Time Up For Some 30 Day Visa Runners

[ovenman]

Of course he pays tax, we all do. 7% on all purchases. The man with the 500bht will spend it on products that would have been imported (charging import tax and 7% vat), made in Thailand (making jobs, income tax and 7% vat) or buying a bigger house car (tax growth)

That's a step in the right direction, rocky (thanks for the support!) but I still think my underlying point is being missed. Even excluding the effect of any taxes paid from the 500 baht spent on the dinner, the restaurant owner uses that money to pay salaries, buy goods from the market, supplies for the restaurant and so on. Those salaries paid to the restaurant workers are in turn, spent on more goods/services that in turn, pay for more salaries. And the cycle repeats and repeats. That behaviour is what makes an economy function, not how much tax money a government can collect.

[rexall]

Even excluding the effect of any taxes paid from the 500 baht spent on the dinner, the restaurant owner uses that money to pay salaries, buy goods from the market, supplies for the restaurant and so on. Those salaries paid to the restaurant workers are in turn, spent on more goods/services that in turn, pay for more salaries. And the cycle repeats and repeats. That behaviour is what makes an economy function, not how much tax money a government can collect.

It seems intuitively correct. However, your point is overshadowed by the question of how considerable (or inconsiderable) the amount brought into the Thai economy by resident tourists and tourist-tourists actually is. Is there any reliable data I wonder? Without such data, this is all speculation. Apparently the Thai gov feels that the benefits of restricting resident tourists and others outweighs the financial benefits.

Aloha,

Rex

[ovenman]

It seems intuitively correct. However, your point is overshadowed by the question of how considerable (or inconsiderable) the amount brought into the Thai economy by resident tourists and tourist-tourists actually is. Is there any reliable data I wonder? Without such data, this is all speculation. Apparently the Thai gov feels that the benefits of restricting resident tourists and others outweighs the financial benefits.

That's quite true. Nobody knows this number with any degree of certainty. The speculation runs the gamut from it's so little money that losing it would have no effect whatsoever on the Thai economy to Thailand will fall apart without the money that foireigners spend. Truth is obviously somewhere in between these two poles and it's really anybody's guess.

PS - To all of the tax fans on this thread, I would not suggest for a moment that the Thai government wouldn't love to see foreigners contribute more to the tax base (simply because they want to fill the coffers). My point is that to conclude that by making a minimal contribution to Thai gov't tax revenues, this somehow equates to foreigners spending habits having a negligible effect on the overall Thai economy is bogus.

[DrDweeb]

It seems intuitively correct. However, your point is overshadowed by the question of how considerable (or inconsiderable) the amount brought into the Thai economy by resident tourists and tourist-tourists actually is. Is there any reliable data I wonder? Without such data, this is all speculation. Apparently the Thai gov feels that the benefits of restricting resident tourists and others outweighs the financial benefits.

That's quite true. Nobody knows this number with any degree of certainty. The speculation runs the gamut from it's so little money that losing it would have no effect whatsoever on the Thai economy to Thailand will fall apart without the money that foireigners spend. Truth is obviously somewhere in between these two poles and it's really anybody's guess.

PS - To all of the tax fans on this thread, I would not suggest for a moment that the Thai government wouldn't love to see foreigners contribute more to the tax base (simply because they want to fill the coffers). My point is that to conclude that by making a minimal contribution to Thai gov't tax revenues, this somehow equates to foreigners spending habits having a negligible effect on the overall Thai economy is bogus.

Thanks for filling in in my absence. One does get so tired of people who know so little about economics.

Tax != economy

Also, it would be interesting to know just what the average retiree resident brings in. In my experience it is, by Thai standards, quite substantial.

Oh, I would also suggest to readers on this thread they investigate the problems that single parents of thai children are having. The new laws have dienfranchised LOTS of people who now have no legal way to remain in the country and support their children. This change in laws is way bigger than the 30 day visa run issue.

Dweeb

[SamuiJens]

Although most of the posters on this forum are reasonably good people who are contributing to the Thai economy, there is a rather large class of visa runners who really are the dregs of society. They aren't wanted in their own country and Thailand no longer wants them either. I once lived in a neighborhood populated with a lot of these people--severe alcoholics and drug addicts. They could live well here and were often financed by families back home.

There are all kinds of other groups as well, some involved in dodgy deals and others just plainly illegal activities.

Over the years the number of expats in the kingdom has grown and grown. I don't think the gov't has any kind of a handle on whose here anymore. And don't forget that there are lots and lots of people from around Asia that they have to condend with, and some of them are really up to no good.

The presence of some of the Mafia, including the Russian Mafia, also make for problems.

As the country develops, it needs less and less of a lot of these kind of people. Unfortunately, when they "draw a line in the sand", others get caught on the wrong side and can't stay either. But for the less desirable types, there's still Cambodia who takes everyone with open arms!

I think that the a lot of the long termers here overestimate their importance. If we are gone tomorrow, the country will survive just fine and there will still be millions of moneyed tourists coming for the winter months.

Well said Scott, I mainly agree with you, and a lot of other posters, that see lots of "unwanted" people here, that just are out to make illegal gains off the Thais as well and mostly other tourists; all this makes LOS a less attractive place to grow roots since there are more and more of this type coming everyday, and the ones that live here, at times turn to f.exp. selling drugs to make money to stay longer and get more Bahts in pocket. You only have to hear the stories that are going around (at least here) about the latest shootings over drugs, etc. LOS is becoming a place for the international criminals that live off the tourists and are giving it a bad name; this I see IMHO is the reason for the new laws on immigration, and believe me these are just the first "soft" laws, wait until they become more like the USA Immigration Service, then the "unwanted" will be thinned out, hopefully.

This is why LOS needs stricter laws and enforce them! Remember this is like the wild east now (like for 150 some years back, it was for the wild west) But those days are soon coming to an end, and we (the non-criminal type) are all better for it!

Edited December 18, 2006 by SamuiJens

[jumnien]

Overall, the new visa regulations make it much better for the foreigner residents of Thailand. There should be very little negative impact on decent people. There are those who cannot occasionally vacation in Penang due to physical handicaps or religious reasons, but this is a very small group of people. Foreigner residents of Thailand are rising rapidly in number and this is just the first wave of a long trend.

[papakapbaan]

This is why LOS needs stricter laws and enforce them! Remember this is like the wild east now (like for 150 some years back, it was for the wild west) But those days are soon coming to an end, and we (the non-criminal type) are all better for it!

How/why are you so sure you'll be "all better for it!"?

What is your visa status?

I hope for you you are either:

-above 50 with 800,000 in the bank

-married to a Thai with 40,000/month income for your couple

-running a business and paying yourself 50,000/m at least + paying 4 Thais

-employed with a salary above 50,000

Nothing of the above?

Basically: You can go home.

I hope you don't believe like some Roger here that "decency" is the key??? :-0...

I'm just asking. Don't take it personally. Just for the sake of the discussion. I do not assume anything.

You'll tell me you are one (or more) of the above: fine.

I just mean that a lot of folks here seem to believe in mantras and wishful thinking...

I first arrived here in 1993. I basically regarded all the previous ""shake-ups" of visa regulations as "another scare" indeed.

Generally: only yearly extensions of stay were concerned anyway. Now, under the radar of the Thai Immigration (or Ministry of Foreign Affairs) is also the issuance of visas and "VOA".

This time is different. Things definitely changed on 01/10/2006!

And yes! Dr Dweeb above is right:

The new laws have dienfranchised LOTS of people who now have no legal way to remain in the country and support their children. This change in laws is way bigger than the 30 day visa run issue.

Indeed. THERE IS NO MORE CHILD SUPPORT provision in the Thai Immigration Law since 01/10/2006

As a Farang father/mother of a Thai Child BELOW 50: you are NO-THING if not married.

If interested:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=97178

//Edit to remove moderation issues per forum rules - lopburi3//

Edited December 19, 2006 by lopburi3

[DrDweeb]

Although most of the posters on this forum are reasonably good people who are contributing to the Thai economy, there is a rather large class of visa runners who really are the dregs of society. They aren't wanted in their own country and Thailand no longer wants them either. I once lived in a neighborhood populated with a lot of these people--severe alcoholics and drug addicts. They could live well here and were often financed by families back home.

There are all kinds of other groups as well, some involved in dodgy deals and others just plainly illegal activities.

Over the years the number of expats in the kingdom has grown and grown. I don't think the gov't has any kind of a handle on whose here anymore. And don't forget that there are lots and lots of people from around Asia that they have to condend with, and some of them are really up to no good.

The presence of some of the Mafia, including the Russian Mafia, also make for problems.

As the country develops, it needs less and less of a lot of these kind of people. Unfortunately, when they "draw a line in the sand", others get caught on the wrong side and can't stay either. But for the less desirable types, there's still Cambodia who takes everyone with open arms!

I think that the a lot of the long termers here overestimate their importance. If we are gone tomorrow, the country will survive just fine and there will still be millions of moneyed tourists coming for the winter months.

Well said Scott, I mainly agree with you, and a lot of other posters, that see lots of "unwanted" people here, that just are out to make illegal gains off the Thais as well and mostly other tourists; all this makes LOS a less attractive place to grow roots since there are more and more of this type coming everyday, and the ones that live here, at times turn to f.exp. selling drugs to make money to stay longer and get more Bahts in pocket. You only have to hear the stories that are going around (at least here) about the latest shootings over drugs, etc. LOS is becoming a place for the international criminals that live off the tourists and are giving it a bad name; this I see IMHO is the reason for the new laws on immigration, and believe me these are just the first "soft" laws, wait until they become more like the USA Immigration Service, then the "unwanted" will be thinned out, hopefully.

This is why LOS needs stricter laws and enforce them! Remember this is like the wild east now (like for 150 some years back, it was for the wild west) But those days are soon coming to an end, and we (the non-criminal type) are all better for it!

If you think for 1 second thant Russian Mafia (or French or whatever) folks use 30day tourist visas, you get todays prize for intellectual incapacity! The visa changes will have zero effect on this class of person, just as they have no effect in France, USA or anywhere else.

Your idea that people affected by this are going to become drug dealers is so far off beam that it hardly warrants response. Your arrogance and prejudice shines like a beacon of shit through your post. As does you failure to grasp even the simplest of known facts. You have reached the invalid (proof by existence) conclusion that the new laws will only affect the "undesirable" and that the "undesirables" will in fact be affected. It is clear from readings of posts, statements by officials etc that neither of these conclusions is warranted or factually correct.

That may be the intention, but it is clearly not the result.

And the correlation between "strict laws" and some vague notion of goodness is also radically at odds with human reality. Bad policy and bad administration make for a bad situation. "Strictness" is not at issue. The situation will not be improved by the current wave of hastily conceived and ill considered changes. The changes cannot be administered fairly, for simple logistical reasons, and that alone invalidates them on natural justice grounds. The Thais need to think a bit more carefully, rather than this knee-jerk action which clearly creates more problems for the "good people" than it creates for the "dross" that others refer to and to whom you allude.

There may be farang drug dealers, but so far I only met Thai ones who were openly flogging ther wares in various locations.

Dweeb

[gpt]

All countries have laws and there has to be parameters. The Thai government decided that to be eligible for a retirement visa that the lowest age was 50 on or after the date the law was passed. If you are not over 50 on this date then you cannot apply for one. There is also a financial side to the visa as well. For the visa you need to fulfill all the conditions. You can have millions in the bank and be 449 and you still will not qualify. Look at the laws in your own country. For example if the drinking age is 21, you can buy drink legally if you are over 21 and have the money; you may not agree with the law but it is the law. When my sister started school, the cut off date for acceptances that year was September 3rd, her birthday was the 4th. So shall we bend the rules to let those born on September 4th go to school and have the cut-off on the 4th? No because what will happen? You have guessed it! I am sorry that if you are not 50 but have the money, you can't get the retirement visa.

Next we have the visa runners who own a business, what prevented you from getting legal? I see, you're helping the economy but you did not want the expense of getting a non-b and work permit.

For those who were caught on the wrong side of the line although I sympathise with you there is nothing that anyone can do.

And for those dreaming up schemes to flaut the law, all I can say is stop wasting your time!

[Maestro]

...so far no moderator really answered any of my posts.

Why does a moderator have to answer your posts?

So far, your posts seem to have been nothing but a series of repetitive rants in multiple threads, not questions that seek answers. Perhaps people get tired of reading all that.

So what is your question, formulated in no more than 3 lines, please?

--

Maestro

[stevenjm]

Although most of the posters on this forum are reasonably good people who are contributing to the Thai economy, there is a rather large class of visa runners who really are the dregs of society. They aren't wanted in their own country and Thailand no longer wants them either. I once lived in a neighborhood populated with a lot of these people--severe alcoholics and drug addicts. They could live well here and were often financed by families back home.

There are all kinds of other groups as well, some involved in dodgy deals and others just plainly illegal activities.

Over the years the number of expats in the kingdom has grown and grown. I don't think the gov't has any kind of a handle on whose here anymore. And don't forget that there are lots and lots of people from around Asia that they have to condend with, and some of them are really up to no good.

The presence of some of the Mafia, including the Russian Mafia, also make for problems.

As the country develops, it needs less and less of a lot of these kind of people. Unfortunately, when they "draw a line in the sand", others get caught on the wrong side and can't stay either. But for the less desirable types, there's still Cambodia who takes everyone with open arms!

I think that the a lot of the long termers here overestimate their importance. If we are gone tomorrow, the country will survive just fine and there will still be millions of moneyed tourists coming for the winter months.

Well said Scott, I mainly agree with you, and a lot of other posters, that see lots of "unwanted" people here, that just are out to make illegal gains off the Thais as well and mostly other tourists; all this makes LOS a less attractive place to grow roots since there are more and more of this type coming everyday, and the ones that live here, at times turn to f.exp. selling drugs to make money to stay longer and get more Bahts in pocket. You only have to hear the stories that are going around (at least here) about the latest shootings over drugs, etc. LOS is becoming a place for the international criminals that live off the tourists and are giving it a bad name; this I see IMHO is the reason for the new laws on immigration, and believe me these are just the first "soft" laws, wait until they become more like the USA Immigration Service, then the "unwanted" will be thinned out, hopefully.

This is why LOS needs stricter laws and enforce them! Remember this is like the wild east now (like for 150 some years back, it was for the wild west) But those days are soon coming to an end, and we (the non-criminal type) are all better for it!

I disagree, How many people do you honestly think come to LOS to engage in selling drugs to tourists with an effective drug squad and death sentence to boot. The numbers would be minimal and more effectively weeded out as they usually are by the thai police rather than booting out every visa runner.

the issue here is Kerr and other pedophiles and its more likely to be the over 50 cashed up older guy with retirement visa thats got 3 boys living with him thats the undesirable.

(No offence, I just like to argue.)

[papakapbaan]

So what is your question, formulated in no more than 3 lines, please?

--

Maestro

OK. I will "re-cycle" GPT statement above:

All countries have laws and there has to be parameters. The Thai government decided that to be recognized as a father of a Thai national, the lowest age was 50.

(The second, modified, part of the statement is still correct, unfortunately)

Here is my question for you:

Who on Thaivisa would dare to keep the introductory statement next to the modified part? (You Maestro?)

I'm just saying something is seriously wrong here!

I'm not looking for pratical answers, I admit. I'll try Perth or Singapore for that.

It's possible I am in some sort of crusade indeed.

Well. We are spreading INFORMATION on THAIVISA, aren't we?

I'm also looking for constructive comments, believe it or not.

[papakapbaan]

Why does a moderator have to answer your posts?

--

Maestro

Sorry if I seem to imply a moderator has to answer my posts.

Well. Anyway, fine. It's their country! It's your board!

(But it's also the country of my daughter. So we have a serious issue here)

[Gaudente]

YOU ARE WRONG WRONG WRONG

GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE WORLD HAS MANY DIFFERNET PEOPLE WISHING TO TRAVEL THAT CANNOT NOW STAY IN THAILAND LONG TERM. And the biggest loser will be Thailand

Thailand might be the loser in YOUR opinion but it is THEIR country and THEIR decision.

Get of YOUR horse and stop ranting because Thaialnd does not provide you with a long term visa suited to YOUR wishes

And like many other THEIR previous decisions, is WRONG. They seem to enjoy the downtrend. We shall see how low they will finish....for now the junta is an international joke (going to see a fortune teller in Chang Mai...what a laugh )...in a couple of months TV networks will start to name Thailand as "Myanmar 2"

[keenok]

YOU ARE WRONG WRONG WRONG

GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE WORLD HAS MANY DIFFERNET PEOPLE WISHING TO TRAVEL THAT CANNOT NOW STAY IN THAILAND LONG TERM. And the biggest loser will be Thailand

Thailand might be the loser in YOUR opinion but it is THEIR country and THEIR decision.

Get of YOUR horse and stop ranting because Thaialnd does not provide you with a long term visa suited to YOUR wishes

And like many other THEIR previous decisions, is WRONG. They seem to enjoy the downtrend. We shall see how low they will finish....for now the junta is an international joke (going to see a fortune teller in Chang Mai...what a laugh )...in a couple of months TV networks will start to name Thailand as "Myanmar 2"

gaudent, havnt you done enough whinging and whining about thailand for 1 day??? go to the philipines PLEASE!!

[gpt]

So what is your question, formulated in no more than 3 lines, please?

--

Maestro

OK. I will "re-cycle" GPT statement above:

All countries have laws and there has to be parameters. The Thai government decided that to be recognized as a father of a Thai national, the lowest age was 50.

(The second, modified, part of the statement is still correct, unfortunately)

Here is my question for you:

Who on Thaivisa would dare to keep the introductory statement next to the modified part? (You Maestro?)

I'm just saying something is seriously wrong here!

I'm not looking for pratical answers, I admit. I'll try Perth or Singapore for that.

It's possible I am in some sort of crusade indeed.

Well. We are spreading INFORMATION on THAIVISA, aren't we?

I'm also looking for constructive comments, believe it or not.

I am not in nor ever have been a member of the legal profession but have you read the new regulation properly? Please open in a separate window and go to page 8/13 http://www.immigration.go.th/nov2004/2notice/rtp606EN.pdf

This relates to supporting a Thai national. (7/17) Concentrate on the middle column (Basis for consideration). Now look at (4) and (5). Let's simplify the wording and put them together. If you are supporting a child then the child must be unmarried, living with the family and under 20 or if you are supporting a parent, i.e. one of your parents, then that parent must be 50 or over.

My reading of the regulations does not mean that you have to be over 50 to support your child.

[Gaudente]

The number of 30day visa-runner residents is very substantial and their contribution to local economy is significant. And remember, almost all of these people know a great deal more about the way the Kingdom operates than your average 14 day tourist.

As others have pointed out - the reason that 30 day visa-runner residents exist is because there is NO ADEQUATE VISA for the reasonably well heeled sub-50yo wishing to retire in Thailand, and for those over 50, the hassle and cost has been seen as far greater than the result, especially as Thai authorities have de-facto and/or explicitly accepted the model for decades. Many of the 30 day people will convert, but there will be a group for whom no adequate way to remain legally in the country will exist and their loss will be a net loss to the economy.

Sure, there are some wanting to be below the radar, they will have to find another shallow, but for most, it is just a great deal of hassle that they would rather be without.

It is also well to remember, farangs have almost no rights, we get nothing for free, and we pay "farang-price" for everything. 1 farang is not the economic equal of 1 thai - nor is the equal in legal terms - just ask Steve Millers family !

If Thais really succeed in implementing their xenophobic tendencies and driving the farangs away, it will be to the detriment of their economy - period. Same goes for every other developing nation. We have the wealth, capital knows no boundries, and we can vote with our feet.

Post to be framed and displayed on top of forum index.

[papakapbaan]

I am not in nor ever have been a member of the legal profession but have you read the new regulation properly? Please open in a separate window and go to page 8/13 http://www.immigration.go.th/nov2004/2notice/rtp606EN.pdf

This relates to supporting a Thai national. (7/17) Concentrate on the middle column (Basis for consideration). Now look at (4) and (5). Let's simplify the wording and put them together. If you are supporting a child then the child must be unmarried, living with the family and under 20 or if you are supporting a parent, i.e. one of your parents, then that parent must be 50 or over.

My reading of the regulations does not mean that you have to be over 50 to support your child.

GPT:

I read and re-read the clauses you refer to above over and over for weeks.

There is unfortunately NO DOUBT.

I made it short and simple.

7.17 (4) is extremely confusing with missing plurals etc.

But 7.17 (5) is quite clear: "In case of father or Mother, the said father or mother shall be not younger than 50 years old."

It was also confirmed by mumerous recent posts of SUNBELT (currently on holiday).

(In practice: customers of SUNBELT ASIA who were "below 50" have been refused the extension of stay on the basis of "to live with child")

THERE IS NO MORE PROVISION FOR CHILD SUPPORT.

It's ABSOLUTELY MIND BLOWING but - if unmarried - you can LIVE with your child in Thailand ONLY if above 50 YEARS OLD.

I will now search the board for "NUTS"... I think Sunblet said it is NUTS...

[Gaudente]

gaudent, havnt you done enough whinging and whining about thailand for 1 day??? go to the philipines PLEASE!!

First I want to check Malaysia also...anyway I still have a VOA till 10 January....and thereafter even from Malaysia I can always have some fun whining here using internet cafes...

[papakapbaan]

OK. I will "re-cycle" GPT statement above:

All countries have laws and there has to be parameters. The Thai government decided that to be recognized as a father of a Thai national, the lowest age was 50.

(The second, modified, part of the statement is still correct, unfortunately)

Here is my question for you:

Who on Thaivisa would dare to keep the introductory statement next to the modified part? (You Maestro?)

I'm just saying something is seriously wrong here!

I'm not looking for pratical answers, I admit. I'll try Perth or Singapore for that.

It's possible I am in some sort of crusade indeed.

Well. We are spreading INFORMATION on THAIVISA, aren't we?

I'm also looking for constructive comments, believe it or not.

I am not in nor ever have been a member of the legal profession but have you read the new regulation properly? Please open in a separate window and go to page 8/13 http://www.immigration.go.th/nov2004/2notice/rtp606EN.pdf

This relates to supporting a Thai national. (7/17) Concentrate on the middle column (Basis for consideration). Now look at (4) and (5). Let's simplify the wording and put them together. If you are supporting a child then the child must be unmarried, living with the family and under 20 or if you are supporting a parent, i.e. one of your parents, then that parent must be 50 or over.

My reading of the regulations does not mean that you have to be over 50 to support your child.

Ok If interested please review:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=93446

And SUNBELT indeed said it was NUTS!

It's here (3rd page):

I understand you are emotional about this. I have stated for over two months, this is nuts. But this is how Immigration are handling extension of stays.

(extension of stay on the basis of to "Live with child")

There is no more provision for child SUPPORT.

If unmarried - you can LIVE with your child in Thailand ONLY if above 50 YEARS OLD.

[Phil_Pattaya]

It seems intuitively correct. However, your point is overshadowed by the question of how considerable (or inconsiderable) the amount brought into the Thai economy by resident tourists and tourist-tourists actually is. Is there any reliable data I wonder? Without such data, this is all speculation. Apparently the Thai gov feels that the benefits of restricting resident tourists and others outweighs the financial benefits.

That's quite true. Nobody knows this number with any degree of certainty. The speculation runs the gamut from it's so little money that losing it would have no effect whatsoever on the Thai economy to Thailand will fall apart without the money that foireigners spend. Truth is obviously somewhere in between these two poles and it's really anybody's guess.

PS - To all of the tax fans on this thread, I would not suggest for a moment that the Thai government wouldn't love to see foreigners contribute more to the tax base (simply because they want to fill the coffers). My point is that to conclude that by making a minimal contribution to Thai gov't tax revenues, this somehow equates to foreigners spending habits having a negligible effect on the overall Thai economy is bogus.

This is what I was trying to say but you have said better than I did.

I hate the way some of the posters on here who dont quite understand what you are trying to say then go and make up what they want, be rude and start a new argument ( for example not once did I mention the ecomomy).

[just plain different]

2) For people wanting to live here permanently, I have learned a trick which I am reluctant to share but will - volunteer. If you volunteer for even one day a week in your local school they are then allowed to issue you with a visa and work permit to do so. So for just one or two days work a week, or if you can find one day's paid work a week even better - then you can stay as long as you like aswell as giving something back to the Thai community.

I hadn't heard about this prospect and would like to know concrete information about it (does it have to be set up in country? How long does it take? Can one choose the city one volunteers in…?). I've tried to investigate this myself but without result. Can anyone provide more information or links where I can learn about this option in detail?

Thanks.

[DrDweeb]

It seems intuitively correct. However, your point is overshadowed by the question of how considerable (or inconsiderable) the amount brought into the Thai economy by resident tourists and tourist-tourists actually is. Is there any reliable data I wonder? Without such data, this is all speculation. Apparently the Thai gov feels that the benefits of restricting resident tourists and others outweighs the financial benefits.

That's quite true. Nobody knows this number with any degree of certainty. The speculation runs the gamut from it's so little money that losing it would have no effect whatsoever on the Thai economy to Thailand will fall apart without the money that foireigners spend. Truth is obviously somewhere in between these two poles and it's really anybody's guess.

PS - To all of the tax fans on this thread, I would not suggest for a moment that the Thai government wouldn't love to see foreigners contribute more to the tax base (simply because they want to fill the coffers). My point is that to conclude that by making a minimal contribution to Thai gov't tax revenues, this somehow equates to foreigners spending habits having a negligible effect on the overall Thai economy is bogus.

This is what I was trying to say but you have said better than I did.

I hate the way some of the posters on here who dont quite understand what you are trying to say then go and make up what they want, be rude and start a new argument ( for example not once did I mention the ecomomy).

Add remedial English 101 to the list then.

I cannot be bothered to read all your drivel again, but methinks you have mentioned the economy directly or indirectly more than once.

Dweeb

[gpt]

Some people do not want to be helped! You are taking everything out of context. (4) & (5) are not separate entities, (5) is a continuation of (4) as are all other subsections. Instead of using one long sentence, the information has been split into sections where each section contains one piece of vital information and it fits neatly into the layout of the document.

I realise that English is not your native language but you appear to have a good command of it. The last line in (4) reads '20 years of age; or' That is not how English sentences end but signifies that it continues. The first line in (5) reads 'In the case of a parent, the said' Now put those two snippets together ''20 years of age; or' 'In the case of a parent, the said'" and tidy it up a bit to read -''20 years of age or in the case of a parent, the said'. The 'or' signifies that only one of the conditions must be met, if 'and' was used in place of 'or' then both conditions must be met.

Let's rewrite the sentence using only the parts pertaining to your case.

The alien has obtained a temporary visa (NON-IM) and proof of family relationship; in the case of a child, the child must not be married, living in the family home and not over the age of 20. All information that is not relevant has been removed.

//Edit: In view of the importance of this subject I have copied this post to this new thread. Please continue discussion of this particular subject in that thread. Maestro.

[DrDweeb]

Some people do not want to be helped! You are taking everything out of context. (4) & (5) are not separate entities, (5) is a continuation of (4) as are all other subsections. Instead of using one long sentence, the information has been split into sections where each section contains one piece of vital information and it fits neatly into the layout of the document.

I realise that English is not your native language but you appear to have a good command of it. The last line in (4) reads '20 years of age; or' That is not how English sentences end but signifies that it continues. The first line in (5) reads 'In the case of a parent, the said' Now put those two snippets together ''20 years of age; or' 'In the case of a parent, the said'" and tidy it up a bit to read -''20 years of age or in the case of a parent, the said'. The 'or' signifies that only one of the conditions must be met, if 'and' was used in place of 'or' then both conditions must be met.

Let's rewrite the sentence using only the parts pertaining to your case.

The alien has obtained a temporary visa (NON-IM) and proof of family relationship; in the case of a child, the child must not be married, living in the family home and not over the age of 20. All information that is not relevant has been removed.

I had a quick look at that, and I am not sure I agree with you. It may refers to a visa for the child or a visa for the parent separately in each section, in which case the parent needs to be 50+ - But hey, I have jetlag and its late. I will re-read this later, but to describe the text as opaque is polite.

Oh, I spend a lot of time reading legal documents, and this isn't one - lol

cheers

Dweeb

[MartinBKK]

I think we can safely say that the impact is being felt already. I have been coming to Thailand for a few years now and i have never seen it as quiet in Bangkok at this time of the year before. Quite a few of my friends have been noticing the same thing.

I have just got a 1 year non immigrant visa so this isn't going to affect me short term at least however it appears that it is going to have a big impact on both the number of "residents" as well as the number of "tourists".

[jumnien]

Do I understand this regulation correctly? If you get a bar girl pregnant and she has the child and you are under 50 years old, you are not automatically eligible for a one year visa? Does this mean you would have to leave the barstool every 2 or 3 months and go to Penang just to keep your visa status legal in Thailand? I assume this goes for other non-wedded progenitors as well.

[MartinBKK]

I forgot to mention...

Some forum members think that others are not economically minded so as i have a university degree in economics let me try to help.

Fewer numbers of visitors/residents is not a good thing for the Thai economy!!!!

[mbkudu]

I think we can safely say that the impact is being felt already. I have been coming to Thailand for a few years now and i have never seen it as quiet in Bangkok at this time of the year before. Quite a few of my friends have been noticing the same thing.

I have just got a 1 year non immigrant visa so this isn't going to affect me short term at least however it appears that it is going to have a big impact on both the number of "residents" as well as the number of "tourists".

Any regulation like this should have no effect on the tourist trade at all. Tourists can still get the 30 day tourist visa. A recent news posting cited a survey that value for money, Thailand is number 1 worldwide for tourism. 5 million tourist a year visit. Isn't that enough? All the years that I stayed here in the past on, first tourist visas and then non-o, I never considered doing 30 day runs. Going in and out monthly is just ridiculous in my opinion.

[jumnien]

Let's face it, the go-go bars in Bangkok are boring now. A lot of the usual winter visitors who rent cheap apts. don't even come anymore. This is a trend that will continue.

They have been more than replaced by thousands more couples and singles from Northern Europe who are buying condos and houses like crazy in the likes of Hua Hin, Phuket, Pattaya area. I was recently thru Issan and farangs are acquiring land and building houses in areas they've never been before. The foreign resident population is increasing dramatically and, if you reboot your computer and walk and talk to real people you will come to the conclusion that this is but the first wave. True, a few long timers who came here over the years will leave. But that will not affect the numbers who stay in any dramatic way.