Jump to content

TM28 and TM30


Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, sumrit said:

Or of course, instead of having to keep the 800/400k in the bank for longer periods plus having to also transfer extra living expenses, or having to pay high agent fees to (possibly) use the illegal route you could simply use the monthly income method and just transfer the 65k baht into Thailand each month. much simpler for us to do and easier for immigration to control.

 

That could well be what immigration would prefer us to do.    

Most do not need to spend 65K/mo to live here - many of those using money-in-the-bank, and others using embassy-letters which were based on a monthly-average of one's total gross income - not "monthly-imported income."  Many with the total income required have expenses in their passport-countries to cover, so if transferring 65K/mo, may need to transfer some of that money back to cover those. 

 

Also, bear in mind that with the monthly-income method (sans embassy-letter), just one missed monthly-payment in the year, and it all goes sideways - then back to the "pay us off via our agent-partner or leave" scenario. 

 

If they allowed "an average of 65K/mo" - as our embassy-letters did - where the income could be disbursed quarterly or annually - this would be a reasonable alternative.   If a transfer-back of some of the income was needed for passport-country expenses, reducing the frequency of incoming and outgoing transfers would avoid the monthly hassle and most of the fees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JackThompson said:

That is not correct.  Before, you only needed 800K + 3 months spending money (which could be less than 65K/mo).  

Under the new rules, it's 800K + 5 mo spending money, just to cover the extended seasoning for the 800K, plus the 400K one can never touch.

That is not correct. Before you needed 800K plus 3 months spending money, OR 800K with monthly transfers of spending money.

 

Under the new rules, it's 800K plus 5 months spending money. If someone draws down at a rate of 800K/12 = 66,667 per month they need to bring in an extra 200,000 up front, OR transfer 800K initially and transfer the 66.7K every month separately. If you bring in 1,133,333 on day 1 you can drawdown 66.7K pm month and the balance will not drop below 400K before needing to top up to 800K again prior to the next extension application.

 

The point is that -- one way or another -- you have always needed 800K PLUS whatever you spend every month. The 800K has always been a minimum requirement and that has not changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JackThompson said:

If they allowed "an average of 65K/mo" - as our embassy-letters did - where the income could be disbursed quarterly or annually - this would be a reasonable alternative.   If a transfer-back of some of the income was needed for passport-country expenses, reducing the frequency of incoming and outgoing transfers would avoid the monthly hassle and most of the fees.

The embassy letters did not and do not allow for an average. The applicant is supposed to be retired (not working) and receiving a minimum income of 65K every month. Very few pensioners receive their income quarterly or annually and if they do -- as the exception -- they have to fit around the rules not the other way around.

 

Any legitimate retiree that qualified using the embassy letter should have no problem transferring their 65K every month, because they were claiming they receive at least 65K pm month before; right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...