Only 2 Visa Exempt Entries At Border Crossings Per Calendar Year Effective Dec 31st

[visarunner]

2 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

That is what I expected.

But was not sure about those not on a bilateral agreement.

Odd they did not mention Cambodians that get a 14 day entry from a bilateral agreement.

Brunei is not on the list that get a standard visa exempt entry.

Russia is on a bilateral agreement not the vise exempt scheme.

Malaysia is exempt from the rule as mentioned in the ministerial order.

See here for who gets what. http://www.consular.go.th/main/th/customize/62281-Summary-of-Countries-and-Territories-entitled-for.html

my update was done for nationalities who use visa run, to break it further down it would further complicate things and confuse more people. 

 

[JackThompson]

16 hours ago, LivinLOS said:

Ridiculous.. Talking about 40k like its something the Thai economy should have its begging bowls out for.. 

 

Thats a big night out in bangkok.. Its a weekend spend on Phuket.. Thats the people they want, thats the people that will buy a elite visa simply as they want the abslute freedom to not think about being told no.. 

 

I understand that can annoy someone who thinks 40k is important, but the cold hard truth is, its not.. Thinking it is, or worse thinking it will be going forward in another 5 years or decade, is where the real source of the problem is. If 40k is your anticipated budget go back to the west while you still can and make some more !! 

 

Of course "they want" everyone who comes in to be big spenders; no harm in catering to them - perhaps by making the investment-visa multi-entry by default, and handing out those elite limo-rides and other perks for anyone who invests $50M+ in the country.  See how casinos treat their high rollers - they don't make you pay 20-times the going rate for your hotel-suite (like the Elite Visa vs the affordable visas offered by other countries in the region) - they give you your hotel-suite for free and make it easy to stay.

 

But casinos don't stop the many-more others from blowing their "measly $100" - because that would be stupid, given how many more smaller-spenders there are.  In Thailand's case, there is no reason to loose many times the "high-rollers" total-spend by throwing out the far more lucrative section of the expat-pie - smaller spenders in larger numbers - especially considering all the empty condos and small businesses shutting down, who need their patronage.

 

If you had a store, would you rather receive 10 sales for $1000 or 10,000 sales for $100?  I would prefer the $1M over the $10K, myself. 

 

Also, you get MORE jobs per non-elite dollar than you do per elite-dollar, as the smaller spenders each need a separate place to stay, and tend to spend in smaller-businesses, who have more employees per baht of net income than larger ones (less efficient, but better for employment). 

 

Which of these creates more jobs and money-flow within Thailand - One expensive necklace-sale of 1M Baht, OR 5K to 10K separate "eat out" sales? 

 

And where does the income go?  Smaller Thai small-business or small condo owners spend a higher percentage of their incomes back into the Thai economy - vs income for the wealthy, which is more likely to be invested overseas.

 

13 hours ago, LivinLOS said:

The people this will effects are single, long stayers, under 50, who have not enough budget for an elite visa, or even to fly in and out.. Thailand is being quite clear in what it wants to make less appealing. 

 

The airports are unusable to under 50 long stayers using the Visa Exempt scheme.  Every entry is high-risk of detention and forced to fly-out.  Do you remember liking this post?

So the "or even to fly in and out" is simply not true. 

 

It also affects even shorter term travelers who travel by land and want to "see" the countries they visit, instead of flying over them.   No more using Thailand as a hub - they will need to use Cambodia, now, and make one pass across Thailand to Myanmar or Malaysia (not both), then back to Cambodia - then cannot return without setting fixed-dates for travel on air-tickets.

 

Why not have fixed travel-dates?  What if they find something interesting somewhere along the way, and want to stay there for a few days?  Nope - "ticket says leave now" - like orders from the boss, back home.  Your vacation is now "regimented and scheduled" like a job.  Its like those groups of people who think "seeing a country" is following a guy around with a little flag on a stick.

 

The defunct "180-day rule" made a lot more sense for Visa Exempts than this one.  Not sure why they didn't just bring that back.

[LivinLOS]

Thailand doesnt operate by precise rules.. It operates by decentralized power and decisions.. And by using a system of pressure to make it less and less comfortable to continue to do what they dont want. 

 

The consistent and clear messages of the last few years is increased tightening of all the budget options.. This isnt me saying it, the evidence is clear.. Yes there is a extremely small (say 1 in a 100 small) legitimate visitors like the poster coming over from Laos a couple of times a month, who may be effected.. But in the big picture its really not likely to deny tourists entry.. What it will do is make it less pleasant for the super cheap long stayers trying to eek out living on a shoestring. Seems clearly thats the intention. 

 

Normal travellers, even ones who wish to come for large parts of the year.. Should get an METV.. Casual tourists wont see this.. 

 

The very reason this is happening, is the constant and continual trying to game the system that some long stayers do... Now everyone suffers because they simply dont accept that they are not gifted a class to live here as they want, given they refuse to pay the price that is asked to do so. 

[buick]

19 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:

Normal travellers, even ones who wish to come for large parts of the year.. Should get an METV.

 

an METV from the USA requires a letter from your employer (i assume to confirm you have a job).  not many people can take 6-8 weeks (or more) away from work.  so it seems like the likely candidate for an METV would be someone between jobs.  but they can't qualify.  if you visit thailand once a year for several months, you just get the SETV and do a few visa exempt entries.  i believe the visa exempt entries are less of an issue when you start off with an SETV from your home country (only speculation).  i'm not sure what requirements there are for an METV from other countries (meaning those outside the USA may be able to get an METV without an employer letter).

 

and i say this somewhat jokingly but, what if you are someone who could leave work for several months and keep up with work remotely.  then are you violating the 'no work' part of the METV ? 

 

[buick]

57 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

The defunct "180-day rule" made a lot more sense for Visa Exempts than this one.  Not sure why they didn't just bring that back.

 

i agree.  that made total sense to me.  i was planning to set up a second residence in danang when that policy came into place.  but it didn't last long.

[RiverT]

I heard that even SETVs are only maximum of twice per Calendar year from same consulate. True or false? Another variation I heard was its only 2 in a row from same consulate.  Heard both these for Penang.

[buick]

1 hour ago, LivinLOS said:

the constant and continual trying to game the system that some long stayers do.

 

as i noted in an earlier response to you, i fall into the category you describe (until just recently anyway, as i recently turned 50).  you and others keep talking about 'gaming, loopholes, forbidden', etc...  but i was stopped by immigration at suvarnabhumi a few years ago.  in thailand too long, etc...  i told them my 'story' and they said to get tourist visas.  they said nothing about 'buy the elite visa'.  if they had said 'buy the elite visa' and i did something else, that would be gaming, loophole, etc...  i, and i assume others, are just following what immigration told me to my face.  i told them the truth, they told me what to do, and i did it.  no gaming.

 

i think TV is set up for members to help each other, etc...  and some of the info you provide is not quite accurate.  reading your material (and many others, not just you), someone under 50 (wanting to stay most of the year) would feel obliged to buy the elite visa.  and they don't have to.  i'm living proof.  get your SETV in your home country.  make visa runs by air and stay away for a week or two before re-entry.  when you go back to home country to get SETV, make sure you stay at least a month, two would be bettter, before returning to thailand.  if you don't like that type of schedule, buy the elite visa.

 

 

 

 

 

[ubonjoe]

7 minutes ago, RiverT said:

I heard that even SETVs are only maximum of twice per Calendar year from same consulate. True or false? Another variation I heard was its only 2 in a row from same consulate.  Heard both these for Penang.

There are some embassies and consulate that may limit it 2 visas in a year. Some like the Paris embassy will not issue another visa until you are of the country 90 days.

Penang will do 3 visas back to back.

[JackThompson]

8 minutes ago, RiverT said:

I heard that even SETVs are only maximum of twice per Calendar year from same consulate. True or false? Another variation I heard was its only 2 in a row from same consulate.  Heard both these for Penang.

 

Each consulate makes up its own rules, which change.  The most frequent 'rule' seems to be on the order of 3 or 4 tourist-visas, visible in one's passport, per consulate - though some have exceeded this, and others reported problems at #3.  What effect visas from other consulates have is another foggy-question, as it seems to be a factor sometimes, but not others.

 

Adding to the confusion, some agents (Penang) will tell you you must pay a higher-fee because of reasons which are not consulate policy.  That said, the consulate's policy seems to have varied significantly during in the past year - some folks were denied, who would have sailed through the month before, then others sailed through with similar visa-histories a month later - so it is difficult to say what the "real policy" is and/or what factors were used in those decisions.

[RiverT]

"Each consulate makes up its own rules, which change.  " This is the recipe for chaos. Its weird that its not more standardised. At least one would be free of the uncertainty. I guess at Penang the main overriding factor is size of accompanying agency bribe.

[buick]

i hope i'm not going to get labeled a 'troll' after so many posts in short period.  but let me remind others of this report (link below).  he posted pictures of his visa exempt entries and he was out of country approx. 10 days each time.  and he did quite a few 'back to back' entries and that was after a nearly two year overstay !!! (but cleared before the blacklist policy).  when you fly out and return same day, or next day, it doesn't look all that good.  who knows, things could change next week, all we can do is present past history of success, etc..  and go from there.

 

 

[LivinLOS]

1 hour ago, buick said:

 

as i noted in an earlier response to you, i fall into the category you describe (until just recently anyway, as i recently turned 50).  you and others keep talking about 'gaming, loopholes, forbidden', etc...  but i was stopped by immigration at suvarnabhumi a few years ago.  in thailand too long, etc...  i told them my 'story' and they said to get tourist visas.  they said nothing about 'buy the elite visa'.  if they had said 'buy the elite visa' and i did something else, that would be gaming, loophole, etc...  i, and i assume others, are just following what immigration told me to my face.  i told them the truth, they told me what to do, and i did it.  no gaming.

 

i think TV is set up for members to help each other, etc...  and some of the info you provide is not quite accurate.  reading your material (and many others, not just you), someone under 50 (wanting to stay most of the year) would feel obliged to buy the elite visa.  and they don't have to.  i'm living proof.  get your SETV in your home country.  make visa runs by air and stay away for a week or two before re-entry.  when you go back to home country to get SETV, make sure you stay at least a month, two would be bettter, before returning to thailand.  if you don't like that type of schedule, buy the elite visa.

 

 

If you were stopped 'a few years ago' the 5 year elite visa was probably not an option.. I always used to rail that Thailand had a huge gap for younger high net worth types to retire early, then they came up with exactly the visa that solved that need.. 

 

Secondly, if you think some man on the counter immigration official is really a authority on what to do then clearly we disagree.. Immigration officials used to tell me to put 1000b in my passport once a month.. Then they told me to go to do border runs.. Guess what ?? They are both uncaring and often uninformed as to what is coming. Living here as a long stayer, on short stay visas, by repeating the processes to get them without any intention or desire to leave, only being forced to by visa durations, is 'gaming the system'. 

 

Its some people gaming that way, which is causing the inconvenience for everyone else as they attempt to design a way to restrict that process, yet not damage their tourist economy. 

[buick]

15 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:

If you were stopped 'a few years ago' the 5 year elite visa was probably not an option.

 

i say this jokingly, but i think you are 'gaming' your response !!!  it was 4 or 5 years ago (when i was stopped) and there may not have been a 5 year, but there was some type of 'hassle free, long term elite card'.  i can't remember all the details but there was an option to 'pay and stay'. 

19 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:

Living here as a long stayer, on short stay visas, by repeating the processes to get them without any intention or desire to leave, only being forced to by visa durations, is 'gaming the system'. 

 

i'm with you to some extent on this.  if someone is staying all year long, other than a few days out of country, then the 'gaming' label seems accurate.  but people under 50, that wish to travel using thailand as their home base, shouldn't be put in the same bucket.  i enjoy the travel and look forward to it.  if i tried to do the same with USA as my home base, the jet lag would kill me.  i enjoy southeast asia and have friends that live in hong kong and the PI.  just hoping you can acknowledge that some of us are not working, enjoying the travel, and not abusing the system.  think of how many people there are 'paying to stay' via an 'agent'.

 

27 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:

Secondly, if you think some man on the counter immigration official is really a authority on what to do then clearly we disagree.

 

for what it is worth, i was taken from the counter to an area with a desk.  i assume it was some kind of supervisor section.  but i agree that who has the real authority is somewhat questionable.

 

[Lee4Life]

On ‎12‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 6:52 PM, Jip99 said:

Can't see an issue here, and I really do wonder why people with visas suddenly become concerned.

 

I live in NongKhai and have many friends on the Lao side who come across and shop at Tesco, go to Udon for their healthcare, come visit us and so forth, maybe that's why I care.

    Besides...people with valid visas still don't like to see every door closed in case something goes south with their visas. Let's say for example that you have a valid retirement visa and then they up the financial requirement beyond your means. Then you would like to think that you would have a bit of time to explore your options or to sell off belongings and get ready for the move back home.

 

         Don't think it could never happen! 

[LivinLOS]

2 hours ago, buick said:

i'm with you to some extent on this.  if someone is staying all year long, other than a few days out of country, then the 'gaming' label seems accurate.  but people under 50, that wish to travel using thailand as their home base, shouldn't be put in the same bucket.  i enjoy the travel and look forward to it. 

 

The point is.. how much of a home base ?? I would say anyone renting accommodation monthly, is stretching the definitions of 'tourist'.. Even then, someone who is using that Thai home, as a base to travel around the region, as a tourist.. Before returning to thier country of actual residence each year.. I really doubt they are going to be out of options. Sure maybe they will have to think a little about the tourist visas they need, maybe they should apply for a METV (and while I understand an employers letter may be one of the things requested... I have yet to read of anyone with ample funds and the rest of the requirements for the application denied one because they didnt have a job.. I think thats using the instructions to make a fake problem) but not out of options.. In short I dont see this effecting those actual tourists who are " are not working, enjoying the travel, and not abusing the system" in any significant way (the few expats living in other countries close to borders sadly may get caught in this). 

 

The people who it will effect, are the ones who are gaming the system.. The closer to that 'gaming' the more likely this is to effect them. 

[KhonKaenKowboy]

1 hour ago, Lee4Life said:

 

I live in NongKhai and have many friends on the Lao side who come across and shop at Tesco, go to Udon for their healthcare, come visit us and so forth, maybe that's why I care.

    Besides...people with valid visas still don't like to see every door closed in case something goes south with their visas. Let's say for example that you have a valid retirement visa and then they up the financial requirement beyond your means. Then you would like to think that you would have a bit of time to explore your options or to sell off belongings and get ready for the move back home.

 

         Don't think it could never happen! 

People were grandfathered the last time they raised it from 200 to 800k.

[buick]

On 12/23/2016 at 1:29 AM, LivinLOS said:

Sure maybe they will have to think a little about the tourist visas they need, maybe they should apply for a METV (and while I understand an employers letter may be one of the things requested... I have yet to read of anyone with ample funds and the rest of the requirements for the application denied one because they didnt have a job.. I think thats using the instructions to make a fake problem) but not out of options..

 

hey i read through some of the METV thread on here.  thankfully i didn't have to go through all 83 pages before i saw a report from a guy that said the LA consulate (USA) approved an METV for him w/o an employer letter.  he was retired (i forget his age) and asked the consulate about it, they said to indicate he was retired on the application.  when i first got tourist visa's at the LA consulate, the website said they required plane tickets and hotel res.  but in reality they didn't, never gave them the info and they didn't ask for it.  so you are right about the METV being a 'solution' for the under 50 crowd to stay somewhat long term in thailand (i had said your info was inaccurate before so i stand corrected but i was just reading from the website).

[Mister Fixit]

On 12/17/2016 at 7:39 PM, ukrules said:

 

I suspect he was referring to a 30 day exempt entry + a 30 day extension on a G7 passport.

 

 

I don't think he meat an 'extension' unless things have changed.  I thought once the 30 days was up, you left on a border run and got another one.  Has something changed?  I have a vague feeling it may have.  

[ubonjoe]

1 minute ago, Mister Fixit said:

 

 

I don't think he meat an 'extension' unless things have changed.  I thought once the 30 days was up, you left on a border run and got another one.  Has something changed?  I have a vague feeling it may have.  

It changed over two years ago. A 15 or 30 day visa exempt entry can be extended for 30 days at an immigration office.

[Mister Fixit]

23 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

It changed over two years ago. A 15 or 30 day visa exempt entry can be extended for 30 days at an immigration office.

 

 

Thank you for that info.  I had a feeling something like that was about.  

 

I don't take a lot of notice of visa requirements any more as I have a retirement extension and my days of border running are thankfully long gone.  

[Mister Fixit]

This might help clear up misunderstandings

 

services-20150120-100712-551809.pdf

 

 

 

[JayBird]

On ‎12‎/‎20‎/‎2016 at 6:35 AM, buick said:

 

the requirements for an METV from the los angeles consulate in USA include the following (not all are listed).

 

• Bank statement showing a minimum of US$7,000
• Letter from employer verifying employment
• Copy of airline tickets (e-tickets or itinerary showing confirmed flights) - tickets should show multiple entries
• Copy of hotel reservation

 

what if you are between jobs (maybe laid off with a nice severance package) and can't get a letter from your employer.  there are people who use this 'downtime' (no job) to travel.  and some people prefer to set up their vacation along the way, they know what countries they plan to visit but don't make the reservations until they've arrived in thailand.  so that makes it tough to show hotel reservations and airline tickets with multiple entries.  one would think the $7,000 (or a higher number if need be) would be enough and scrap the idea of the letter, airline tickets, and hotel res.

 

 

I believe the reason for the letter from employer is not to confirm you have money/income, but to suggest a high probability that you will be returning to your country of origin to continue working.  It's one of those 'you have ties to your home country' and 'you have reason to return'.  If you are unemployed they may perceive that as you having no reason to return and may try to stay in Thailand to work illegally.  It seems they do have a legitimate problem with people working here illegally.  And sadly it seems that they immediately presume anyone coming to Thailand is coming for illegal reasons unless they can prove so otherwise.

 

 

[JayBird]

On ‎12‎/‎20‎/‎2016 at 6:38 AM, darrendsd said:

 

"They don't want people here on 40k a month"

 

Plenty of married or retired people are here on that so your argument is destroyed straight away

I think the point of the argument wasn't whether or not it was sustainable.  But rather how much the Thai government wants you to spend before they consider you a quality tourist.  Put another way:

 

Their ideal tourist is someone who comes to Thailand for 4-5 days, goes to designated tourist destinations, spends a large amount of money, then promptly leaves.

 

40k/mo probably does not fit into their idea of a large amount of money.  Combined with it not being spent in tourist spots, it can be understood why the Thailand government does not look upon that individual as a desirable tourist.

 

I'm starting to think (and my Thai GF confirms this): They really just want you to get in and out as quick as possible and leave all your cash behind.  In Thailand, tourism is a major industry and is now being treated/run like a business.  Which means they seek to optimize profit and cash flow wherever possible. 

[JayBird]

On ‎12‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 5:16 PM, Andrew65 said:

By non-touristy tourists, you must mean people working as english teachers who do visa runs rather than get a work permit.

 

I know of 2 at least (not that I care what they do)

Actually those would be 'illegals' and should be treated as such.  Most (if not all) countries in the world require you to have a work permit to work there.  No real reason to think Thailand should be different there. 

 

By non-touristy tourist, I'm mostly referring to people who 'live' for multiple months at a time in Thailand but are not doing the Tourist thing (going to the sites, behaving like a tourist).  They simply 'stay' here for 4-6 months a year because its a nice 'second home' for them.  This could include people such as digital nomads (who do legitimate business in other countries and can therefore live anywhere), people with large savings/trust-funds, people with an allowance (parents) that allow them to live anywhere.  Or even contract workers (do 6 months work in UK/US/etc. then take 6 months off).

 

That's more of what I mean as non-touristy tourists.  (Once you cross the line where Thailand is your principal Abode than that makes them more of an expat/resident).

[JackThompson]

2 hours ago, JayBird said:

I think the point of the argument wasn't whether or not it was sustainable.  But rather how much the Thai government wants you to spend before they consider you a quality tourist.  Put another way:

 

Their ideal tourist is someone who comes to Thailand for 4-5 days, goes to designated tourist destinations, spends a large amount of money, then promptly leaves.

 

40k/mo probably does not fit into their idea of a large amount of money.  Combined with it not being spent in tourist spots, it can be understood why the Thailand government does not look upon that individual as a desirable tourist.

 

I'm starting to think (and my Thai GF confirms this): They really just want you to get in and out as quick as possible and leave all your cash behind.  In Thailand, tourism is a major industry and is now being treated/run like a business.  Which means they seek to optimize profit and cash flow wherever possible. 

 

In most business operations, there is a significant "overhead" factor to each unit of a good or service produced.  Example: Must employ 10 people to produce 1000 units per time-frame.

In the case of tourism, however, the visitor pays nearly all the costs of any overhead they incur on "the system" which supports them.  Therefore, there are primarily losses in income to be incurred by restricting access to the market from "40K-ers" and such.  The losses are compounded by the larger numbers of lower-spenders, vs high-spenders, at play in the market.  The goal, if approached from a business perspective, would be to increase the number high-spenders with incentives (the 'elite visa' being the inverse of this), while not reducing lower-spenders.

 

One form of overhead is the immigration-department, which is responsible for processing entries and exits plus paperwork.  If lower-spending frequent or long-stay travelers costs to the immigration dept are a problem, fees-for-service could easily be charged to such people, for services which are currently 'free', and if the fees were reasonable, few would object.  This would not only eliminate any remaining "overhead costs" - but ideally generate an excess income to the immigration-dept, such that they can further modernize their operations, to increase efficiency.

 

The second potential overhead-cost would be those who are or become destitute while in Thailand, such that police and jail costs are incurred.  Let us assume those costs exceed the fines paid in order to leave the immigrant-detention facility (IDC).  The solution is to rigorously enforce the "show the money" rule for those applying for Tourist Visas and Visa Exempts (allowing the applicant to access existing ATM machines for exempt-arrivals, to avoid turning away "good" customers who are not regular readers of this forum).  Raising this threshold to 80K+ Baht for Tourist Visas and 40K+ for Exempts would also be wise, to reflect the cost-of-living in Thailand.  This change would have a side-effect of reducing the influx of low-paid illegal workers, though this should generally be the province of the labor-dept to enforce in the workplace. 

 

To address both of these overhead-cost risks, without changing entry/exit processes, a security-deposit account - locked-in for the duration of the permission-of-stay - would be the best solution for those staying longer than 180-days/yr (not affecting short-term tourists and snowbirds).  These funds could be used to offset any re-repatriation, medical, or criminal-charge costs incurred by a "bad" (costly) visitor.  Early withdrawal by the visitor would require authorization from the Immigration Dept, for a fee, and coincident with canceling the associated permission of stay.  Any set-up costs for the account would be paid by the visitor.

 

For those not qualifying for existing long-stay options, 90-day extensions could be provided to anyone maintaining such an account, with fees set at a rate below the cost of visa-runs while generating surplus-revenue for the Immigration Dept. 

 

If also applied to retirees, "security deposit" accounts, which remain funded throughout the duration of a visitor's stay, would remove the "fake bank account" and "fake income letter" issues, which regular readers here are aware of, reducing corruption and eliminating the destitute (ex-pat ghettos).

[LivinLOS]

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

 

In most business operations, there is a significant "overhead" factor to each unit of a good or service produced.  Example: Must employ 10 people to produce 1000 units per time-frame.

In the case of tourism, however, the visitor pays nearly all the costs of any overhead they incur on "the system" which supports them.  Therefore, there are primarily losses in income to be incurred by restricting access to the market from "40K-ers" and such.  The losses are compounded by the larger numbers of lower-spenders, vs high-spenders, at play in the market.  The goal, if approached from a business perspective, would be to increase the number high-spenders with incentives (the 'elite visa' being the inverse of this), while not reducing lower-spenders.

 

You seem to miss the aspect of environmental cost, the additional 'load' the thai system and society has to bear from these ever increasing numbers. 

 

It seems they would rather less people spending more.. Your view that they should just want more of everything does not have to be theirs. 

[JackThompson]

41 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:

You seem to miss the aspect of environmental cost, the additional 'load' the thai system and society has to bear from these ever increasing numbers. 

 

It seems they would rather less people spending more.. Your view that they should just want more of everything does not have to be theirs. 

 

Increased overall revenue would help fund the replacement of existing, sub-standard water-treatment, trash disposal, and other environmental concerns.  These are most acute in poorer nations without a significant (per GDP) stream of tourist-dollars.  Nations prioritizing tourism tend to do a better job, in order to attract more visitors. 

 

I believe I addressed the parts of the Thai "system" which are significantly-affected, and not presently funded 100% fee-for-service (housing, electric, water, transportation, etc).  Note that long-term stayers do not qualify for VAT rebates, as short-term tourists do.

 

What I propose should not be confused with "open borders" - whereby visitors who are a net-negative to the country are allowed in.  This is "bad" for the "business" of a nation - it's people's quality-of-life and social-service budgets.  In general, an increase in the population of net-contributors to a system corresponds to a higher-efficiency of services. 

 

"Society" is a diverse concept, but restricting some types of visitors to tourist-areas for their "permitted stay" (retired and other long-term who are not married) would preserve Thai culture, in places not primarily focused on foreigner-revenue flows (Pattaya, Phuket, other resort-areas, and much of Bangkok).  The downside to such restrictions, is that they would limit foreign-investment in the non-visitor-designated areas.  It is open to debate on where to draw the line of sacrificing one for the other, revenue-sharing between them, etc.

 

Though it is certainly not my call to make, I believe that market-based practicality eventually wins every argument, even if that result is delayed for years or even decades by non-market systems (see the USSR, as the extreme example).  The question regarding the implementation of more practical and efficient revenue-maximizing visitor-systems, is not "if" but "when" - though I will grant that "when" could be a long time out, unfortunately.

[JayBird]

5 hours ago, JackThompson said:

 

In most business operations, there is a significant "overhead" factor to each unit of a good or service produced.  Example: Must employ 10 people to produce 1000 units per time-frame.

In the case of tourism, however, the visitor pays nearly all the costs of any overhead they incur on "the system" which supports them.  Therefore, there are primarily losses in income to be incurred by restricting access to the market from "40K-ers" and such.  The losses are compounded by the larger numbers of lower-spenders, vs high-spenders, at play in the market.  The goal, if approached from a business perspective, would be to increase the number high-spenders with incentives (the 'elite visa' being the inverse of this), while not reducing lower-spenders.

 

 

 

You are also presuming an 'efficient / well-managed' business.  This may be more the case of:

The profit from them is so small they don't care about it. 

 

In other words, to borrow a Vegas term?, they care about the Whales only, even though bus loads of small rollers would make them incremental profit they only want the big chunky profits.

 

The case is correct that a person who does not draw upon the system any more than they pay into it, and then pay extra into it, is technically a net profit.  However, they would much rather see: 1 person pay 100k in 1 week then go away.  Rather than 1 person pay 40k in 1 month and repeat every month.

 

Yes, there's a lot to be gained by someone pushing in 40k/mo (or 480k/year).  But they expect Whales to come in weekly and pay 5.2M/year (and therefore aim their policies at them and ignore the small rollers).

 

 

 

[JackThompson]

27 minutes ago, JayBird said:

You are also presuming an 'efficient / well-managed' business.  This may be more the case of:

The profit from them is so small they don't care about it. 

 

In other words, to borrow a Vegas term?, they care about the Whales only, even though bus loads of small rollers would make them incremental profit they only want the big chunky profits.

 

The case is correct that a person who does not draw upon the system any more than they pay into it, and then pay extra into it, is technically a net profit.  However, they would much rather see: 1 person pay 100k in 1 week then go away.  Rather than 1 person pay 40k in 1 month and repeat every month.

 

Yes, there's a lot to be gained by someone pushing in 40k/mo (or 480k/year).  But they expect Whales to come in weekly and pay 5.2M/year (and therefore aim their policies at them and ignore the small rollers).

 

Agreed on who is preferred, and should be.  The Vegas casinos "comp" free-suites and such for the "preferred" high-rollers.  In that vein, I do think it would be wise to hand out free long-stay visas to anyone who can show they spend big money here.  Think: "Please, kind high-roller, let us provide you with this complimentary PE visa.  Just 1 minute of your time, while we scan your passport and affix it," then into the express-line.

 

As to the small-players, there would be a lot of people out of jobs in Vegas if the small-players were not permitted.  Most blackjack-tables are low-ante tables, with a few high-roller tables where the "riff-raff" don't play (so are not in the way).  Likewise, most visitor-related Thai careers and small-businesses depend on the small players coming in; the longer they stay, the more jobs and businesses remain stable and condos remain occupied - especially in low-season.  Employed citizens are less 'trouble' to authorities, and much visitor-based income is sent back to the farm-areas, where it is needed - a form of "welfare" that costs the govt nothing.

[cocoonclub]

I am thinking about crossing a land-border before 31.12. to get another 30 days (only need 15 days actually). Don't really wanna travel abroad over New Year but rather go to some beaches here.

 

I arrived on 1.12. via air. Before that, I was here in March/April for a similar time (30 days, 5 days Burma, another 10 days, though via air). I have a return ticket for the 15.1. So not a in/out-hopper at all. 

 

Do you think I should be fine? 

Any recommendation regarding which border crossing is the easiest one?