Govt approves 10 year visas for foreigners over 50

[rabas]

1 hour ago, Thaidream said:

Actually the Immigration Offices would know if there were any changes to extensions that they have to plan for because they would have to implement these changes so if I want an answer to a potential policy or requirement change- I would go to Immigration. They may not have the exact details but they would know if there was a change in the wind. The current report from Jomtien makes sense to me- no known changes in the wind and they believe implementation for a new Visa is sometime off in the future.  Since there has to be co-ordination between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Visa guidelines for Embassy/Consulates abroad) and the Ministry of Interior (Police Immigration -rules-guidelines-requirements) I am of the opinion this may take some time to implement. In addition- the Ministry of Tourism and Health may be involved for marketing and health issues. I seriously doubt that we will see anything in writing for a long time. If someone doesn't want to believe Immigration Officers that is up to them. Who else would you ask?

Who else would you ask?

 

Thai Embassy in Singapore. (dial 009 cheap) They are higher up the chain and would issue the AO long stay visas.

- someone posted a link to a November 7 (!) TV post in a different thread,  where someone said he was shown details of the new AO visa (shown in the Nov 7 post) in Singapore well before the announcement. (believe-it-or-not).

Edited November 28, 2016 by rabas

[Wilsonandson]

http://www.absolutelivingthailand.com/service.php
I like this one:-

Additional Services 

•Round trip shuttle bus pick up from Suwannaphum Airport to the resort
•Scheduled complimentary transportation to downtown Pattaya (Twice a week)
•Laundry and dry cleansing service
•Housekeeping
•Visa service coordinator

[Wilsonandson]

http://www.thaiembassy.org/chennai/en/news/4113/72977-Thailand-to-cut-visa-fees-to-attract-more-tourists.html
Chennai Thai Embassy, India.

[Wilsonandson]

 My Thai partner was at Jomtien Immigration today and he asked about the 10 year visa. He was told it was not going to be implemented any time soon and it would be an option, not a replacement for anything.  

If your married to a Thai man can't you get citizenship?

[Thaidream]

I am not at all focused on my personal situation- i have several options open to me regardless of what they choose to do. My comments are a result of the angst expressed by some posters who are changing their life plans based upon the erroneous reading and pontificating of some posters who insist that the worst will happen and that Thais hate us all and thus are trying to get rid of us. Nothing could be further from the truth and I respond to what is logical and empirical when making an opinion.

If I thought for a minute the sky was really falling and the chances are the worst scenarios would take place I would state that and provide a rational explanation. however, i don't feel that way and have explained why in a logical concise manner.

I have stated nothing in life is 100%. Bad things do happen but most of the time they do not. I would rather listen to what the immigration Officers say because they work there, it's their job to know and until proven otherwise I shall believe what they say. If some people want to believe otherwise- that is their prerogative. 

[Jingthing]

34 minutes ago, Wilsonandson said:

http://www.thaiembassy.org/chennai/en/news/4113/72977-Thailand-to-cut-visa-fees-to-attract-more-tourists.html
Chennai Thai Embassy, India.

Interesting. The language is ambiguous. 

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

I am not at all focused on my personal situation- i have several options open to me regardless of what they choose to do. My comments are a result of the angst expressed by some posters who are changing their life plans based upon the erroneous reading and pontificating of some posters who insist that the worst will happen and that Thais hate us all and thus are trying to get rid of us. Nothing could be further from the truth and I respond to what is logical and empirical when making an opinion.

If I thought for a minute the sky was really falling and the chances are the worst scenarios would take place I would state that and provide a rational explanation. however, i don't feel that way and have explained why in a logical concise manner.

I have stated nothing in life is 100%. Bad things do happen but most of the time they do not. I would rather listen to what the immigration Officers say because they work there, it's their job to know and until proven otherwise I shall believe what they say. If some people want to believe otherwise- that is their prerogative. 

Our perspectives are obviously different. Over the years I have become involved in answering complex questions about retirement status and best tactics based on individual situations that take into account all the options, including O-A. For this new thing, I could not even begin to do that because quite obviously the final details about it have not yet been finalized. We don't even know for sure about that DATE. Conflicting reports. 

Edited November 28, 2016 by Jingthing

[newnative]

6 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

I am not at all focused on my personal situation- i have several options open to me regardless of what they choose to do. My comments are a result of the angst expressed by some posters who are changing their life plans based upon the erroneous reading and pontificating of some posters who insist that the worst will happen and that Thais hate us all and thus are trying to get rid of us. Nothing could be further from the truth and I respond to what is logical and empirical when making an opinion.

If I thought for a minute the sky was really falling and the chances are the worst scenarios would take place I would state that and provide a rational explanation. however, i don't feel that way and have explained why in a logical concise manner.

I have stated nothing in life is 100%. Bad things do happen but most of the time they do not. I would rather listen to what the immigration Officers say because they work there, it's their job to know and until proven otherwise I shall believe what they say. If some people want to believe otherwise- that is their prerogative. 

Terrific post.

[Thaidream]

Actually a Thai Embassy is not anyone I would ask regarding the actual requiremets for an extension of stay. There have been enough posts about Embassies giving inadwquate information and downright wrong information. Some embassies read official policies and do not implement it correctly. Embassies/Consulate issue Visa- that gets you in. The Immigration department determines what you need to do to stay. If indeed an Embassy can issue a 10 year Non Immigrant Visa- your passport will be Stamped Non O with an expiration date 10 years hence.

Let's see what the IO stamps in your passport when you actually enter. It could well be 5 years- maybe not. The devil is in the details.

This thread has mostly been about the effect on people who are already here and questioning extension details. That is why I suggest asking the IO in  Thailand. The Embassy is the last person I would ask at this point.

[JB300]

Who else would you ask?

 

Thai Embassy in Singapore. (dial 009 cheap) They are higher up the chain and would issue the AO long stay visas.

- someone posted a link to a November 7 (!) TV post in a different thread,  where someone said he was shown details of the new AO visa (shown in the Nov 7 post) in Singapore well before the announcement. (believe-it-or-not).

I'm a long term Employment pass holder in Singapore (highest level they have) & don't believe they would issue me a Non O (never mind a Non O-A) on the basis of being over 50 unless I move to be a PR.

Happy to be told I'm wrong & hope they'll allow me to apply for the new Non O-A based on my salary here

[Jingthing]

11 minutes ago, JB300 said:

I'm a long term Employment pass holder in Singapore (highest level they have) & don't believe they would issue me a Non O (never mind a Non O-A) on the basis of being over 50 unless I move to be a PR.

Happy to be told I'm wrong & hope they'll allow me to apply fir the new Non O-A based on my salary here

Well, for current O-A visas and retirement extensions work in Thailand is forbidden but working outside of Thailand is perfectly OK. I don't recall any wording with this new HALF BAKED thing about restricting paid work in Thailand. I guessed it would be forbidden just like current O-A and retirement extensions. Also there was some language that volunteer work is ALLOWED in Thailand with this new visa (whatever it's called) which is definitely different than for current O-A and retirement extensions. Perhaps that's another "perk" for some people. 

 

Another issue, of course for O-A generally people only apply in their home countries or in special situations if they have permanent residence in another third country. Kind of sounds like even if Singapore will be issuing this new half baked visa thingie, you might not have the status to apply there and would be told to apply from your passport nation, if it is indeed available in your passport nation. 

 

Another detail we don't yet. It's entirely possible this could be structured as something you could get IN Thailand, unlike current O-A.

 

Currently, people can get 90 day O visas in Thailand for purposes of later applying for an annual retirement extension, so there is precedent for such mechanics.

 

Again, waiting for a lot more details. 

Edited November 28, 2016 by Jingthing

[JB300]

Well, for current O-A visas and retirement extensions work in Thailand is forbidden but working outside of Thailand is perfectly OK. I don't recall any wording with this new HALF BAKED thing about restricting paid work in Thailand. I guessed it would be forbidden just like current O-A and retirement extensions. Also there was some language that volunteer work is ALLOWED in Thailand with this new visa (whatever it's called) which is definitely different than for current O-A and retirement extensions. Perhaps that's another "perk" for some people. 

As far as I'm aware, none of the current visa options prevent you working outside of Thailand (I.e. You can be on the Non O / Non O-A for the purposes of retirement & use a salary as evidence of funds for your extension of stay & I'm sure many do).

Plus the new Visa uses term like "Long term Tourists over 50" & "Salaries over 100k" so maybe it's nothing to do with retirees save it's aimed at over 50s.

My point was that Singapore is not renowned for being friendly when issuing long term visas & as Singapore isn't on the list of 14 countries, it wouldn't be my 1st point of call to find out more details.

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, JB300 said:

 

 

As far as I'm aware, none of the current visa options prevent you working outside of Thailand (I.e. You can be on the Non O / Non O-A for the purposes of retirement & use a salary as evidence of funds for your extension of stay & I'm sure many do).

Plus the new Visa uses term like "Long term Tourists over 50" & "Salaries over 100k" so maybe it's nothing to do with retirees save it's aimed at over 50s.

My point was that Singapore is not renowned for being friendly when issuing long term visas & as Singapore isn't on the list of 14 countries, it wouldn't be my 1st point of call to find out more details.

 

 

Another BASIC question not answered. My initial impression about this new visa is that it is indeed targeted at retirees. But we simply do not have enough info! There was no language saying paid work was allowed or not allowed in Thailand so far released that I've seen. I did see the language that volunteer work was allowed. It's weird that's mentioned but paid work not mentioned. See what I mean about HALF BAKED?

 

 I don't know the final answers about this new visa, not even close, and it's clear to me nobody posting here does either. 

 

Yes, you're right about Singapore having a "difficult" rep! 

Edited November 28, 2016 by Jingthing

[nkped]

2 hours ago, Thaidream said:

In addition to what I have already said onhis subject- I firmly believe the word was put out on this  this in advance of the actual implementation to get a reaction from those who would be the target audience. I am certain certain officials are monitoring various sites and note the reaction.

 

I also believe that the line IOs do have some basic knowledge of what is being proposed because these type of things have to be implemented by the line Officer. They may not know the exact details but they have a good idea of the drift. I personally will believe what they say until proven otherwise.

Having worked in a large bureaucracy, I have to disagree that the line IOs have an idea what's coming.  I suspect they are waiting for the head shed to reach a decision just like the rest of us.

[Wilsonandson]

The manager newspaper posted this 2 hours ago. I chrome google translated the whole page. May or may not be of interest. Let you see and decide.

[Jingthing]

Of interest perhaps.

But clear as MUD.

 

[digibum]

On 11/26/2016 at 0:04 AM, dick dasterdly said:

I used to rent out a house back in the UK - but too many bad experiences (not paying rent/badly damaging property etc. etc.) that eventually resulted in the decision that it was not worth the stress.

 

Consequently, I always warn people thinking of renting out a house nowadays to think twice.  Sometimes it works out - but sometimes it doesn't.

 

Landlording isn't always easy :-)  

 

That said, depends on the asset class you're talking about.  I know a lot of people who buy property in what I refer to as war zones and their turnover costs, repairs, etc are a huge expense.  They try to buy at the deepest discounts to make the ROI and cash on cash returns work out.  Meanwhile, I know people who buy middle and upper-middle class neighborhoods and have tenants that stay 2, 3, 5, 10 years and fix most problems themselves.  Some even make improvements to the property.  The projections look worse on paper but the actuals tend to end up doing pretty well.  

 

In fact, I have a good friend, younger guy, who has a place just outside of London that he rents out.  Never has any problems with the tenants.  Uses the money from that (and his online business) to pay his bills while he lives in Thailand with his gf.  Not a bad lifestyle for a guy his age.  

 

 

[digibum]

On 11/26/2016 at 4:22 AM, kharmabum said:

think of all the retirees that HAD 3mil baht when they moved to thailand but then bought a condo, figuring to live rent free and that the money they show each year would be grandfathered to future changes and live off thousand dolar a month pensions.   i forsee alot of condos being put up for sale in the near future.

 

and for all those 50 somethings gloating that they can show 3 mil in a bank account no problem, i wonder  how many will be able to remain if the figure is upped to 6 mil sometime before they need to buy their next 10 year visa?

 

globalization, inflation and corruption;  the three defining characteristics of this century so far.

 

Actually, I think the first problem is the age, 50.  Most people in western countries cannot start receiving government retirement benefits at 50.  

 

Just taking the case of an American, you can start drawing benefits at 62 but you'll be locked into only getting 75% of what you're entitled to.  In order to get the full monty, you have to delay taking distributions until you're 66.  

 

What's the point of allowing someone to retire in Thailand at 50?  

 

It only entices people who should be working until they are at least 62 to retire early due to the perceived low cost of living in Thailand.  They forfeit 12 - 16 years of earning potential.  

 

And since they're not getting regular pension payments, they are most likely drawing off their savings rather than allowing them to compound for another 12 - 16 years which is devastating to their ability to having their money outlive them.   Think about it this way, the Rule of 72 says that even at a 5% rate of return on investments, that 12 - 16 years would mean that even if they didn't contribute another penny to their savings they would have double the amount of money at 64 as they would at 50.  

 

If Thailand is really concerned about not getting stuck with a bunch of broke farangs, they should bump the retirement age requirement to 60 or 65.  Then they can have even higher income/bank requirements as more people will be more financially stable having over a decade of additional savings growth.

 

It would also be nice if they took your Fidelity Investments statement as proof rather than making you transfer the funds to a Thai bank and have them sit there earning next to nothing.  

 

Similarly, if we're talking about what is the everyone's best interest, Thailand should not allow farangs to transfer any considerable wealth to their spouse or children that could alter be used to buy real estate.  It's really a horrible investment for most farangs.  

 

I mean, assume you can rent a condo or house for 10,000 baht per month instead of buying.  That's $285 per month USD or $3,420 a year.  If you buy a 1.75 million baht ($50K) house in Thailand, that's 14 years worth of rent at 10,000 baht per month.  But, $50K at even 5% would be throwing off $2,500 a year if you simply invested that money.  If you put that money in US equities which have historically averaged between 8% and 10%, you would be getting $4,000 a year.  

 

And you don't have to worry about upgrades and repairs because those costs should be handled by the property owner.  So, all in all, even at 5% you're probably better off renting than buying.  The gap between $2500 and $3420 per year ($920 or $76 per month) might easily be eroded by a damaged roof or other major repair.  

 

Most financial planners will tell you that your primary residence is a poor investment.  In fact, many financial planners will tell you that your primary residence is not an investment at all.  The only way you can make the math worse is to pay all cash for your primary residence which is what most farangs end up doing in Thailand.  

 

And, when Mr. Farang moves on to the next life, well, he leaves his wife with a ton of cash rather than depleting his savings the longer he lives.  Sure, the misses might have to forego the crowing to all the neighbors about her husband buying her a house but she'll end up with much more wealth in the end.  

 

Again, if the objective is to bring as many retirees into Thailand as possible and have them live a financially independent lifestyle which does not have any potential to become a burden on the Thai taxpayers, anything the government can do to prevent them from making poor financial decisions should be welcomed.  

 

I know, don't stir up the hornet's nest.  Phase it in over time so the existing retirees can continue on under the old scheme.  This is about looking forward not holding people to a standard that is different than when they retired in Thailand originally.  

 

 

 

 

[SpokaneAl]

 
Actually, I think the first problem is the age, 50.  Most people in western countries cannot start receiving government retirement benefits at 50.  
 
Just taking the case of an American, you can start drawing benefits at 62 but you'll be locked into only getting 75% of what you're entitled to.  In order to get the full monty, you have to delay taking distributions until you're 66.  
 
What's the point of allowing someone to retire in Thailand at 50?  
 
It only entices people who should be working until they are at least 62 to retire early due to the perceived low cost of living in Thailand.  They forfeit 12 - 16 years of earning potential.  
 
And since they're not getting regular pension payments, they are most likely drawing off their savings rather than allowing them to compound for another 12 - 16 years which is devastating to their ability to having their money outlive them.   Think about it this way, the Rule of 72 says that even at a 5% rate of return on investments, that 12 - 16 years would mean that even if they didn't contribute another penny to their savings they would have double the amount of money at 64 as they would at 50.  
 
If Thailand is really concerned about not getting stuck with a bunch of broke farangs, they should bump the retirement age requirement to 60 or 65.  Then they can have even higher income/bank requirements as more people will be more financially stable having over a decade of additional savings growth.
 
It would also be nice if they took your Fidelity Investments statement as proof rather than making you transfer the funds to a Thai bank and have them sit there earning next to nothing.  
 
Similarly, if we're talking about what is the everyone's best interest, Thailand should not allow farangs to transfer any considerable wealth to their spouse or children that could alter be used to buy real estate.  It's really a horrible investment for most farangs.  
 
I mean, assume you can rent a condo or house for 10,000 baht per month instead of buying.  That's $285 per month USD or $3,420 a year.  If you buy a 1.75 million baht ($50K) house in Thailand, that's 14 years worth of rent at 10,000 baht per month.  But, $50K at even 5% would be throwing off $2,500 a year if you simply invested that money.  If you put that money in US equities which have historically averaged between 8% and 10%, you would be getting $4,000 a year.  
 
And you don't have to worry about upgrades and repairs because those costs should be handled by the property owner.  So, all in all, even at 5% you're probably better off renting than buying.  The gap between $2500 and $3420 per year ($920 or $76 per month) might easily be eroded by a damaged roof or other major repair.  
 
Most financial planners will tell you that your primary residence is a poor investment.  In fact, many financial planners will tell you that your primary residence is not an investment at all.  The only way you can make the math worse is to pay all cash for your primary residence which is what most farangs end up doing in Thailand.  
 
And, when Mr. Farang moves on to the next life, well, he leaves his wife with a ton of cash rather than depleting his savings the longer he lives.  Sure, the misses might have to forego the crowing to all the neighbors about her husband buying her a house but she'll end up with much more wealth in the end.  
 
Again, if the objective is to bring as many retirees into Thailand as possible and have them live a financially independent lifestyle which does not have any potential to become a burden on the Thai taxpayers, anything the government can do to prevent them from making poor financial decisions should be welcomed.  
 
I know, don't stir up the hornet's nest.  Phase it in over time so the existing retirees can continue on under the old scheme.  This is about looking forward not holding people to a standard that is different than when they retired in Thailand originally.  
 
 
 
 

I enjoyed your post very much except for the part where you seem to believe that it is a government's job to prevent us from making poor decisions . Gotta disagree there.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[digibum]

On 11/26/2016 at 10:07 AM, tropo said:

There's no doubt about it - there's a lot of nasty expats with holier than thou attitudes living in Thailand.

 

Perhaps living in a poorer country makes them feel superior compared with back at home where no one notices them.

 

I think it's exactly the opposite.  It's more like, with the bar set so low, how can you not even meet that bar?  Let's not forget, even at the current 67K baht, there are some people struggling and a surge in the baht away from no longer meeting the requirements.  

 

I guess ultimately the bigger issue is, Thailand looks cheap on paper.  Undoubtedly, if I had little money I would prefer to be on a beach than shoveling snow.  However, Thailand really isn't that cheap.  And there are a lot of hidden costs.  Most of us farangs come from countries where the government will pick up at least some of our medical expenses.  Obviously as we age, the likelihood of medical expenses goes up substantially which is one of the reasons people who are talking about the medical insurance part of the new visa requirements are going nuts.  Yet, if they can't afford the insurance, how could they possible afford the actual hospital bills?  

 

Hey, I want to drive a Ferrari but even if someone gave me a Ferrari for free I probably still couldn't afford it.  After a few $5,000 oil changes and a few thousand for this and a few thousand for that I might realize that, you know what?  After a few years of ownership I probably could have bought a Toyota with all of the money I've put into keeping the Ferrari in driving condition.  

 

It's not about being holier than thou, it's about pointing out the basic math.  Like I said, facts are like kryptonite to some people because facts ruin a lot of dreams.  Facts are the things that turns owning a Ferrari from a dream into a financial nightmare.  

 

 

[digibum]

12 minutes ago, SpokaneAl said:

 

 

I enjoyed your post very much except for the part where you seem to believe that it is a government's job to prevent us from making poor decisions . Gotta disagree there.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

 

I don't believe it's any government's job do keep us from making poor decisions.  However, I do think that it's the Thai government's job to keep foreigners from making poor decisions in Thailand that may have an economic impact on Thailand and Thai taxpayers.  

 

 

 

 

[digibum]

On 11/26/2016 at 5:38 PM, Peterw42 said:

 

It's not that people don't have the money, for many that's their working capital, ie: the money they use to make money, share trading, flipping properties, etc.

 

 

Which is why it is so stupid to force someone to keep that money in a Thai bank account.  They should just require proof of funds/assets rather than forcing someone to keep money that could be earning more money sitting in a bank account doing nothing.  

[JLCrab]

Well since it's now obvious that the persons who designed this new 5/10 year long stay visa don't know as much about pensions, visas, medical insurance, investments, cash management and general responsibilities of your average ministry of foreign affairs official as the collective wisdom of the ThaiVisa hoi polloi, I might just sit and wait to see what are the final regs and if it helps or hinders me in my personal current state of affairs -- or changes nothing at all.

Edited November 28, 2016 by JLCrab

[Wilsonandson]

http://www.iol.co.za/travel/world/thailand-to-issue-10-year-visa-for-senior-tourists-2093987
Thailand to issue 10-year visa for senior tourists
Quote:-
“We want to ensure their good quality of life and that they will not become a burden to our country,” Sansern said describing the unusual policy as aimed at drawing more tourists into the country and boosting the economy.

Government spokesperson Sansern Kamkamnerd said.

[theguyfromanotherforum]

 
Landlording isn't always easy :-)  
 
That said, depends on the asset class you're talking about.  I know a lot of people who buy property in what I refer to as war zones and their turnover costs, repairs, etc are a huge expense.  They try to buy at the deepest discounts to make the ROI and cash on cash returns work out.  Meanwhile, I know people who buy middle and upper-middle class neighborhoods and have tenants that stay 2, 3, 5, 10 years and fix most problems themselves.  Some even make improvements to the property.  The projections look worse on paper but the actuals tend to end up doing pretty well.  
 
In fact, I have a good friend, younger guy, who has a place just outside of London that he rents out.  Never has any problems with the tenants.  Uses the money from that (and his online business) to pay his bills while he lives in Thailand with his gf.  Not a bad lifestyle for a guy his age.  
 
 

Yep. Was thinking of becoming a slumlord myself, but not worth it. Absolutely no protection regarding your property in Canada. Instead I bought a condo in downtown Toronto, have been renting it to the same tenant since I left (4 years) and the guy has never missed a payment or requested maintenance.

My reward is that I never raised my rent. Definitely worth it long term.

[JB300]

http://www.iol.co.za/travel/world/thailand-to-issue-10-year-visa-for-senior-tourists-2093987
Thailand to issue 10-year visa for senior tourists
Quote:-
“We want to ensure their good quality of life and that they will not become a burden to our country,” Sansern said describing the unusual policy as aimed at drawing more tourists into the country and boosting the economy.


Government spokesperson Sansern Kamkamnerd said.

But South Africa wasn't on the list of 14 countries the new "Tourist" visa is targetted at

[Kerryd]

5 minutes ago, theguyfromanotherforum said:

Yep. Was thinking of becoming a slumlord myself, but not worth it. Absolutely no protection regarding your property in Canada. Instead I bought a condo in downtown Toronto, have been renting it to the same tenant since I left (4 years) and the guy has never missed a payment or requested maintenance.

My reward is that I never raised my rent. Definitely worth it long term.

 

 

While on the other hand, I worked with two people that had rental properties (on in BC, the other in Nova Scotia) and both ended up giving up and selling their properties because of a slew of bad tenants (not paying rent, not keeping the property clean, causing damage and then just disappearing into the night). Both people ended up selling the properties.

 

One must keep in mind as well that if you are renting properties in Thailand (and living here) you are probably supposed to be paying tax on that income. Many countries (like Canada) expect their citizens to pay tax on any income earned outside the country. If those countries have a tax treaty, tax paid in one country may count as a tax credit in another. If there isn't a treaty in place covering such matters, you could face paying tax in both countries (or severe penalties for not paying).

 

I've seen ads for some condo projects that offer a guaranteed return on investment (from rental income) but the big thing to remember is, This Is Thailand. There really are no guarantees. Ask the thousands of people who bought into various condo projects only to see their money disappear when the projects were cancelled.

 

With the current information, the big sticking point on this new "visa" (for me) is the requirement to keep a large sum on deposit, indefinitely.

From what little we've seen so far, it is 3 million baht locked in for the 1st year. 

Then, you can withdraw up to a maximum of 50% after that, which can only be spent on approved things (medical treatment, property or whatever else the government decides you can spend your money on). 

The remaining 1.5 million has to stay in the bank, forever ! (One would assume that spending any portion of it would result in their "visa" being cancelled.)

Then, when the 5 years is up and it's time to renew, you would once again have to have the full 3 million in the bank, locked in for another year, after which you could spend half of it (on approved things) - again, based on what little has been said up to this point in time.

 

So basically, as it stands now with the limited information available thus far, you will be required to leave 1.5 million baht locked into an account for the remainder of your time in Thailand (until you move somewhere else or die).

 

All subject to change of course as nothing is set in stone yet (as far as we know).

No doubt the powers that be have been following the discourse in this thread (and on other sites) to see what the reaction from the expat community is like. The final wording on the change may reflect some of what has been discussed. Or not. 

 

Either way, my plans to sell my current abode and move "up country" are on hold for the time being. As is my plan to upgrade my mode of transportation. I think it would benefit the Thai economy a lot more if I was spending my money and not keeping it locked up in a low-interest bank account but that's just me ! 

 

 

[Thaidream]

If it comes out as another option for retirement in addition to the current options- I have no problem with it. You choose to go into if you desire. However, if it emerges as the only retirement option- it will eliminate a majority of the World from ever coming to Thailand and retiring here. The requirements are too high for the average middle class person who has adequate income at 65K per month or 800K.  No one is going to sell their fully paid homes anywhere whether abroad or in Thailand to put 3M Baht in a Tha bank.

[boomerangutang]

A government, if it was smart, would make laws about issues, after discussing the issues with people who are most directly involved.  

 

Example:  governments make harsh rules about drugs, but officials don't converse with the people who are involved with drugs, whether users or dealers.

 

Similarly, Thai Imm officials make laws about farang, without discussing the intricacies/effects with farang.

 

In both scenarios, the laws are dumb - often causing unnecessary hassles, suffering and expense.

[Peterw42]

There was recently a seminar/meeting in Chiang mai involving tourism, immigration and representatives from an expat group, there was some consultation etc.
A couple of threads are around that discuss what happened