Govt approves 10 year visas for foreigners over 50

[newnative]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

 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.

Once again, and at a higher volume for the hard of hearing, if you are TRULY WORRIED about your visa status, what are you doing here?  If you are TRULY WORRIED, march yourself down to Immigration tomorrow morning and tell them I am a retired citizen of X country, here on an X visa.  Does this new 10 year visa option change my visa status or the conditions I have been using?  Immigration does a lot of retirement visas and 1 year extensions.  They WILL have the answers to this  ROUTINE inquiry--it's what they do.   In my opinion the 'implementation details' of this new, optional visa are beside the point--it's only going to be available for 14 countries.   So far,  2 of us have been to Immigration and got the answer that nothing is changing but if you are TRULY WORRIED, don't take it from us,  check for yourself. 

[Jingthing]

12 minutes ago, newnative said:

Once again, and at a higher volume for the hard of hearing, if you are TRULY WORRIED about your visa status, what are you doing here?  If you are TRULY WORRIED, march yourself down to Immigration tomorrow morning and tell them I am a retired citizen of X country, here on an X visa.  Does this new 10 year visa option change my visa status or the conditions I have been using?  Immigration does a lot of retirement visas and 1 year extensions.  They WILL have the answers to this  ROUTINE inquiry--it's what they do.   In my opinion the 'implementation details' of this new, optional visa are beside the point--it's only going to be available for 14 countries.   So far,  2 of us have been to Immigration and got the answer that nothing is changing but if you are TRULY WORRIED, don't take it from us,  check for yourself. 

I've already responded to the same absurd BAITING order to march to immigration before to ask about a visa option that DOES NOT EXIST YET.

 

Go back and read my previous response and please do not pollute this thread with such repetitive low value, personalized TRIPE. 

 

Actually, I can well understand why this thread has gone off the rails into repetitive nothingburgerness. That is because people that are approaching this RATIONALLY are WAITING for more official information about the IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS of this new visa to be officially announced. We don't even know when that will be. It could be a few days. It could be months or longer. So there really isn't likely anything NEW of credible substance to be discussed until that occurs. 

 

There are so many basic things we don't know and can't know YET. Such as does this replace O-A? Will this new thing, O-A or not, be something people can apply for IN Thailand, unlike O-A. Nobody can definitively answer this stuff yet. DEAL WITH IT. 

Edited November 29, 2016 by Jingthing

[Strange]

JT needs a xanax ^^

[tropo]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

JT needs a xanax ^^

LOL> he's way out there with the fairies.

 

Imagine his dilemma. He can't stay here due to the new, tough visa requirements, but he can't live in the US because of the new president.

Edited November 29, 2016 by tropo

[mcfish]

Once again, and at a higher volume for the hard of hearing, if you are TRULY WORRIED about your visa status, what are you doing here?  If you are TRULY WORRIED, march yourself down to Immigration tomorrow morning and tell them I am a retired citizen of X country, here on an X visa.  Does this new 10 year visa option change my visa status or the conditions I have been using?  Immigration does a lot of retirement visas and 1 year extensions.  They WILL have the answers to this  ROUTINE inquiry--it's what they do.   In my opinion the 'implementation details' of this new, optional visa are beside the point--it's only going to be available for 14 countries.   So far,  2 of us have been to Immigration and got the answer that nothing is changing but if you are TRULY WORRIED, don't take it from us,  check for yourself. 

He is to scared they will tell him the truth and then he will have nothing to whine about. Either that or he is to scared to leave his room in case he misses a post on TV

Sent from my SC-01D using Tapatalk

[Scott]

Even though some posters engage in banter, please keep it civil.   Not everyone is open to this type of posting.  

 

[tuktuktuk]

17 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

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.

You've got to be kidding. Usually you have insightful comments. I frequently disagree, but this time you're way out in left field. So, you think we should ask drug dealers and drug addicts what kind of drug enforcement legislation should be established?  Should we also ask prospective illegal immigrants what sorts of restrictions and policies we should have on immigration?

[Jingthing]

16 minutes ago, tuktuktuk said:

You've got to be kidding. Usually you have insightful comments. I frequently disagree, but this time you're way out in left field. So, you think we should ask drug dealers and drug addicts what kind of drug enforcement legislation should be established?  Should we also ask prospective illegal immigrants what sorts of restrictions and policies we should have on immigration?

So retired expats are like drug addicts?

Let me think upon that one!

 

I see this like a buyer's market / seller's market kind of thing.

 

Most nations offer no retirement visas whatsover.

 

Then there is a class of them that judge applicants on a case by case basis with no set in stone financial rules. They might look into more humanistic factors such as a personal connection to the nation. 

 

Then there are the ones that fit into classes, more or less, mostly about finance.

 

Very selective.

Moderately selective.

Not very selective.

 

Let's face it. Thailand has been not very selective, but in return for the easy in, they have never offered any kind of residency security, no matter how long you're here. Always on a short leash. This new thing, not yet finalized, is moderately selective with a longer leash.

 

Assuming Thailand wants some retired expats for economic benefit, keep in mind they are in competition for this potential pool of expats with other nations. Yes, it's not rocket science to understand they would prefer that more of them be wealthier than not. We're not "invited" because we smell good. 

 

 

Edited November 29, 2016 by Jingthing

[anotheruser]

Said the guy that is going to jump ship as soon as he can get medicare.

[tuktuktuk]

27 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

So retired expats are like drug addicts?

Let me think upon that one!

 

I see this like a buyer's market / seller's market kind of thing.

 

Most nations offer no retirement visas whatsover.

 

Then there is a class of them that judges applicants on a case by case basis.

 

Then there are the ones that fit into classes, more or less. 

 

Very selective.

Moderately selective.

Not very selective.

 

Let's face it. Thailand has been not very selective, but in return for the easy in, they have never offered any kind of residency security, no matter how long you're here. Always on a short leash. This new thing, not yet finalized, is moderately selective with a longer leash.

 

 

I meant no offense. Only quoting boomer'.

 

Everyone seems to think Thailand should see the wisdom of having large numbers of well-to-do retired foreigners. My experience from traveling pretty extensively is that foreigners are generally not welcome anywhere, money or no money.  I certainly don't feel welcome in Thailand. Being financially well off seems to worsen it. 

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, tuktuktuk said:

I meant no offense. Only quoting boomer'.

 

Everyone seems to think Thailand should see the wisdom of having large numbers of well-to-do retired foreigners. My experience from traveling pretty extensively is that foreigners are generally not welcome anywhere, money or no money.  I certainly don't feel welcome in Thailand. Being financially well off seems to worsen it. 

I'm talking about government policies. Not warm and fuzzy stuff. Retired expats like tourism means hard currency that does help  the Thai economy. Tourism is more important. Yes, they could lose us without a significant hit. 

[Jingthing]

Compare and contrast the Thai system to the Philippine system. It seems like Thailand with this new thing has copied from both Malaysia and the Philippines. Also not the MUCH LOWER financial requirements for the Philippines, except for under age 50:

 

http://www.pra.gov.ph/main/srrv_program?page=1

Edited November 29, 2016 by Jingthing

[jpinx]

On 28/11/2016 at 10:49 PM, 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.  

 

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.  

 

 

 

 

Neatly encapsulating what every farang should know about living in Thailand, but most actually don't *want* to know because those simple facts burst their little bubble. 

[Thaidream]

Digibum- your post may make sense if you are living in America or another Western country- but it makes no sense in Thailand. Thai people do not think as you do and never will. A foreigner married to a Thai is expected to have a certain number of assets and expects to have a house/condo and car.  All the economic planning you insist on continually providing has no bearing on the Thai psyche. Thai people do not plan for lengthy futures. The problem so many foreigners have when coming to Thailand is that they do not understand how Thai people work or live and that is why they end up unhappy. Just try explaining  your economic philosophy to a Thai girl  who you plan on marrying and her family and see the reaction and I am talking about educated Thais.

The new Visa concept is an example of that- it's concept as an option is OK but it is based upon Thai assumptions  without an undestanding of the Western reality. Few current retirees can afford it as they have their money in assets not cash and their pensions are based on salaries started 40 years ago much lower than today.  The new scheme will be affordable to about 10-20% of the pool.  If it replaces the current O-A visa there will be few new retirees ever coming to Thailand and it will go the way of the Elite Visa which when first set up garnered about 200-300 takers. It had to be rethought and repackaged.

 

We could go on and on about economic theory and planing- but none of it will ever work in Thailand- simply because Thai people do not think like you and do not plan for much of anything. I say this not out disrespect for them but as a fact of life.

[newnative]

7 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I've already responded to the same absurd BAITING order to march to immigration before to ask about a visa option that DOES NOT EXIST YET.

 

Go back and read my previous response and please do not pollute this thread with such repetitive low value, personalized TRIPE. 

 

Actually, I can well understand why this thread has gone off the rails into repetitive nothingburgerness. That is because people that are approaching this RATIONALLY are WAITING for more official information about the IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS of this new visa to be officially announced. We don't even know when that will be. It could be a few days. It could be months or longer. So there really isn't likely anything NEW of credible substance to be discussed until that occurs. 

 

There are so many basic things we don't know and can't know YET. Such as does this replace O-A? Will this new thing, O-A or not, be something people can apply for IN Thailand, unlike O-A. Nobody can definitively answer this stuff yet. DEAL WITH IT. 

Once again, missing my point.  Worried retirees checking at Immigration don't need to ask about A NEW VISA TYPE.  They just need to ask, ARE THERE ANY CHANGES TO MY CURRENT VISA?  They don't need IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS about an optional visa that is available for only 14 countries.  They just need to be reassured that nothing has changed with their current visa--that is what is important. 

[Thaidream]

The Immigration is the proper place to ask if there are any changes to a person's current extension an if there are any new requirements for that extension. Jomtien has already indicated on 2 separate reports there were no changes. I shall accept that unlss further informed of a change.

[mikebell]

Anyone want to buy my house - I'll take four million then I can afford to stay here.  Failing that a move to Cambodia and leave the wife here.

[nong38]

I got my new visa les than 2 weeks ago and nothing was mentioned to me about any changes coming up, everything was as per usual.

This new scheme is in addition to the one year visa for those who it suits and unless you have access to an ongoing health cover maybe from a previous employment you will find this is where you come unstuck as when you get over 60 you become an increasingly bad risk.

For most its probably best to stick with the 1 year Retirement Visa and hope they dont make any detrimental changes.

I cannot see the powers that be giving us all the boot but you never know, I suspect there are lot of nervous ex pats around Europe at the moment but I guess they will come to an agreement, but, you never know, predicting the future is a shot in the dark.

Has Nostridamassus had anything to say?

[SpokaneAl]

I got my new visa les than 2 weeks ago and nothing was mentioned to me about any changes coming up, everything was as per usual.
This new scheme is in addition to the one year visa for those who it suits and unless you have access to an ongoing health cover maybe from a previous employment you will find this is where you come unstuck as when you get over 60 you become an increasingly bad risk.
For most its probably best to stick with the 1 year Retirement Visa and hope they dont make any detrimental changes.
I cannot see the powers that be giving us all the boot but you never know, I suspect there are lot of nervous ex pats around Europe at the moment but I guess they will come to an agreement, but, you never know, predicting the future is a shot in the dark.
Has Nostridamassus had anything to say?

It sounds like you obtained an extension of stay based on retirement and not a visa.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Langsuan Man]

58 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

The Immigration is the proper place to ask if there are any changes to a person's current extension an if there are any new requirements for that extension. Jomtien has already indicated on 2 separate reports there were no changes. I shall accept that unlss further informed of a change.

 

In the real world you would be correct but in a country where every Immigration office is run like a fiefdom and every Consulate and Embassy make up their own rules,  real verifiable information is impossible to obtain

 

How often is something reported here at TV and the first refrain is:  What Immigration Office are you talking about  

 

This should not matter, all offices should follow the same rules but we all know that it doesn't happen so we are left with a thousand questions every time the Thai government comes out with something 

[Thaidream]

No doubt about it- however, Jomtien and Chaengwattana are the accurate ones. the rest are a mismatch of whatever goes that day- and who is in charge.

[JLCrab]

2 hours ago, Thaidream said:

<snip>.

The new Visa concept is an example of that- it's concept as an option is OK but it is based upon Thai assumptions  without an undestanding of the Western reality. <snip2>

The current head of the Visa Division at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was the former Vice General Counsel at the Royal Thai Consulate in Los Angeles. Maybe the problem here is that the farang community are basing their assumptions without an understanding of the Thai reality.

[newnative]

41 minutes ago, Langsuan Man said:

 

In the real world you would be correct but in a country where every Immigration office is run like a fiefdom and every Consulate and Embassy make up their own rules,  real verifiable information is impossible to obtain

 

How often is something reported here at TV and the first refrain is:  What Immigration Office are you talking about  

 

This should not matter, all offices should follow the same rules but we all know that it doesn't happen so we are left with a thousand questions every time the Thai government comes out with something 

You make some valid points, although I don't think correct information is 'impossible' to obtain.   I think the more complex the immigration question is, the more likely you might get differing answers.  In this case, we are asking a basic question, any changes in my visa?  So far two of us have taken the time to go and ask the question and we got the same answer, no changes.  We have 70 some pages of worry here. If you're worried that your leg is broken, you go to the hospital, not TVF.  If you're worried that your visa is broken, you go to Immigration, not TVF.

[tropo]

2 hours ago, Thaidream said:

The Immigration is the proper place to ask if there are any changes to a person's current extension an if there are any new requirements for that extension. Jomtien has already indicated on 2 separate reports there were no changes. I shall accept that unlss further informed of a change.

 

 

Jomtien has a very helpful Farang liaison officer. He would be the one to ask. If there is any change coming for yearly retirement extensions for 14 nationalities, he would know.

 

How difficult could it be - he lives in Jomtien.

 

I'm not worried, so I won't be making the trip and appreciate that 2 members have already been down there to ask.

Edited November 30, 2016 by tropo

[jpinx]

8 minutes ago, JLCrab said:

The current head of the Visa Division at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was the former Vice General Counsel at the Royal Thai Consulate in Los Angeles. Maybe the problem here is that the farang community are basing their assumptions without an understanding of the Thai reality.

Which fact might indicate the reason for some lack of understanding of pensioners situations from other countries.  It'd be interesting to know the breakdown of the numbers of one-year retirement extensions by nationality in 2016.

[Thaidream]

He may have experience in the Thai Consulate in Los Angeles but I doubt he has much understanding of the economic reality of the United States and its citizens.  In addition, there are not many who understand Thais and how they think. That is for a variety of reasons not germane to this thread.

 The new proposed Visa will not get many takers- the requirements are too stiff and no one is going to sell their assets to move to Thailand to put money in a Thai bank. If the Thai reality continues to push a visa which most people will not take up- then it is what it is- very few takers.

 

If Thailand wants to assimilate foreigners a long stay Visa is fine -but the proposed financials are too high and the insurance requirement  is not going to work. A better plan would to allow all foreigners with a one year extension to buy into the Thai social security system which provides medical care.  In  addition the current one year financials are fair but proposed visa is not well thought out.

[jpinx]

5 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

He may have experience in the Thai Consulate in Los Angeles but I doubt he has much understanding of the economic reality of the United States and its citizens.  In addition, there are not many who understand Thais and how they think. That is for a variety of reasons not germane to this thread.

 The new proposed Visa will not get many takers- the requirements are too stiff and no one is going to sell their assets to move to Thailand to put money in a Thai bank. If the Thai reality continues to push a visa which most people will not take up- then it is what it is- very few takers.

 

If Thailand wants to assimilate foreigners a long stay Visa is fine -but the proposed financials are too high and the insurance requirement  is not going to work. A better plan would to allow all foreigners with a one year extension to buy into the Thai social security system which provides medical care.  In  addition the current one year financials are fair but proposed visa is not well thought out.

Valid points.  Being "locked out" of the rather minimalist healthcare system is a big deterrent.  If there is a serious effort to get more people with means into Thailand, they need to provide some form of medical insurance with a range of hospitals to choose from.  Anyone over 60 is going to have this as a first priority -- sensible health care.  The rest of it is just numbers - but they can forget attracting real money with the paltry interest rates available. 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Perhaps it's because they think   [ ]   that there are great masses of wealthy farangs out in the world who want to move to live in Thailand but have not done so yet because of the current visa rules (which of course already include Thai Elite)?

 

Or maybe they think there are equally great numbers of farangs already living here on the year to year extensions who have nothing better to do with 3 million baht that lock it up in a Thai bank account earning next to nothing, and then face restrictions later on how the money can be spent?

 

Or maybe they are testing the truth-in-advertising awareness of the farang community to see if they can tell when a supposed 10-year visa isn't actually a 10-year visa, but instead, really a 5-year visa with the possibility (but not guarantee) of another 5-year visa down the road?

 

Or probably, more likely, they're just not thinking at all!!!

Edited November 30, 2016 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[JLCrab]

So what I gather from these discussions is that:

 

The 3 million in the bank option is stupid.

The 100K baht monthly income option is stupid.

The health insurance requirement is stupid.

The 90 day reporting requirement (which is part of the Immigration Act) is stupid.

 

At a certain point , when persons who are not responsible for these decisions claim that everything is stupid, then I get the feeling something is missing -- and I don't claim to know what it is.

[Thaidream]

I wouldn't use the word stupid.  I would use the term uninformed or a lack of adequate research. Some of the requirements  are based upon xenophobia.

-The 90 day report is based upon  'security' which is fine. The US used to have it years ago but discontinued it because they knew if did not provide real security.  There are several ways to do it in Thailand and it is no real burden

 

-The new Visa scheme and  requirements as we uderstand them are based upon requirements that are not feasible due to reasons already mentioned.  They can go ahead and put it into effect but if the goal is to get medical retirees to Thailand- there are other options that can be developed that will actually get the people here. I can understand the insurance requirement for people but if someone is coming for medical treatment- they either have the money or the insurance already.

The pool is narrow and the actual numbers who will come even less.

 

-The current retirement requirement is fine- 65K per month or 800K in the bank. Most individuals salaries and pensions have been stagnant over the last 10 years and have not increased when inflation is counted in. Raising the requirement would be a huge mistake as it would eliminate a large number of the current retirees (although all would likely be grandfathered) and limit the pool of future retirees. At some point as current retirees in Thailand die or leave- you will be left with a  small number of people which will affect the economy that caters to foreigners. Will it cause a decrease in GDP- of course not but it will affect many Thais whose livelihood is  contingent on the foreign community.

If the Thai Government wants to solve any exposure to unpaid medical care- it should allow any foreigner on a one year extension to buy into the social security scheme or establish a new insurance scheme for foreigners. There are other countries in the World who allow foreigners into their National Health Program to include Mexico and the UK.