OK to be employed applying for retirement visa?

[Sakeopete]

I was told by a friend that I should not divulge to immigration that my monthly income is from employment when applying for a retirement extension. I am currently on a married Non O but was told to extend into a retirement visa instead as it is much easier. I am an offshore worker does it matter that I'm still employed? 

[ubonjoe]

Your income from any source outside of the country will be accepted when you apply for an extension based upon retirement. There is no rule that says you cannot be working as long as it is done outside the country.

 

[Sakeopete]

29 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

Your income from any source outside of the country will be accepted when you apply for an extension based upon retirement. There is no rule that says you cannot be working as long as it is done outside the country.

 

Thanks 

[elviajero]

Your friend has given you very good advice. Do not voluntarily divulge that you are working. The extension of stay (not a visa) is meant for people that want to live in Thailand and that are not working. "Retired" being the clue. The income affidavit, from your embassy does not need to mention the source of your income, just how much it is. IMO it's highly unlikely that they would decline an extension if they knew you were working, but there is no point taking that chance. Plenty of people do what you are proposing, but I am sure most don't declare they are working.

 

IMO you are better off with a 'marriage' extension if at all possible. It's not that much more paperwork. The only problem is timing your home visits so you can be there during the one month 'under consideration' period. If you don't stay longer than 150 days per visit then a multiple entry non-immigrant 'O' visa based on your marriage might be the best option.

 

There is no rule that says you can be working as long as it's outside the country, either!

[Kadilo]

Your friend has given you very good advice. Do not voluntarily divulge that you are working. The extension of stay (not a visa) is meant for people that want to live in Thailand and that are not working. "Retired" being the clue. The income affidavit, from your embassy does not need to mention the source of your income, just how much it is. IMO it's highly unlikely that they would decline an extension if they knew you were working, but there is no point taking that chance. Plenty of people do what you are proposing, but I am sure most don't declare they are working.

 

IMO you are better off with a 'marriage' extension if at all possible. It's not that much more paperwork. The only problem is timing your home visits so you can be there during the one month 'under consideration' period. If you don't stay longer than 150 days per visit then a multiple entry non-immigrant 'O' visa based on your marriage might be the best option.

 

There is no rule that says you can be working as long as it's outside the country, either!

If they are worried that people are still working how come one of the financial options for the extension of stay is based around monthly income. Pension or otherwise. I've never heard anyone suggest that you have to be retired to get a retirement visa and extension, just be over 50 and satisfy the financial requirements.

Or am I wrong on this?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[ELVIS123456]

12 minutes ago, Kadilo said:

If they are worried that people are still working how come one of the financial options for the extension of stay is based around monthly income. Pension or otherwise. I've never heard anyone suggest that you have to be retired to get a retirement visa and extension, just be over 50 and satisfy the financial requirements.

Or am I wrong on this?

Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

My understanding is that you cannot (legally) work in Thailand without a work permit, and that you cannot get a work permit if you are in Thailand under a retirement Visa. So as long as you dont work in Thailand (and therefore need a permit), then you are right. 

 

But having said that, I would not get a retirement Visa if I was in the OP situation (or anyone working while staying on a retirement visa). I can immediately think of several potential issues, such as if there was a medical or legal issue that arose, that could potentially be used (exploited) by certain people (eg. offended Thais, car accident Thais) and/or companies (eg. medical insurance). And as with all such things, there are far more things that could be an issue, that I cant think of right now.

 

Thailand is a country with a legal and immigration system that is both arbitrary and unpredictable, and it is full of very powerful people and companies. Thailand is a place where it would be unwise to be in a situation that could be exploited or taken advantage of.  Sure - if nothing bad happens the OP will be fine. But that is like saying I am not going to wear a bike helmet as it is not easy - one day you may regret that decision. No guarantees of course - but why take any risk for little gain.

 

[steve187]

15 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

My understanding is that you cannot (legally) work in Thailand without a work permit, and that you cannot get a work permit if you are in Thailand under a retirement Visa. So as long as you dont work in Thailand (and therefore need a permit), then you are right. 

 

But having said that, I would not get a retirement Visa if I was in the OP situation (or anyone working while staying on a retirement visa). I can immediately think of several potential issues, such as if there was a medical or legal issue that arose, that could potentially be used (exploited) by certain people (eg. offended Thais, car accident Thais) and/or companies (eg. medical insurance). And as with all such things, there are far more things that could be an issue, that I cant think of right now.

 

Thailand is a country with a legal and immigration system that is both arbitrary and unpredictable, and it is full of very powerful people and companies. Thailand is a place where it would be unwise to be in a situation that could be exploited or taken advantage of.  Sure - if nothing bad happens the OP will be fine. But that is like saying I am not going to wear a bike helmet as it is not easy - one day you may regret that decision. No guarantees of course - but why take any risk for little gain.

 

can't say i agree with any of that

[Kadilo]

can't say i agree with any of that

Yes I'm pretty much the same. I get about not working that's obvious but the rest I'm struggling with. A Retirement Visa is available for anyone over 50 who meets the financial criteria. If it's only supposed to be for retirees why make the age minimum so young ?
As for the rest sounds a bit too much paranoia.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[tutsiwarrior]

nowhere does it state in the requirements for the retirement extension of stay application that the applicant must be not working, i.e., 'retired'...there is an age requirement and an income requirement...

 

some years ago I switched from a 'marriage' extension to a 'retirement' extension as the latter can be granted on the spot with no one month delay...this was suggested by the IO and they even provided an info sheet with the retirement extension requirements to be heeded on my next application...no one wants the hassle of a marriage extension if it can be avoided...

 

once I approached the IO (Ayudtthaya) to do an early retirement extension application (>30 days but <45 days) as I needed to get back to work overseas and they were more than accommodating after I had explained my reasons...

 

sure, any IO can make an issue of yer employment status when you apply for a retirement extension but in doing so they simply reveal themselves as uninformed or an abusive bully...unfortunately we know that both exist but don't let that prevent anyone from following the rules as they presently stand...I've been following this forum for many years now and have never heard of such a problem, but, that's not to say that it could never happen...

 

 

[overherebc]

7 hours ago, tutsiwarrior said:

nowhere does it state in the requirements for the retirement extension of stay application that the applicant must be not working, i.e., 'retired'...there is an age requirement and an income requirement...

 

some years ago I switched from a 'marriage' extension to a 'retirement' extension as the latter can be granted on the spot with no one month delay...this was suggested by the IO and they even provided an info sheet with the retirement extension requirements to be heeded on my next application...no one wants the hassle of a marriage extension if it can be avoided...

 

once I approached the IO (Ayudtthaya) to do an early retirement extension application (>30 days but <45 days) as I needed to get back to work overseas and they were more than accommodating after I had explained my reasons...

 

sure, any IO can make an issue of yer employment status when you apply for a retirement extension but in doing so they simply reveal themselves as uninformed or an abusive bully...unfortunately we know that both exist but don't let that prevent anyone from following the rules as they presently stand...I've been following this forum for many years now and have never heard of such a problem, but, that's not to say that it could never happen...

 

 

Friend of mine has been on retirement extension for a few years and works FIFO in Australia. He applied for a married extension and because he had more than the 800,000 in his bank acc' the IO just said go for retirement and carry on, you're not working here so it's ok.

[Suradit69]

17 hours ago, elviajero said:

The extension of stay (not a visa) is meant for people that want to live in Thailand and that are not working. "Retired" being the clue.

There is nothing in the requirements for an extension based on retirement about not working or that you need to live exclusively in Thailand.

Employment in Thailand may be prohibited and you need to be in country when it comes time for the annual extension renewal, but I'm pretty sure there are those who have retirement extensions, spend part of the year in Thailand and still have some form of employment in their home country that doesn't demand that they clock in everyday. 

 

17 hours ago, elviajero said:

 

There is no rule that says you can be working as long as it's outside the country, either!

Not really sure what you're trying to say. There is no rule concerning employment outside Thailand. What you get up to outside Thailand is pretty much nothing to do with Thai immigrations as long as you abide by the terms of your extension while in Thailand and meet the age & financial requirements.

[moojar]

OP - "I am currently on a married Non O but was told to extend into a retirement visa instead as it is much easier. "  

 

I am curious about that.  I know a spouse visa is more difficult.  Are you considering a retirement visa because the extra hoops you must jump thru for a spouse visa are just too hard coz you're offshore a lot of the time, or because the extra hoops have just become a PITA?  

 

We'll be retiring in a couple of years.  The prospect of having 800k parked in a Thai bank is less attractive to me than having 400k parked.  I'll be retired, I'll have time to play their games.  Am I dreaming?

[overherebc]

12 minutes ago, moojar said:

OP - "I am currently on a married Non O but was told to extend into a retirement visa instead as it is much easier. "  

 

I am curious about that.  I know a spouse visa is more difficult.  Are you considering a retirement visa because the extra hoops you must jump thru for a spouse visa are just too hard coz you're offshore a lot of the time, or because the extra hoops have just become a PITA?  

 

We'll be retiring in a couple of years.  The prospect of having 800k parked in a Thai bank is less attractive to me than having 400k parked.  I'll be retired, I'll have time to play their games.  Am I dreaming?

In reality it's not parked continuosly.  eg, if you have an income of 500,000 a year you only need 300,000 in the bank, any combination of income and savings together adding to 800,000 at the time of application can be used.

Edit.

Before anyone jumps on it, of course if you have 500,000 income and are married here you can use that for a married extension on it's own as the requirement is 400,000 income.

PS 

You cannot use 'any' combination for a married extension.

 

[ubonjoe]

A post bringing politics into the discussion and a reply to it has been removed.

[moojar]

6 minutes ago, overherebc said:

In reality it's not parked continuosly.  eg, if you have an income of 500,000 a year you only need 300,000 in the bank, any combination of income and savings together adding to 800,000 at the time of application can be used.

 

Yep, understand - thanks.  It's just easier to have '800k' (400k) as a fixed amount in my spreadsheet column!  

[darrendsd]

20 hours ago, elviajero said:

Your friend has given you very good advice. Do not voluntarily divulge that you are working. The extension of stay (not a visa) is meant for people that want to live in Thailand and that are not working. "Retired" being the clue. The income affidavit, from your embassy does not need to mention the source of your income, just how much it is. IMO it's highly unlikely that they would decline an extension if they knew you were working, but there is no point taking that chance. Plenty of people do what you are proposing, but I am sure most don't declare they are working.

 

IMO you are better off with a 'marriage' extension if at all possible. It's not that much more paperwork. The only problem is timing your home visits so you can be there during the one month 'under consideration' period. If you don't stay longer than 150 days per visit then a multiple entry non-immigrant 'O' visa based on your marriage might be the best option.

 

There is no rule that says you can be working as long as it's outside the country, either!

It would be no issue whatsoever for anybody to tell Immigration that they work outside of the country, you don't have to be 'retired" to qualify for a extension of stay based on retirement, you just have to be 50 or over and meet the requirements set by Immigration

 

"For people who want to live" in Thailand, well actually no, you can come and go as you please, hence the multiple entry option

 

"For people who want to live in Thailand and are not working" well there is nothing in the Immigration rules to say you cannot work outside of Thailand and still have the retirement extension in Thailand

 

I really don't see why you would advise to go on a marriage extension when the retirement option is so much easier, for example a friend of mine renewed his 1 year last week and was in and out of the office within 15 minutes, the marriage option is a lot more paperwork and involves more visits to Immigration, we have all read reports on here of some offices being difficult when these are applied for

 

You seem to view this matter differently from a lot of people and indeed Immigration themselves who have no concern if people work outside of the country and do not "live" here

 

 

 

 

[Aussieroaming]

4 hours ago, overherebc said:

Friend of mine has been on retirement extension for a few years and works FIFO in Australia. He applied for a married extension and because he had more than the 800,000 in his bank acc' the IO just said go for retirement and carry on, you're not working here so it's ok.

Me too. I was on a marriage visa and work full time off-shore. Immigration advised me to swap to the retirement visa when i re-applied and no dramas about being employed as it was easier (quicker) to process. Never had an issue with the change nor with the income being transferred to my thai bank account.

[darrendsd]

Just now, Aussieroaming said:

Me too. I was on a marriage visa and work full time off-shore. Immigration advised me to swap to the retirement visa when i re-applied and no dramas about being employed as it was easier (quicker) to process. Never had an issue with the change nor with the income being transferred to my thai bank account.

The vast majority of Immi offices are now telling those who are married and over 50 to go for the retirement extension instead, less hassle for the applicant and less paperwork for Immigration, everyone wins

[overherebc]

22 minutes ago, darrendsd said:

The vast majority of Immi offices are now telling those who are married and over 50 to go for the retirement extension instead, less hassle for the applicant and less paperwork for Immigration, everyone wins

Entirely sensible in my book.

Then again, I don't spend my life looking for bogeymen behind every immaginary bush.

?

[how241]

No working inside Thailand but outside should be OK...Maybe---you never know what they will say ...Better to not mention it  IF  you have the 800K  in the bank.

[murraynz]

im sure it doesnt matter if a person on a retirement visa works outside of thailand...but the point is--

just because a person on a retirement visa has income--it doesnt  neccessarily mean that they are actually,  physically working---

there are many ways to derive an oversaes income-for those smart enough to plan ahead  ie, from rents-investments ,shares ,on line work,property trading, pensions,superannuation schemes etc etc

[baneko]

If your on a 28/28 same as myself make sure you have 2 passports. Your company can supply a letter and you can apply at the Trendy Buliding and takes about 2wks. This will help if you require to leave on a hitch. I have the non O based on marraige multi entry from Savannakhet which works well if your on a rota. In and out in 2 days. Sorted.

[moojar]

2 hours ago, overherebc said:

 

Then again, I don't spend my life looking for bogeymen behind every immaginary bush.

?

I don't think anyone was?  But now that you mention it, I'd imagine a spouse visa would give you more human rights than a retirement visa, should things go pear shaped. 

[overherebc]

3 minutes ago, moojar said:

I don't think anyone was?  But now that you mention it, I'd imagine a spouse visa would give you more human rights than a retirement visa, should things go pear shaped. 

Standby for some answers on that one. ?

[elviajero]

22 hours ago, Kadilo said:

If they are worried that people are still working how come one of the financial options for the extension of stay is based around monthly income. Pension or otherwise. I've never heard anyone suggest that you have to be retired to get a retirement visa and extension, just be over 50 and satisfy the financial requirements.

Or am I wrong on this?

They clearly aren't, generally, worried about people working because they don't insist on knowing the source of the income being declared. The number of expats on 'retirement extensions' that are working abroad is probably very small and insignificant.

 

There's a first for everything. You can only get a nom-immigrant 'O' visa in the UK based on 'retirement' if you're in receipt of state pension. Some other consular services around the world also require some proof of retirement.

 

[elviajero]

 

16 hours ago, Kadilo said:

Yes I'm pretty much the same. I get about not working that's obvious but the rest I'm struggling with. A Retirement Visa is available for anyone over 50 who meets the financial criteria. If it's only supposed to be for retirees why make the age minimum so young ?
As for the rest sounds a bit too much paranoia.

Plenty of people can/do retire at 50. The relevant question is why, if it's not meant for people that don't work, it's known as a 'retirement visa'.

[elviajero]

15 hours ago, tutsiwarrior said:

nowhere does it state in the requirements for the retirement extension of stay application that the applicant must be not working, i.e., 'retired'...there is an age requirement and an income requirement...

LOL. So you don't understand the meaning of retirement!

 

If you can work with 'retirement extension' why don't they let people that are legally working in Thailand work unless they change there visa entry/the basis for their permit to stay. Is it because they are supposed to be retired/not working!?

 

15 hours ago, tutsiwarrior said:

.no one wants the hassle of a marriage extension if it can be avoided...

I do. It's no hassle at all. And the benefits outweigh the extra paperwork.

 

16 hours ago, tutsiwarrior said:

this was suggested by the IO and they even provided an info sheet with the retirement extension requirements to be heeded on my next application

Suggested because it gives them less work. If you go in with an income affidavit over 65K or more than 800K in the bank most IO's/offices will encourage the applicant to complete on 'retirement' basis. 

 

16 hours ago, tutsiwarrior said:

sure, any IO can make an issue of yer employment status when you apply for a retirement extension but in doing so they simply reveal themselves as uninformed or an abusive bully

LOL. 

 

16 hours ago, tutsiwarrior said:

unfortunately we know that both exist but don't let that prevent anyone from following the rules as they presently stand

Can you point to the rules that exempt someone that is working from applying for an extension of stay based on 'RETIREMENT'. Another point on the oxymoron count.

 

16 hours ago, tutsiwarrior said:

I've been following this forum for many years now and have never heard of such a problem, but, that's not to say that it could never happen...

Exactly!!!! Which is why the best advice is not to disclose you are working and give the IO a legitimate reason to decline the application.

[Kadilo]

 

Plenty of people can/do retire at 50. The relevant question is why, if it's not meant for people that don't work, it's known as a 'retirement visa'.

Plenty may do but if it was specifically aimed at retirees the age would be set older as that would be for the majority imo.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[elviajero]

7 hours ago, Suradit69 said:

There is nothing in the requirements for an extension based on retirement about not working or that you need to live exclusively in Thailand.

Agreed. But what you mean to say is that there is nothing asking you to prove you are retired. I would have thought any intelligent person understands what 'retirement' means and doesn't need it spelled out in the rules.

 

If you asked 100 people, that don't read and get brainwashed by the nonsense written on forums, what the main criteria would be for an 'extension of stay based on retirement' I'm guessing 100 would say it's being retired/not working.

 

They don't allow someone working legally in Thailand to have an extension based on retirement so why does anyone think work abroad would be exempt just because it's abroad.

 

 

[tutsiwarrior]

14 minutes ago, elviajero said:

LOL. So you don't understand the meaning of retirement!

 

If you can work with 'retirement extension' why don't they let people that are legally working in Thailand work unless they change there visa entry/the basis for their permit to stay. Is it because they are supposed to be retired/not working!?

 

I do. It's no hassle at all. And the benefits outweigh the extra paperwork.

 

Suggested because it gives them less work. If you go in with an income affidavit over 65K or more than 800K in the bank most IO's/offices will encourage the applicant to complete on 'retirement' basis. 

 

LOL. 

 

Can you point to the rules that exempt someone that is working from applying for an extension of stay based on 'RETIREMENT'. Another point on the oxymoron count.

 

Exactly!!!! Which is why the best advice is not to disclose you are working and give the IO a legitimate reason to decline the application.

 

(sigh)...