  Plus, it doesn't say that you have to spend the 100,000 baht per month so you can funnel that money back into your investments rather than taking it out.  

 

If you can't make 100,000 baht per month in retirement, maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't be thinking about relocating halfway across the world to live in a country with no social safety nets or programs to help you fill the income gaps.  

 

That doesn't make you a bad person.  That just means that you probably can't afford it.  

[digibum]

20 minutes ago, anotheruser said:

The top tier of social security does not pay over $3,000. It pays around 95,000 I added the figure in a previous post. You can not qualify solely based upon social security  benefits. You would if you were in the top tier of tax payers to begin with have to find the other 5,000 Baht a month. Social security alone won't put you over the top.

 

Bare in mind that 8s the top tax bracket and assumes you paid that for 30 years or more. 

 

Yep, my bad.  I got something from the SS office and I think they used inflation adjusted dollars.  I corrected that in another post using today's dollars.  

[sjaak327]

1 minute ago, digibum said:

 

Well, it should be blindingly apparent that the Thai government couldn't give a hoot about what you think is suitable.  

 

Where is $3,000 a month considered a higher range for working people?  That's $36,000 a year.  Most university graduates make more than $36,000 a year.  My wife make that working full time in a Thai restaurant when tips are factored in.  

 

Let's do the math though.  

 

If you earned the median income in the US, of $57,000 a year, at the age of 65 social security would pay you $1464 (according the the social security website).  100,000 baht at 35 baht to the USD is $2,857 which leaves you $1393 short.  

 

Now, the 3 million baht you have to have in the bank is $85,714.  Assuming you were earning 8% (average return on equities is 10%) that would be $6,857 a year or $571 a month.  

 

So, now you're short just $822 a month.  

 

But, according to Investopedia, the median retirement savings for someone in their sixties is not $85,714, it's $172,000.  So, instead of $571 a month, you could/should be earning closer to $1,146 a month which leaves you short only $247 a month.  

 

So, the bottom line is that even if someone had the median everything, they're pretty darn close to 100,000 baht per month.  Plus, it doesn't say that you have to spend the 100,000 baht per month so you can funnel that money back into your investments rather than taking it out.  

 

If you can't make 100,000 baht per month in retirement, maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't be thinking about relocating halfway across the world to live in a country with no social safety nets or programs to help you fill the income gaps.  

 

That doesn't make you a bad person.  That just means that you probably can't afford it.  

Hmm I personally can easily afford this, but not everyone is an American. In fact most are not. I just gave you an example of the average wage in the Netherlands (which is by no stretch of the imagination a poor country) and someone earning an average wage there, will not be able to have that kind of income, unless they managed to save considerably. Now I understand that the Thai government doesn't give a hoot about what I think (likewise I don't really care about what they think either, considering they took power illegally, I know besides the point). The point I am trying to make here, is that if the average wage of the natives are concerned, that 100K is simply to high.

 

At the end of the day, they will shoot themselves in the foot IF this is the only viable option, but as already stated, I don't think it is, and the current 65/800K regime will continue to exist. Because those Thais aren't stupid.

[Jingthing]

The average U.S. social security old age pension check is 46,000 baht monthly. Many get much less than that.

 

Cheers. 

[chiang mai]

3 hours ago, anotheruser said:

 

So what is your plan? Pay as you go? If that's the case than 3 mil in the bank makes sense.

 

Yes, I've done that successfully for the past fourteen years and intend to continue, being forced to pay premiums for something I can't use simply depletes that pot faster - I've had 5 mill. ring fenced for this purpose for many years.

[anotheruser]

Thank god we all have options. Bed time for me.

[digibum]

17 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Wow you Americans must all be rich. In my country a pension of 3000 USD or in Euros 2823 is well well above average. In fact in the Netherlands the average wage is probably in the 2200 euro range, give or take. Now even IF someone waits until they are 65, the most they can hope to get is about 1800 euro maybe a hundred more if they are lucky.

 

And now Thailand is claiming that someone with that disposable income in the Netherlands could not easily live of that same money in Thailand. Can I have what these people are smoking please ?

 

I agree with Stanley78 about expecting more disposable income from retired (foreign) people as opposed to the natives, but 100K is stretching it beyond imagination, inflation or not.

 

I was working in Europe and getting paid in GBP when they were 2:1 to the dollar.  Now it's more like 1.24:1.  I forget what the Euro was but the Euro used to be worth a quite a bit more than what it is today too.  Same wage at a better exchange rate often makes up for the difference.  When your economy is out of the dumps, take another look at the comparison and I think you'll see it's a lot closer.  

 

Similarly, at lot of your costs of labor are buried in the benefits you receive.  An American worker is guaranteed 0 paid holiday days per year whereas in the EU it's 20 or so?  Granted, most companies offer 10 paid days to stay competitive in their benefits packages but they are under no obligation to do so.  

 

Same with healthcare.  

 

Same with paid paternity and maternity leave.  

 

It's very difficult to make a US to UK or US to EU comparison in wages because part of the EU wages include many benefits and social services which are paid for out of pocket or not offered at all in the US.

 

Unfortunately, one of the side effects of that is that people working in economies with heavy benefits never receive the cash and thus have a more difficult time accumulating wealth.  You get 20 days off per year whether you want them or not.  An American can choose to apply the higher wages he receives to investing where compounded over 40 years it can grow into a nice chunk of cash.  Equally unfortunate is that most people just spend that money and end up with very little at retirement.   

 

[chiang mai]

To be honest the 10 year visa as written currently benefits Immigration as much as does the visa holder. Holding the visa does eliminate the need for yearly renewals so in that sense it provides certainty for the visa holder although they will still need to report every 90 days. Immigration on the other hand can avoid the need to increase staff and premises by a significant amount hence significant cost savings are there to be had. And if there are no checks on the visa holders health insurance after the first year, it means the visa holder is free to spend the three million and allow the health insurance to lapse! The whole thing doesn't appear to have been thought through very well at all, but who is surprised!

[digibum]

11 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Hmm I personally can easily afford this, but not everyone is an American. In fact most are not. I just gave you an example of the average wage in the Netherlands (which is by no stretch of the imagination a poor country) and someone earning an average wage there, will not be able to have that kind of income, unless they managed to save considerably. Now I understand that the Thai government doesn't give a hoot about what I think (likewise I don't really care about what they think either, considering they took power illegally, I know besides the point). The point I am trying to make here, is that if the average wage of the natives are concerned, that 100K is simply to high.

 

At the end of the day, they will shoot themselves in the foot IF this is the only viable option, but as already stated, I don't think it is, and the current 65/800K regime will continue to exist. Because those Thais aren't stupid.

 

Why?  Why do you think the Thai government cares if an average Dutch guy can afford to live in Thailand?  The average Dutch citizen should retire in his own country getting his government benefits.  It doesn't matter what the average wage is in Thailand.  Thailand doesn't want the average Dutch citizen on a retirement visa.  

 

 

[sjaak327]

1 minute ago, digibum said:

 

I was working in Europe and getting paid in GBP when they were 2:1 to the dollar.  Now it's more like 1.24:1.  I forget what the Euro was but the Euro used to be worth a quite a bit more than what it is today too.  Same wage at a better exchange rate often makes up for the difference.  When your economy is out of the dumps, take another look at the comparison and I think you'll see it's a lot closer.  

 

Similarly, at lot of your costs of labor are buried in the benefits you receive.  An American worker is guaranteed 0 paid holiday days per year whereas in the EU it's 20 or so?  Granted, most companies offer 10 paid days to stay competitive in their benefits packages but they are under no obligation to do so.  

 

Same with healthcare.  

 

Same with paid paternity and maternity leave.  

 

It's very difficult to make a US to UK or US to EU comparison in wages because part of the EU wages include many benefits and social services which are paid for out of pocket or not offered at all in the US.

 

Unfortunately, one of the side effects of that is that people working in economies with heavy benefits never receive the cash and thus have a more difficult time accumulating wealth.  You get 20 days off per year whether you want them or not.  An American can choose to apply the higher wages he receives to investing where compounded over 40 years it can grow into a nice chunk of cash.  Equally unfortunate is that most people just spend that money and end up with very little at retirement.   

 

The points you make are true. Indeed in Europe a lot of benefits are not reflected into the salary you do receive.

 

That of course does not change the fact that people from such societies cannot possibly have a disposable income of 100.000 baht or around 2650 euro at current exchange rates. not unless they have earned an income well above average. Now does Thailand really not want these people retire here. I don't really think so, in fact as I already stated, I don't think this will actually replace the old regime, it will probably be an addition for people not wanting to do yearly extensions.

 

Fact remains, that on average the Thais are making 14.000 baht (I incorrectly stated it was 40K :) ). In that light the 100K is way over the top, and the Thais know this, because if this would be the only option, they will receive a lot less retired people, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that in the end Thailand will therefore have quite a bit less income from this type of persons.

[sjaak327]

2 minutes ago, digibum said:

 

Why?  Why do you think the Thai government cares if an average Dutch guy can afford to live in Thailand?  The average Dutch citizen should retire in his own country getting his government benefits.  It doesn't matter what the average wage is in Thailand.  Thailand doesn't want the average Dutch citizen on a retirement visa.  

 

 

And you say that based upon what exactly ? There is no evidence to suggest they don't want the average Dutch citizen on a retirement visa.

[chiang mai]

10 hours ago, Peterw42 said:

 

The current 800k earns little to no interest as it cant be put in a term deposit, I presume the 3,000,000 would be the same

 

That's not correct Peter, the 800K can go into a term deposit which is acceptable to Immigration (in Chiang Mai at least). The reason why that is true is because BOT rules require all deposits, including TD's, to be instantly available to the customer, albeit with a loss of interest - I've been using the TD approach for many years.

[aussieinthailand]

So it's accually a 5 year visa witha bunch extra rules,    no thanks, 

Do these plonkers accually listen to falangs and ask them what they want?