Govt approves 10 year visas for foreigners over 50

[newnative]

1 hour ago, Kerryd said:

 

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 ! 

 

 

Remember that you don't HAVE to put 3MB in a Thai bank if you can show income of 100,000 Baht a month.  The other thing is you don't HAVE to use this visa option.  Remember it's a visa option for just 14 countries.  If you're ok with what you are currently doing, just keep doing it.

[newnative]

5 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

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

I think this new long stay visa option might have been spurred by that meeting--if I remember what I read about the meeting some of the expats suggested a long stay visa option. 

[roo860]

I think this new long stay visa option might have been spurred by that meeting--if I remember what I read about the meeting some of the expats suggested a long stay visa option. 

So you can blame it on the so called HiSo expats in CM if it all goes tits up with your 1 year extension.
[emoji106]

Sent from my SM-G920F using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[Jingthing]

Someone a while back asked for link "evidence" of my assertion that the 3 million baht needs to be TOPPED up again after 5 years, if using the money method of course, rather than the 100K monthly method.

 

So people saying this is really a FIVE year visa, rather than a TEN year visa have very good point!

 

About the health insurance thing, I assume that proof needs to be shown on initial application and also after 5 years, but surely nobody will be able to prove pre-paying for 5 years of health insurance, right? So in effect isn't that a requirement just to show the insurance one time at APPLICATION times? If they don't keep checking, it's kind of silly, eh? 

 

Here goes:

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/news/business/2016/11/24/details-10-year-visas-meet-mixed-reactions/

Quote

Applicants must not only leave 3 million baht untouched for one year in a time deposit, but they cannot withdraw more than 50 percent, which they must show proof was spent in Thailand for such as medical, property, tuition or similar expenses, according to the resolution. Want to renew it five years later? Visa holders must again show 3 million baht in the bank or an income of at least 100,000 baht per month.

 

Edited November 29, 2016 by Jingthing

[MaxiMaxi]

7 hours ago, theguyfromanotherforum said:

 

Y ufp. Was thiexsking of becoming a slumlord  setyself, 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.

 

In my country If u have an apartment and rent It you have to pay:

Yearly property taxation

Income tax for the rent min. 20% that grovwes If u have other Incomes Cause will be added and have then 30, 35 or more % of taxation.

Then have common areas monthly fee.

Repair costs of building.

So a good 50% goes to tax office and this after having payed the cost of the apartment It self with an 11% buying tax (also goes to tax office) plus notary's contract registration fee about 2 - 3% and the 4 to 6% of bank's morgage.

And the prices are always of a minimum 2 - 300,000 €uros up.

And normaly when they (renter) leaves they do not pay the last few month of rent, electric, gas, water and It needs to hire a lawyer to get money back but the lawyer Is also expensive and takes a year to get back something.

So housing has become a very bad Investment.

Instead here I found still reasonable to Invest and have a return...or live In It

[kharmabum]

10 hours ago, digibum said:

 

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.

On 2016년 11월 27일 일요일 at 1:48 AM, chang50 said:

 

 

On 2016년 11월 27일 일요일 at 1:48 AM, chang50 said:

 

 

i'm american and was born in 1970, which means i won't be able to collect full social security benefits till i'm 70.  no one in my family has ever made it past 75 and most have kicked the bucket before reaching 70.

 

and alot of people think social security won't exist by 2030, or if it does, will be rendered useless by hyperinflation.

 

i admit getting old and realizing you don't have enough money to enjoy your life sucks.

but not nearly as much as working till you drop dead and never having the chance to enjoy life.

Edited November 29, 2016 by kharmabum

[Thaidream]

I am convinced that Social Security will be there for generations to come

. No Presidential Administration would dare cancel this entitlement to the American people. There are various ways to fund the shortfall either by delaying benefits a few years; taking the shortfall out of the general fund; or by raising taxes to make up the difference. Actually simply raising the level of wages taxed would do the trick. People make over $125K don't pay social security taxes on the amount over that level.

Believe it or not after my first trip to Thailand in 1967 I decided I would retire in Thailand when the time was ripe. I made sure I always paid into the Social Security system and worked for companies that had a private pension. I also made sure my family in Thailand would have some fixed assets- houses, condo, and cars. I never made more than $80K per year ever and often a lot less than that, but I worked hard and sacrificed and made it. Don't believe it can't be done. It all depends on what you want in life.

[SpokaneAl]

 
i'm american and was born in 1970, which means i won't be able to collect full social security benefits till i'm 70.  no one in my family has ever made it past 75 and most have kicked the bucket before reaching 70.
 
and alot of people think social security won't exist by 2030, or if it does, will be rendered useless by hyperinflation.
 
i admit getting old and realizing you don't have enough money to enjoy your life sucks.
but not nearly as much as working till you drop dead and never having the chance to enjoy life.

You are incorrect. Anyone born after 1960 has a full retirement age of 67.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[jjczap]

15 minutes ago, kharmabum said:

 

i'm american and was born in 1970, which means i won't be able to collect full social security benefits till i'm 70.  no one in my family has ever made it past 75 and most have kicked the bucket before reaching 70.

 

and alot of people think social security won't exist by 2030, or if it does, will be rendered useless by hyperinflation.

 

i admit getting old and realizing you don't have enough money to enjoy your life sucks.

but not nearly as much as working till you drop dead and never having the chance to enjoy life.

 

you can take it at 62 with a 25% penalty - based on my birth year  my retirement age was 67 - I have collected for 5 years now and my breakeven if I waited to 67 to collect a higher amount is 78 - so if I waited to 67 I would have received between 3 and 4 hundred more a month after 78  --  god I just hope I make it to 78 -  just a side note - my father and sister both took it at 62 and both died before their breakeven

[Jingthing]

 
you can take it at 62 with a 25% penalty - based on my birth year  my retirement age was 67 - I have collected for 5 years now and my breakeven if I waited to 67 to collect a higher amount is 78 - so if I waited to 67 I would have received between 3 and 4 hundred more a month after 78  --  god I just hope I make it to 78 -  just a side note - my father and sister both took it at 62 and both died before their breakeven

Age to be able to start early depends on age. Younger people now it would be a later age. Stuff like this belongs on home country forum not here.

[jjczap]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Age to be able to start early depends on age. Younger people now it would be a later age. Stuff like this belongs on home country forum not here.

 

first of all the age is correct--  second the prior 2 posts talked about SS age and you did not respond to them I - why??   sounds like you pick and chose when to give your sound advice

[Thaidream]

Agree- it may be a 10 year visa with an expiration of 10 years- but one gets stamped in for 5 years- and then has to go back to Immigration at the end of 5 years and request the other 5 years and also pay another 10K I would imagine  they will want to see proof of 3M again and verify all the requirements. In other words if you take 1.5M out after the first year- you're going to need another 1.5M to top it up. Sorry- I just can't see many people this will appeal to unless one is very well off and has several millions available to lock up at hardly any interest. I would never sell an asset like a house or Condo- to meet such a requirement. This will go the way of the Elite Visa when it was first launched- 200-300 buyers- and then they had to rethink the whole plan.

[Jingthing]

 
first of all the age is correct--  second the prior 2 posts talked about SS age and you did not respond to them I - why??   sounds like you pick and chose when to give your sound advice

I don't respond to all posts. Duh.

[Jingthing]

Agree- it may be a 10 year visa with an expiration of 10 years- but one gets stamped in for 5 years- and then has to go back to Immigration at the end of 5 years and request the other 5 years and also pay another 10K I would imagine  they will want to see proof of 3M again and verify all the requirements. In other words if you take 1.5M out after the first year- you're going to need another 1.5M to top it up. Sorry- I just can't see many people this will appeal to unless one is very well off and has several millions available to lock up at hardly any interest. I would never sell an asset like a house or Condo- to meet such a requirement. This will go the way of the Elite Visa when it was first launched- 200-300 buyers- and then they had to rethink the whole plan.

Yes the bank option does appear to be a very cruddy deal. The income option is fine if you have it and can get the health insurance.

[newnative]

2 hours ago, Thaidream said:

Agree- it may be a 10 year visa with an expiration of 10 years- but one gets stamped in for 5 years- and then has to go back to Immigration at the end of 5 years and request the other 5 years and also pay another 10K I would imagine  they will want to see proof of 3M again and verify all the requirements. In other words if you take 1.5M out after the first year- you're going to need another 1.5M to top it up. Sorry- I just can't see many people this will appeal to unless one is very well off and has several millions available to lock up at hardly any interest. I would never sell an asset like a house or Condo- to meet such a requirement. This will go the way of the Elite Visa when it was first launched- 200-300 buyers- and then they had to rethink the whole plan.

I agree.  I would only do it with the 100,000 Baht income requirement and I would never tie up 3MB in the bank. 

[Bob1million]

Hello all,

 

Just a question and yes i have read the article and thinking out loud so will this 10 year visa replace the current 1 year visa

or is it a luxury options for those who could afford it? Just would like some easy replies

Thanks in advance to all.

[mcfish]

Hello all,
 
Just a question and yes i have read the article and thinking out loud so will this 10 year visa replace the current 1 year visa
or is it a luxury options for those who could afford it? Just would like some easy replies
Thanks in advance to all.

No



Yes

Sent from my SC-01D using Tapatalk

[nong38]

No doubt the Government thinks this is  a great scheme and the figures are bound to show its a winner, but, I have yet to meet anyone who is going to take up the new offer. I guess that the producers of the great new idea are not old enough to have experience of trying to get health insurance once you hit 60 at a realistic figure, a figure that rockets upward at an ever steeper rate with time.

[JB300]

No doubt the Government thinks this is  a great scheme and the figures are bound to show its a winner, but, I have yet to meet anyone who is going to take up the new offer. I guess that the producers of the great new idea are not old enough to have experience of trying to get health insurance once you hit 60 at a realistic figure, a figure that rockets upward at an ever steeper rate with time.

I'll be taking it up if...

1) Singapore will grant me one (highly unlikely as they currently won't grant me a Non-O on the basis of being over 50 never mind a Non-OA).

2) I can use my salary in Singapore (or money in the bank here) to meet the financial requirements.

3) I can use my corporate health insurance (this one is optional, don't mind paying for extra cover as long as it replaces the travel insurance I buy every trip).

Chances are that #1 ain't gonna happen & applying in the UK or Thailand won't allow me to do #2 so I guess I won't be taking it up [emoji17]

Seems to me that spending 1Million on a hassle free 20 year Thai Elite visa means that I #only# have to make 2.5% more (after tax) on 2Million vested to break even on leaving 3Million in the bank.

Ok so it's only 3Million year 1, 1.5Million years 2-5, 3Million year 5, 1.5 Million years 6-10 which equates to 18Million over 10 years so I need to make approx 4.15% over what I would earn in interest in a Thai bank to break even but with the restrictions on what you can spend the other 1.5Million on, it's probably worth taking a reasonable hit (add in VIP immigration queue at the airport a dozen times a year & definitely so).

Edit: just realised I'm comparing the new 10 year Visa with the 1Million for 20 years TE when I should be comparing it to the 800k for 10 years, but if you're going to spend 800k, you might as well go the whole hog & go for the 20 year option

[DiDiChok]

I've read all 78 pages posted so far and the enthusiasm for this visa is underwhelming.  While some can simply shrug off the ฿3,000,000 there's others who consider it a waste of their investment funds and the rest who haven't got that much lying about.

 

It seems to me that all that Thailand is trying to do is to be sure that long stayers aren't a burden, and that also seems only fair.  Insisting on holding on to wedges of cash is certainly one simple way of cracking that problem but it doesn't seem that beneficial to Thailand to me.  It only provides more liquidity to Thai Banks.  Maybe that's their big idea to help their economy?

 

Criticising visa types on offer is all very well, but I'd like to see some of the effort put into this thread put into designing a visa system that would suit us and suit Thailand too.  Come on people, any ideas?

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, Bob1million said:

Hello all,

 

Just a question and yes i have read the article and thinking out loud so will this 10 year visa replace the current 1 year visa

or is it a luxury options for those who could afford it? Just would like some easy replies

Thanks in advance to all.

 There is no definitive answer to your question yet. At this point we have opinions because the implementation details of this new visa have not yet been  finalized, and we don't even know for sure what date they will be. That said, if you want a PROBABLY, our top visa guru here ubonjoe has addressed that question on another thread, and he said he THINKS it will not replace, but like many of us, is still WAITING for more specific details.

 

At this point, anyone that tries to convince you they know for sure 100 percent ... DOES NOT. 

Cheers.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

54 minutes ago, nong38 said:

No doubt the Government thinks this is  a great scheme and the figures are bound to show its a winner, but, I have yet to meet anyone who is going to take up the new offer. I guess that the producers of the great new idea are not old enough to have experience of trying to get health insurance once you hit 60 at a realistic figure, a figure that rockets upward at an ever steeper rate with time.

Assuming it does NOT replace the current one year retirement status options, I would agree that this new scheme will not be popular relative to the current system.

[nong38]

The world of visas can change without warning, though we hope it wont. Taking out a 10 year visa may have some advantages right now but in the future, well who knows what the future holds?

As I see it it will not be replacing anything, it is just another option

We are all in different positions, what suits one will not suit another, so we need to look after number one in that respect, make sure you do whats right for you, dont be a burden on the country and look for a peaceful life.

[digibum]

5 hours ago, kharmabum said:

 

i'm american and was born in 1970, which means i won't be able to collect full social security benefits till i'm 70.  no one in my family has ever made it past 75 and most have kicked the bucket before reaching 70.

 

and alot of people think social security won't exist by 2030, or if it does, will be rendered useless by hyperinflation.

 

i admit getting old and realizing you don't have enough money to enjoy your life sucks.

but not nearly as much as working till you drop dead and never having the chance to enjoy life.

 

But I'm assuming you agree with the fact that most people are not financially ready to retire at 50 either.  Not only will you still be 20 years away from collecting full benefits but you won't even be able to collect partial benefits.  

 

And no offense to you but I don't think it's fair to society if someone plans their retirement based on kicking the bucket at an early age or the fatalistic view that social security won't be around to pay them.  If I'm understanding what you wrote correctly, it seems like you would feel that it's in your best interest to take social security benefits as early as possible and lock in the lowest amount in benefits because of your previously stated views about the amount of time you have and your confidence in the system to pay out.  

 

But if you happen to be around when you're 80 or 85, society is stuck with paying off your bad bet.  

 

Hey, you're probably a wonderful guy but I do have a problem with the whole philosophy of trying to time your retirement finances to a particular life expectancy.  It's not that you can take it with your or anything but when you're wrong it puts the burden on society to take care of you.  

 

 

 

  

[JB300]

It's a balance / judgement call we all have to make but he does make a fair point about working till you drop dead & not getting to enjoy what you've been working so hard for.

Don't have any stats to back it up but it feels like an extraordinary number of people drop dead within a few years of retiring from a full time / stressful job & don't get to enjoy their "Sunset Years".

[digibum]

5 hours ago, Thaidream said:

I am convinced that Social Security will be there for generations to come

. No Presidential Administration would dare cancel this entitlement to the American people. There are various ways to fund the shortfall either by delaying benefits a few years; taking the shortfall out of the general fund; or by raising taxes to make up the difference. Actually simply raising the level of wages taxed would do the trick. People make over $125K don't pay social security taxes on the amount over that level.

Believe it or not after my first trip to Thailand in 1967 I decided I would retire in Thailand when the time was ripe. I made sure I always paid into the Social Security system and worked for companies that had a private pension. I also made sure my family in Thailand would have some fixed assets- houses, condo, and cars. I never made more than $80K per year ever and often a lot less than that, but I worked hard and sacrificed and made it. Don't believe it can't be done. It all depends on what you want in life.

 

Wow, I agree with you on two points!  

 

1.  Nobody is going to take away social security.  Literally, there would be riots in the streets.  Plus old people are the only people who reliably vote.  Political suicide.  :-)  

 

That said, there's a fundamental flaw in SS in that younger people are paying the costs of older people and if you have more older people than younger people . . . well, the math doesn't work out.  Also, the system needs properly adjusted for increasing life expectancies and so on.  Also increasing the taxes to scale up based on income past $125K would help too.  Bottom line, there are a lot of changes that could be made to salvage the SS system.  

 

The only problem is that SS was previously funded in a certain manner and that way of funding it has run into trouble which gives some people the excuse to claim that it needs to be privatized so trillions of dollars can flood into equities and bonds.  Obviously, we all know who would advocate such drastic measures to fix relatively easy problems.  

 

The government needs to come clean with the people on how SS works.  Too many people think they're getting out what they paid in.   Most people get paid out far more than they paid in (especially lower income people).  They need to understand that so they can understand why benefits need to be tweaked from time to time.  

 

2.  It's not difficult to retire with more than SS if you actually plan for retirement.  Like I said previously, you can do 20 in the military and get a pension, get out and do another 20 in federal, state, or local government (police, firefighters, mailman, etc) and get another pension.  That gets you to 60 years old with 2 pensions plus you get social security.  

 

Not only is it wise to plan for retirement but diversifying where your money is coming from is just as important.  Working a job with a private pension, 401K, IRA, Roth IRA, paying down your primary residence mortgage over 30 years, etc, etc.  And many retirement savings vehicles are protected from legal judgements so it's a great way to protect wealth as well.  

 

It may take sacrifice but I would rather enjoy a few less perks today and know I have options later in life.  

 

 

 

[Jingthing]

Most retired expats are NOT Americans. Could y'all MOVE the American specific stuff that has nothing to do with this topic to the HOME COUNTRY forum? Geez!

[digibum]

10 minutes ago, JB300 said:

It's a balance / judgement call we all have to make but he does make a fair point about working till you drop dead & not getting to enjoy what you've been working so hard for.

Don't have any stats to back it up but it feels like an extraordinary number of people drop dead within a few years of retiring from a full time / stressful job & don't get to enjoy their "Sunset Years".

 

You touch on a good point that I think is worth discussing.  Why retire?  

 

I don't plan on retiring in the traditional sense.  My sources of income may become more passive in nature but I really can't see a time in my life where I want to do absolutely nothing.  

 

That doesn't mean that if you're a welder that you have to weld until you drop dead but why wouldn't you try to find a way to monetize a hobby or go off in a different direction to something that gave you some joy?  

 

I mean, be a welder for 40 years, retire . . . whatever that means in this context, and then become a dolphin trainer if that was something you always wanted to do.  Or teach welding if you like passing on your 40 years of knowledge.  

 

Back in the day, many older people used to become volunteers.  In fact, many still do.  Most of the people at the polling stations when you vote are generally older and not getting paid.  Many get involved as volunteers in charities.  I know people who volunteer to run errands for older people who can't, knowing that it could one day be them who is immobile. I list of volunteer opportunities is endless.  

 

Why not do something that pays rather than volunteer?  Most of the volunterring opportunities arose because once someone retired there weren't many employment or other opportunities out there for them.  Today, there are a lot more opportunities available for those seeking them.  

 

My point is, the idea that at a certain age you say F'it and sit on your porch in Issan or drink your life away in a bar, was never what retirement was supposed to be about.  

 

Like you said, people should enjoy their sunset years and I think there's a fundamental difference between those who enjoy those sunset years by doing something and those who see retirement as a finish line after which they do nothing.

 

I truly believe that is why so many people die so soon after retiring.  They aren't physically or mentally engaged.  They're not contributing to society in some way.   

 

Retirement should not be the end.  It should be a beginning.  Find something you enjoy doing now that the pressure to earn is lessened and pursue that.  Why not go back to school and learn a trade or skill that you could never have supported yourself doing when you were working towards retirement but is now a far better option than sitting around doing nothing?  

 

[digibum]

15 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Most retired expats are NOT Americans. Could y'all MOVE the American specific stuff that has nothing to do with this topic to the HOME COUNTRY forum? Geez!

 

Can't everyone just become American?  It would be so much easier on us if you did.  Thanks.  

[Scott]

Continued discussion of US social security benefits will result in the removal of your post and possible suspension.   The topic is about the 10-year visa.  It is not country-specific and such discussions, as mentioned in an earlier post, can be done in the Home Country forum.