Govt approves 10 year visas for foreigners over 50

[thehelmsman]

On ‎11‎/‎22‎/‎2016 at 4:44 AM, chiang mai said:

 

You think, you hope!

 

Common sense dictates the 1 yr. non-o visa or similar will remain in place. If not a new Harley may have to stay in showroom.

[anotheruser]

13 minutes ago, digibum said:

 

To be honest, to hear some of the people in this thread discuss their situation absolutely disgusts me.  

 

I used to live in a country (which I'll allow to remain nameless) where foreigners were only allowed to buy real estate that had been deemed by the government to be foreigner approved.  Basically they kept the low end of the market to the locals by making it off limits to foreigners.  What was available to foreigners was the upper-middle and high end of the market.  And since financing was difficult to come by, all-cash deals were the norm.  

 

And to some extent, that's what Thailand attempted to do.  They kept land off the table for foreigners and left them with the condo market.  Condos have inflated market values because that's where the people with money are competing.  Not that it worked out exactly as planned but it's been pretty good at keeping the foreigners from pricing the local Thais out of affordable housing in most areas.  

 

But foreigners figured out a way around that and began purchasing homes in the name of their wives and committing perjury by claiming that the money belongs to her and he has no claims to it.  Of course most farangs who dump $50K to buy some plot up in Issan think the land is their land, and would have never willingly given their spouse $50K to do with as she pleases, but they're willing to live a lie on paper in order to be able to afford to live in Thailand and circumvent the laws.  

 

There's been a few people who have talked about calling off marriages, dumping their spouse, etc because they can't afford to live in Thailand anymore.  Really?  F'ing really?  

 

For many of these guys, marriage is merely a retirement planning device.  They get someone to wipe their butts when they get too decrepit to do it themselves and she gets a house when he dies.  There's no emotional bond there if someone is talking about jumping ship to another country and leaving his spouse before the rules have even been published.  

 

But is it surprising that someone with that kind of thinking finds themselves at retirement age with barely a pot to piss in?  No.  It's not that Thailand doesn't want you, humanity doesn't want you.  

 

They sit there and brag about how their 60K a month is several times higher than the average poor Thai. They fail to understand this is a reason why the average Thai would resent them. 

 

I would hate it if people moved to my country and inflated the price of rent. If I were an average Thai trying to live near Pra Ram 9 and th e price of condos are outrageous because foreigners can buy 49% of available units I would be disgusted.

 

Less competition from foreigners that pull in 65k a month is a good thing. In some cases their is a case to be made about trying to make income disparity less of an issue. However if Thailand wants to be a champion of the Thai middle class and the poor it doesn't make sense to give incentives to Farang that make life harder for those very people.

 

Imagine when I go back to the USA it is a bunch of Mexicans that can out price me in my income bracket and they rub salt into the wounds by saying I am too stupid to speak Spanish.

 

The situation has become untenable in Thailand, resources are limited. Quality over quantity is the only way forward. 

Edited November 24, 2016 by anotheruser

[digibum]

7 hours ago, Chip Allen said:

That being the case, all Thailand has to do is spell out EXACTLY what the requirements are and EXACTLY what they portend for those of us already retired here on an income far above most of the populace. Perhaps if they spelled it out, you would "understand people like me".

 

They're not requirements yet.  How can they spell out something that is currently in the process of going from directive to regulation?  

 

You know this is how things work back in the US too, right?  Often Congress will pass a vague law and then kick it over to the agency in charge to come up with specific regulations of implementing that law.  They can't give you details on the implementation of the law until the agency actually goes through what Congress passed and makes the appropriate regulatory changes/recommendations.  

 

Quit getting your panties all in a bunch.  Buses to Cambo are daily.  You'll have enough time to pack your suitcase.  

[lkv]

25 minutes ago, anotheruser said:

 

They sit there and brag about how their 60K a month is several times higher than the average poor Thai. They fail to understand this is a reason why the average Thai would resent them. 

 

I would hate it if people moved to my country and inflated the price of rent. If I were an average Thai trying to live near Pra Ram 9 and th e price of condos are outrageous because foreigners can buy 49% of available units I would be disgusted.

 

Less competition from foreigners that pull in 65k a month is a good thing. In some cases their is a case to be made about trying to make income disparity less of an issue. However if Thailand wants to be a champion of the Thai middle class and the poor it doesn't make sense to give incentives to Farang that make life harder for those very people.

 

Imagine when I go back to the USA it is a bunch of Mexicans that can out price me in my income bracket and they rub salt into the wounds by saying I am too stupid to speak Spanish.

 

The situation has become untenable in Thailand, resources are limited. Quality over quantity is the only way forward. 

 

Going a little off topic, there's no desire for any middle class in Thailand. Sakhdina has functioned quite well for hundreds of years. Although there is a middle class emerging, I can assure you the intention of whoever writes these laws is not to prevent the middle class from being priced out of the market but simply to milk more money from wherever they can. Cash injection as you said in previous posts.

 

Let's keep it simple :)

 

 

Edited November 24, 2016 by lkv

[anotheruser]

1 minute ago, lkv said:

 

Going a little off topic, there's no desire for any middle class in Thailand. Sakhdina has functioned quite well for hundreds of years. Although there is a middle class emerging, I can assure you the intention of whoever writes these laws is not to prevent the middle class being priced out of the market but simply to milk more money from wherever they can. Cash injection as you said in previous posts.

 

Let's keep it simple :)

 

 

 

Okay, keeping it simple, stay on your current extension, move to the new plan or buy an elite visa. 

 

That is the summary of all 61 pages.

[sjaak327]

2 hours ago, digibum said:

 

I really don't understand the collective obsession by many in this thread with comparing their financial visa requirements to the earnings of Thai people.  

 

Most Thai people are POOR!!!!!!!!!!  

 

That's the whole point of having a retirement visa, to attract people who make substantially more than the locals do.  It's supposed to help pump money into the economy.   

 

Obviously that's not what is happening or not happening at the levels that the Thai government had originally hoped for so they're making adjustments to remedy it.  

Psst, we already established the current requirements are 5x average 8x minimum, so those requirements do exactly what you claim they should do, unless of course you believe 5x isn't substantial.

 

And I already said that people with that kind of money don't consider Thailand, they retire in first world countries. There is still no hard evidence that they are making any adjustments, so it might be a bit to early to claim they do...

[balo]

Wow 61 pages , keep it coming. 

 

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

1 minute ago, balo said:

Wow 61 pages , keep it coming. 

 

I would agree if most of the posts were not bickering between the "rich" and "not so rich" and actually was more constructive for once....

Yes, I should know better.

[digibum]

4 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Psst, we already established the current requirements are 5x average 8x minimum, so those requirements do exactly what you claim they should do, unless of course you believe 5x isn't substantial.

 

And I already said that people with that kind of money don't consider Thailand, they retire in first world countries. There is still no hard evidence that they are making any adjustments, so it might be a bit to early to claim they do...

 

Pssst, no, it's still not a lot of money.  

 

B67K a month is roughly 30% greater than the poverty level in the US for a household of two (assuming many retired people are married).  Taking that 67K to 100K (roughly $3,000 USD a month) is barely enough to get by in first world countries.  

 

But the biggest mistake being made here is comparing your income with the average income of the poorest people in Thailand.  I'm looking at a Thai job site right now, Assistant Finance Manager, 65,000-85,000 ฿, Cosmetics Product Trainer, 45,000-50,000 ฿, CRM/MarCom Deputy Manager or Manager 60,000-90,000 ฿.  

 

Basing your comparisons around the lowest, worst educated, manual labor working Thai is absurd.  Those people are really, really POOR!!!!  Compare your income against someone in the middle-class, which is where a retiree should have no problem comparing against since they're coming from a first-world, rich country.  At best, on the very lowest end, you're barely making the lower end of a middle class wage in a third-world country.  You don't even hit the high end on many jobs.  

 

And these are jobs that require anywhere from 2 - 7 years experience.  In other words, the bottom third of the earning potential.  I mean, someone with 5 years experience can expect to be making a much bigger salary when they have 20 or 30 or 40 years experience, right?  So, really, when someone who has 5 years of experience today has a 85,000 baht job, they can probably expect to be making 150,000 baht a month at retirement age when their earning potential in the job market is the greatest.  And if you take the standard recommendation of retirement covering 70% of your pre-retirement salary and that puts you at 105,000 baht.  

 

So, the 100,000 baht requirement is essentially no more than what a middle-class Thai person would expect to make upon retirement following the same retirement planning rules we follow in first world countries (or at least in the US).  

 

So keep telling me about how you make 5x or 6x the average Thai.  No, you make 5x or 6x of the poorest Thais.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[digibum]

47 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Psst, we already established the current requirements are 5x average 8x minimum, so those requirements do exactly what you claim they should do, unless of course you believe 5x isn't substantial.

 

And I already said that people with that kind of money don't consider Thailand, they retire in first world countries. There is still no hard evidence that they are making any adjustments, so it might be a bit to early to claim they do...

 

BTW, you might want to check out the Adecco salary survey.  

 

http://th.adecco.co.th/salary-guide/

 

Senior Level

HR Manager: 180,000

Finance 250,000 

Accounting 180,000

IT 300,000

 

At B67K a month, a senior level HR manager make over 2.5x what you're making.  A senior level IT manager make almost 4.5x more than you.  

 

 

 

[digibum]

1 hour ago, balo said:

Wow 61 pages , keep it coming. 

 

 

We're going for the record!  

 

 

[jeffcool]

30 minutes ago, digibum said:

 

BTW, you might want to check out the Adecco salary survey.  

 

http://th.adecco.co.th/salary-guide/

 

Senior Level

HR Manager: 180,000

Finance 250,000 

Accounting 180,000

IT 300,000

 

At B67K a month, a senior level HR manager make over 2.5x what you're making.  A senior level IT manager make almost 4.5x more than you.  

 

You do know Thailand is a bit more than Bkk.....

I used to be GM for a Hotel in LOS and I can guarantee you that my HR mgr was not on 180k a month... Nor the Acct Mg on 180k a month.....

And taking Adecco as an example???? A temp company???

Maybe you should visit Thailand a bit...... and talk with locals not just the one you are working with on your expat job......

[jeffcool]

37 minutes ago, digibum said:

 

BTW, you might want to check out the Adecco salary survey.  

 

http://th.adecco.co.th/salary-guide/

 

Senior Level

HR Manager: 180,000

Finance 250,000 

Accounting 180,000

IT 300,000

 

At B67K a month, a senior level HR manager make over 2.5x what you're making.  A senior level IT manager make almost 4.5x more than you.  

 

 

 

You do know Thailand is a bit more than Bkk.....

I used to be GM for a Hotel in LOS and I can guarantee you that my HR mgr was not on 180k a month... Nor the Acct Mg on 180k a month.....

And taking Adecco as an example???? A temp company???

Maybe you should visit Thailand a bit...... and talk with locals not just the one you are working with on your expat job......

[sjaak327]

1 hour ago, digibum said:

 

Pssst, no, it's still not a lot of money.  

 

B67K a month is roughly 30% greater than the poverty level in the US for a household of two (assuming many retired people are married).  Taking that 67K to 100K (roughly $3,000 USD a month) is barely enough to get by in first world countries.  

 

But the biggest mistake being made here is comparing your income with the average income of the poorest people in Thailand.  I'm looking at a Thai job site right now, Assistant Finance Manager, 65,000-85,000 ฿, Cosmetics Product Trainer, 45,000-50,000 ฿, CRM/MarCom Deputy Manager or Manager 60,000-90,000 ฿.  

 

Basing your comparisons around the lowest, worst educated, manual labor working Thai is absurd.  Those people are really, really POOR!!!!  Compare your income against someone in the middle-class, which is where a retiree should have no problem comparing against since they're coming from a first-world, rich country.  At best, on the very lowest end, you're barely making the lower end of a middle class wage in a third-world country.  You don't even hit the high end on many jobs.  

 

And these are jobs that require anywhere from 2 - 7 years experience.  In other words, the bottom third of the earning potential.  I mean, someone with 5 years experience can expect to be making a much bigger salary when they have 20 or 30 or 40 years experience, right?  So, really, when someone who has 5 years of experience today has a 85,000 baht job, they can probably expect to be making 150,000 baht a month at retirement age when their earning potential in the job market is the greatest.  And if you take the standard recommendation of retirement covering 70% of your pre-retirement salary and that puts you at 105,000 baht.  

 

So, the 100,000 baht requirement is essentially no more than what a middle-class Thai person would expect to make upon retirement following the same retirement planning rules we follow in first world countries (or at least in the US).  

 

So keep telling me about how you make 5x or 6x the average Thai.  No, you make 5x or 6x of the poorest Thais.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What someone is in the United States is inconsequential, as we are talking about people wanting to retire in THAILAND. And in Thailand these people do have considerably more to spend than the AVERAGE wage in Thailand (5x).

 

The poorest Thais make even less, the difference is 8x give or take. Anyway, you said it yourself, they must make considerably more than the locals do, to compare this, one would take the average Thai income, which is 14.000 give or take. So yep 5x more what the locals do.

 

Remember you pay peanuts you get monkeys.

 

Oh by the way I personally don't make 5x times what the locals are making, I can easily meet the new requirements, but unlike you, I'm not obnoxious calling others that don't meet the new requirements  'poor' .

 

 

 

Edited November 24, 2016 by sjaak327

[digibum]

8 minutes ago, jeffcool said:

You do know Thailand is a bit more than Bkk.....

I used to be GM for a Hotel in LOS and I can guarantee you that my HR mgr was not on 180k a month... Nor the Acct Mg on 180k a month.....

And taking Adecco as an example???? A temp company???

Maybe you should visit Thailand a bit...... and talk with locals not just the one you are working with on your expat job......

 

Listen I know it makes a lot of expats feel better to compare their salary to unskilled labor in Thailand but the fact of the matter is that middle-class Thais make a whole heck of a lot more money than they're being given credit for here.  

 

Hell cut cut every one of those numbers in half and they still making more money than most of the groaning retirees crowing about how much more they make than average Thais.  

 

So instead of a bunch of farangs crying about how much Thailand needs their B67K they should really be putting where they rank in context.  

 

Most middle-class Thais have the potential to retire with as much or more income as many of these guys have in retirement and those same Thais would have a hard time obtaining a retirement visa to go and live in the US or Europe.  

 

I don't begrudge anyone for their financial lot in life but quit acting like Thailand should be eating their meals off your butt because you big rich farang. 

 

Not it everyone in Thailand makes 7000 baht a month.  

[digibum]

11 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

 

 

Oh by the way I personally don't make 5x times what the locals are making, I can easily meet the new requirements, but unlike you, I'm not obnoxious calling others that don't meet the new requirements  'poor' .

 

 

 

 

No, instead you act obnoxiously towards Thai people because you think they won't see this.  

 

The average wage is 14,000 when you factor in the disproportionate number of people making next to nothing.  There are simply way,way, way too many cars on the road and luxury condo developments in Bangkok to believe that the average wage is less than what a car payment would be or the monthly rent on a condo.  

 

But it it's a fantasy expats like to entertain because it makes them feel like kings as they stumble home to their 8,000 baht a month apartment.  

 

So the fact remains that the average middle-class Thai outearns the current minimum requirements for a retirement visa.  Why would any country want to import people who can't even earn a middle-wage salary and have a high likelihood of incurring high medical costs that Thai taxpayers will have to subsidize?   

 

Oh, and just to pop the "I earn a gazillion times more than the average Thai" bubble a little more, most retirees are supporting a wife and in many cases children.  The real comparison should be made against household income.  In which case two middle-class Thai people vastly outearn the minimum retiree requirement.  

[sjaak327]

5 minutes ago, digibum said:

 

No, instead you act obnoxiously towards Thai people because you think they won't see this.  

 

The average wage is 14,000 when you factor in the disproportionate number of people making next to nothing.  There are simply way,way, way too many cars on the road and luxury condo developments in Bangkok to believe that the average wage is less than what a car payment would be or the monthly rent on a condo.  

 

But it it's a fantasy expats like to entertain because it makes them feel like kings as they stumble home to their 8,000 baht a month apartment.  

 

So the fact remains that the average middle-class Thai outearns the current minimum requirements for a retirement visa.  Why would any country want to import people who can't even earn a middle-wage salary and have a high likelihood of incurring high medical costs that Thai taxpayers will have to subsidize?   

 

Oh, and just to pop the "I earn a gazillion times more than the average Thai" bubble a little more, most retirees are supporting a wife and in many cases children.  The real comparison should be made against household income.  In which case two middle-class Thai people vastly outearn the minimum retiree requirement.  

Hmm, so stating that 14,000 is the average Thai wage is obnoxious ? It is what it is, and I know a shitload of people that make average or below average, but I already know you have little or no idea about the cost of living in Thailand, hence your incorrect belief that someone on 65K is scraping by.

Edited November 24, 2016 by sjaak327

[theguyfromanotherforum]

 
No, instead you act obnoxiously towards Thai people because you think they won't see this.  
 
The average wage is 14,000 when you factor in the disproportionate number of people making next to nothing.  There are simply way,way, way too many cars on the road and luxury condo developments in Bangkok to believe that the average wage is less than what a car payment would be or the monthly rent on a condo.  
 
But it it's a fantasy expats like to entertain because it makes them feel like kings as they stumble home to their 8,000 baht a month apartment.  
 
So the fact remains that the average middle-class Thai outearns the current minimum requirements for a retirement visa.  Why would any country want to import people who can't even earn a middle-wage salary and have a high likelihood of incurring high medical costs that Thai taxpayers will have to subsidize?   
 
Oh, and just to pop the "I earn a gazillion times more than the average Thai" bubble a little more, most retirees are supporting a wife and in many cases children.  The real comparison should be made against household income.  In which case two middle-class Thai people vastly outearn the minimum retiree requirement.  

My wife works for a very important international company and yes...the average 2 income salary is over 100,000 baht and it does out earn as you say the proposed minimum pension requirements, however these jobs are in high demand and very competitive. I just wouldn't make such an arrogant statement saying that this is a normal middle class income in Thailand especially outside Bangkok.

[SpokaneAl]

I assume the current O-A actually is available from home countries to all "rich list" nationals listed with this new visa.
 
So I find your post IRRELEVANT.
 
I am assuming PROBABLY this new O-A will indeed REPLACE the current O-A (lower levels) for people in the rich list nations.
 
Also, I'm not clear on this, will rich list nationals be able to start with the new O-A in Thailand (unlike current O-As)?
 
The bank account thing is very different with the new O-A. It's like MALAYSIA. Large deposit IN Thailand if you go the bank route.

Assuming that you are correct that this is merely a non imm o-a issue, I do wonder how the finance requirement will be met. If I am applying for that visa in my home country, which I must, that would mean that my finances remain in my home country - how could Thailand ensure that my finances remained as I stated?


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[LomSak27]

11 hours ago, Luckysilk said:

nothing more than someone screaming fire when they smell smoke in a theatre.

 

At

 

10 hours ago, Luckysilk said:

Your seeing exactly the same information we are all seeing but you chose just like your other posts to go to the extreme. No one knows but you chose to post all over the forum about the demise of the programme.

 

I find that obnoxious as do many others.

 

btw thought I was part of your ignore list club - I had the tshirt printed and I'm proud to wear it :)

 

 

Lucky you have been a member here since way back in May, so sorry I am going to give JingThing a lot more credence than you - Full Stop - . We are not going to know anything about this in detail for at least 6 months and by that time you have a 50 per cent chance that the powers that be will have S canned it, or changed it beyond all recognition. Given the excitement this has generated TV'ers should go back to playing dominoes or clipping coupons. It is embarrassing.

Edited November 24, 2016 by LomSak27

[aussieinthailand]

With the requiament's to quallify for the so-called 10 year visa, which is accually a 5 year visa with a 5 year extention and the insurance requiment that is next to impossible to get and your money in the bank but you can't touch it and the reddiculess 90 day report treated like an ex con on parole,   They can take the sh*t sandwich and shove it,   not interested in the slightest.

As I said before do these pelican's ask expat's what they want, need, to stay here and not move next door for a much less stress visa???

[chiang mai]

Some of you have suggested there's been an over reaction too this subject, to those people I would say you need to pay attention to the direction this takes us in and some of the  reasons for this offering.

 

One of the oft stated aims is to increase the quality of tourists and that includes expats. Put simply it means they want more wealthy individuals living here and they want to get rid of the bottom feeding layers, those who work illegally as a result of financial hardship, those who run up huge bills at hospitals and then can't/wont pay them, those who break the law by overstaying their visa because they need to get under the radar because they're broke, and so on and so on. The 3 million in the bank AND the health insurance helps meet this objective and if it were applied across the board as being one of only a handful of similar visa's, many problems would be solved.

 

My guess is certainly that if the take up on this visa is sufficient we will see other similar visa's introduced, perhaps with slightly modified T's & C's, look for proof of the health insurance policy to be reaffirmed EVERY year of the visa and look for the length of time the money in the bank is required to remain untouched to increase.

 

So whilst none of this is likely to come about all at once and not all at once, the direction is clear and who can blame them. They want to solve the problems and the financial loss caused by (some) foreigners being here, until that happens the likelihood that 90 day reports and TM30 reports will go away are non-existent, simply because they don't know who they can and can't trust at this stage, the chancers or the few spoil things for the majority.

 

[Wilsonandson]

The newspaper we are not allowed to post a link to with initials BP has posted an article that says that this new long stay visa is the new retirement visa. Panic.

[Peterw42]

No mater what the financial requirement are for a visa/extension, the actual monthly spend will remain the same.

Just because the requirements go up, it doesn't mean retirees start eating lobster for breakfast.

Like tourists, there are a few that do it on the cheap, but they are still spending. A Thai person is getting the money.

Most retiree's are already well off. They already spend lots.They eat out 7 days a week, they cant eat out 8 days a week.

I know some rich retirees that spend nothing, I also know some poor retirees that are spending a bomb.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 25, 2016 by Peterw42

[Lunchbob]

The thing I dont like is the 90 day and if you forget you get a fine. 100 year visa means nothing to me if I must check in every 3 monfhs

[i claudius]

So does that mean that the thousands of old married guys who cannot meet the requirements have to leave their family's and go home. Leaving them destitute?

Sent from my ASUS_T00J using Tapatalk

[Thaidream]

Those who are married can apply under the marriage extension provision 40Kper month/400K in the bank.  No mention of any changes at all in this regard.

For those married and on retirement extensions they can change to married extensions. I have done it in the past very easily.

I am still confident that for those who are single and on retirement extensions there will be grandfathering which has been done twice already in the past. Is it definite- No- but normally when a precedent is set it is followed. No laws or change of laws in any country are retroactive that I am aware of including Thailand.

[Naam]

6 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

Psst, we already established the current requirements are 5x average 8x minimum, so those requirements do exactly what you claim they should do, unless of course you believe 5x isn't substantial.

 

And I already said that people with that kind of money don't consider Thailand, they retire in first world countries. There is still no hard evidence that they are making any adjustments, so it might be a bit to early to claim they do...

 

that might apply to people like you who don't face a tax liability of $100,000 or $200,000 per annum (US-Dollars NOT Zimbabwe Dollars!) in a "first world country").

[Peterw42]

I think this "rich guys in, poor guys out" mantra is rubbish. Most truly wealthy people are rich and stay rich because they dont spend money. People with close to no money usually blow the lot, people who think they are rich usually blow the lot showing off.

Its possible a lot of people will qualify and take up the new visa, and still live on mama noodles.

[newnative]

6 hours ago, anotheruser said:

 

Okay, keeping it simple, stay on your current extension, move to the new plan or buy an elite visa. 

 

That is the summary of all 61 pages.

Spot on!  61 pages of mostly the sky is falling nonsense but finally here's a succinct gem. Which, unfortunately, will be mostly ignored because too many posters seem to enjoy needlessly tormenting themselves.