Are you changing to marriage visa now?

[GreasyFingers]

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

It is a big change, but you can still spend 400K and it only really affects when you bring in your living expenses. If you spend the 800K it needs replacing at sometime.

This just adds to the problem. I have always had more than 800k to meet their requirements but having spent 5M baht on house and land and the AUD dropping some 20% at the same time as the new holding rules came in just makes it that more difficult. If we all knew what the exchange rate will be in 1 year and 2 years it would be easy to make decisions.

Apart from the currency problem I will be changing to the marriage extension next year as our local IO has encouraged us to do so. We were not married when I needed the retirement extension in March but the wife (now) told them we were in the process of getting married and they recommended the marriage extension.

[pagallim]

59 minutes ago, elviajero said:

The criteria is to have a monthly income of at least 65K, not 65K less tax. A fact born out now by having to transfer at least 65K every month and not your 65K income less tax.

 

It is not stated as net income anywhere in the rules, but it’s implied.

 

As embassy letters did not have to specify net or gross income someone with a gross income of 65K could claim that as their income. That is a loophole.

I respect your often helpful posts, however, in this instance I believe that you are wrong.   'Implied' is not the same as the application as was, in the same context of annual income versus actual monthly transferred funds.   My gross pensions were never questioned, either by my Embassy or indeed Immigration as there was never a requirement for gross funds to be transferred to a Thai bank account (incidentally my net pensions still fulfilled the criteria).    The goal posts have indeed moved, and for those of us affected by either lodging long term deposits in our local (Thai) banks or making monthly transfers at roll of the dice type exchange rates, the (current) option of status quo of Marriage extension is indeed attractive.

 

Looking forward to seeing the publicising of new Immigration criteria tomorrow (22nd - maybe......) and what other angst it will bring.

[Lacessit]

35 minutes ago, GreasyFingers said:

 

Apart from the currency problem I will be changing to the marriage extension next year as our local IO has encouraged us to do so. We were not married when I needed the retirement extension in March but the wife (now) told them we were in the process of getting married and they recommended the marriage extension.

Unusual. I was under the impression from other threads IO's actively discouraged conversion from retirement to marriage, and demanded a lot more paperwork. Where is "local"?

[CharlieH]

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

Unusual. I was under the impression from other threads IO's actively discouraged conversion from retirement to marriage, and demanded a lot more paperwork. Where is "local"?

Possibly slight confusion here, in the past IO's discouraged "married' and preferred "retirement" as it was less work and done on the spot.

[GreasyFingers]

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Unusual. I was under the impression from other threads IO's actively discouraged conversion from retirement to marriage, and demanded a lot more paperwork. Where is "local"?

Phetchabun. Even thought the IOs speak reasonable English when required (they even have a young Aus girl to help) all of the conversation about the marriage extension went through the wife. She actually understood them to say to change my current extension after we married but I will wait until next year.

[geoffbezoz]

4 minutes ago, CharlieH said:

Possibly slight confusion here, in the past IO's discouraged "married' and preferred "retirement" as it was less work and done on the spot.

I think that depends on your area perhaps ? as I have never been discouraged from applying for an extension based on marriage in Udon Thani.

[CharlieH]

5 minutes ago, geoffbezoz said:

I think that depends on your area perhaps ? as I have never been discouraged from applying for an extension based on marriage in Udon Thani.

Quite right, as with many things peoples experience will vary where there is little consistency across provinces/offices 

[JackThompson]

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

It is a big change, but you can still spend 400K and it only really affects when you bring in your living expenses. If you spend the 800K it needs replacing at sometime.

Now - 5 mo living expenses + 800K and 400K unusable "spare" money

Before - 3 mo living expenses + 800K

 

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

It has always been net income. The embassy letters just created a loophole for people on the margin to exploit.

It was not a "loophole" - the rule was "income."  It is a re-write of history to call everything that was standard, accepted policy for years/decades a "loophole," and to try to paint us as having "gotten away with something," before.

 

We were never expected/forced to spend 65K Baht/mo, nor to move money in monthly increments.   This "new rule" is just that - new - a change in the rules, not some evidence that they "really meant that before." 

 

What we were doing before was correct and acceptable, but Immigration decided to move the goalposts and to hell with those who are already here.  This is not exactly a classy move to do to retired folks, and provides a window into how little some within the hierarchy respect us.

 

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

1 hour ago, Gecko123 said:

It's my prediction that Thailand will very soon be regretting how they have treated its expat community.

Don’t bet your house on that. 

Agree - for now.  But when/if the China bubble pops (I think it's "when" rather than "if"), they will be begging us to return - possibly needing more than our tourists to help, depending on China's next moves.  At that point, Thailand may be fortunate not to have a lot of easily-accessible oil or other mineral resources China is lacking, and decides they "need."

[Dumbastheycome]

On 4/20/2019 at 6:03 PM, Pattaya46 said:

… and with a Thai person.

 

That makes a lot of requirements  

All done in a  day for me. An extension of  stay based on it seems to  take longer fr   some. I  will stick with  my retirement extension thanks. Usually less  than 1 hour.

[pagallim]

38 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

All done in a  day for me. An extension of  stay based on it seems to  take longer fr   some. I  will stick with  my retirement extension thanks. Usually less  than 1 hour.

Agreed.    However that hour currently can lead to indeterminable amounts of Immigration visits (proof of funds meeting minimum requirements etc).

[Dumbastheycome]

1 minute ago, pagallim said:

Agreed.    However that hour currently can lead to indeterminable amounts of Immigration visits (proof of funds meeting minimum requirements etc).

For an extension based on retirement? Been and done  very recently. I hour.

[pagallim]

1 minute ago, Dumbastheycome said:

For an extension based on retirement? Been and done  very recently. I hour.

And for the rest of the year?    Proof of funds in local account etc?   I can do the same with no problem, but I object to being forced to keep a minimum balance in my local account.

[pagallim]

8 minutes ago, kevvy said:

I have a separate account which I do not touch with a little more than I million just for my visa requirements .I am fortunate not to worry about getting the Australian pension.

Forecast for the Australian Dollar

 

 

Cool, however you lost it in the 'Forecast' statement.

[Dumbastheycome]

5 minutes ago, pagallim said:

And for the rest of the year?    Proof of funds in local account etc?   I can do the same with no problem, but I object to being forced to keep a minimum balance in my local account.

Ok. I read that as being a matter of principle  rather than on any economic/financial necessity.

I say that because I have  not as yet  figured out the  rationale of  moving money about justified by chasing  minimal interest rate  advantages etc  given the cost of such especially if international for the  now  minimum BHT 400,000 or even the initial BHT 800,000.

The situation is  what it is and It has not  altered  my situation at all  for  extensions.

What  I "lose" on  permanent  deposit  is actually a fraction of what people pay  an agent in real terms.

However I  can well understand the  situation for those that now  have various  forms of  compromise.

Standing on principle  was  not one I had  considered.

 

[Golden Triangle]

5 hours ago, Just1Voice said:

Some of you are taking what I said TOTALLY wrong. I am NOT unsympathetic to the plight of some (many) with the rule changes. As I stated, I've lost 2 acquaintances who had to pack it in and go home because of this. I also know they could change the rules again tomorrow in a way that might force me to do the same.

 

But no matter how you look at it, or how you feel about it, the bottom line is that we are basically “guests” here, regardless of how long we've been here, or what family ties we may have established. We have NO, ZERO. ZIP say so on how they choose to run their country, or what rules they may enforce, or come up with. And that is the bottom line. I don't like it any more than anyone else, but we can't do a damn thing about it, other than to comply as best as we can.

Perhaps you need to consider how you phrase future posts to prevent misinterpretation, because no matter how you paint it you still come across as the obnoxious ' I'm okay Jack ' brigade. Food for thought maybe. 

[mike787]

6 hours ago, elviajero said:

Don’t bet your house on that. 

Thais can't give a crap about us farang.

Edited April 21, 2019 by mike787

[KhunFred]

Now that my marriage plans appear to be back on, I will use the Marriage Visa route next year. Looks like this year, I will have to pay a visa service because it will take Social Security another month or so to restore my payment to my direct deposit account at BKK Bank. I won't have enough months of deposits and I am not believing the "leniency" <deleted> that's been spread far and wide. Several posters have already said that officers told them it was 12 months or nothing. I tend to believe the pessimistic story rather than the "benevolent" one. I hate to spend 13k to 15k to get my visa, but it appears my only option. THEN, I will have to deal with converting my NON-OP based on retirement to one based on marriage. I expect that to be an ungodly nightmare. The Thai IO is incapable of doing anything but pickpocketing expats and failing to even be aware of their own regulations.. Nearly every post I read here has some kind of variance, which shows what kind of fiefdom IO is running. I will be taking my fiancee down there at some point to ask some questions. I never get any answered in a language that I understand. Even when they're speaking English, they're confusing the situation even more....much like my fiancee. I'll . be glad to have this all behind me, because I am really beginning to hate Thailand. The place is a xenophobe's wet dream.

[elviajero]

5 hours ago, pagallim said:

I respect your often helpful posts, however, in this instance I believe that you are wrong.   'Implied' is not the same as the application as was, in the same context of annual income versus actual monthly transferred funds.   My gross pensions were never questioned, either by my Embassy or indeed Immigration as there was never a requirement for gross funds to be transferred to a Thai bank account (incidentally my net pensions still fulfilled the criteria).    The goal posts have indeed moved, and for those of us affected by either lodging long term deposits in our local (Thai) banks or making monthly transfers at roll of the dice type exchange rates, the (current) option of status quo of Marriage extension is indeed attractive.

 

Looking forward to seeing the publicising of new Immigration criteria tomorrow (22nd - maybe......) and what other angst it will bring.

The rules state:

2.22 In case of retirement

"Must have evidence of having income of no less than Baht 65,000 per month:"

 

How that implies anything other than someone needs evidence of receiving at least 65K is beyond me.

 

Assume the applicant receives 60K net (65K gross). Using an embassy letter they were able to claim an income of 65K because no one checks. But now they have to actual show that 65K going into their bank. If they were to only transfer in a net income of 60K they wouldn't get the extension.

 

The rules have not changed. Immigration have simply added another way to "evidence" an income of 65K to met the criteria.

[elviajero]

5 hours ago, JackThompson said:

Now - 5 mo living expenses + 800K and 400K unusable "spare" money

Before - 3 mo living expenses + 800K

And before if you spent the 800K over 9 months it needed replacing. If you want to bring all the money in by one transfer on day 1 you need to transfer in an extra 3 months living expenses. If you put 800K in an account and leave it you still need other funds to cover your living expenses.

 

One way or another you need 800K plus living expenses, now and before.

 

5 hours ago, JackThompson said:

Quote

It has always been net income. The embassy letters just created a loophole for people on the margin to exploit.

It was not a "loophole" - the rule was "income."  It is a re-write of history to call everything that was standard, accepted policy for years/decades a "loophole," and to try to paint us as having "gotten away with something," before.

So before you could use an embassy letter to claim you were in receipt of 65K pm month (gross) when infact you only received 60K, BUT now you have to prove you actually receive 65K. That is a massive gaping "LOOPHOLE".

 

Quote

We were never expected/forced to spend 65K Baht/mo, nor to move money in monthly increments.   This "new rule" is just that - new - a change in the rules, not some evidence that they "really meant that before." 

The rules have not changed. They've been added to. Another way to prove income has been provided for those that can't get embassy letters.

 

One way or another people still needed to get their income to the country. Agreed they had flexibility before, but at least they still have a way of proving income. If they don't spend all the money they can always send it back periodically.

 

To qualify for the extension you need a minimum income of 65K pm. That has not changed. The fact you have to prove you actual have 65K pm going into your bank, proves you needed an actual income of 65K before. Unfortunately that "LOOPHOLE" has closed.

 

Quote

What we were doing before was correct and acceptable, but Immigration decided to move the goalposts and to hell with those who are already here.  This is not exactly a classy move to do to retired folks, and provides a window into how little some within the hierarchy respect us.

No they didn't. Immigration added an option to solve a problem. It might have created other problems for some, but IMO it's better than nothing. Without this new option many more would be paying out for agents or moving on.

 

The retirement criteria has changed in the past and will change again in the future. Whenever changes happen someone is going to be shut out. At best you get a 1 year stay with no guarantee of the criteria being the same the next year. That is just something we all have to accept. 

Edited April 21, 2019 by elviajero

[sandyf]

14 hours ago, pagallim said:

Think that you're missing the point.   Given that the majority of the retirement option applicants are indeed retired, and many under that category have limited resources, though adequately sustainable under the previous criteria.   There are also those who's Thai lifestyle requirements are substantially less than 65k a month and have no need of such sums and the associated transfer costs as an additional burden.

 

I would also question your 'net income' comment.    Having done mostly income letter criteria (though occasionally banked money) extensions for the past 11 years, never have I seen a 'net income' definition, and as such it wasn't an Embassy 'loophole'.   My own pension providers send me annual increase letters that are gross amounts, copies of which were supplied for my Embassy letters.   Net amounts of pensions can only be calculated though documents such as the P60 (issued annually by the UK tax authorities) as an example, with these bearing no relevance to Thai Immigration.

Quite agree. My extensions have always been income based and the changes have ruled out any further retirement extensions. I could change to marriage but at this point in time I am not prepared to commit to the inflexibility of either the monthly transfers or the money tied up in the bank.

I plan to go back to a multi non O for the next year or so and see how things pan out, I did it for the first 6 years I lived here and found it no big deal.

[JackThompson]

6 hours ago, elviajero said:

And before if you spent the 800K over 9 months it needed replacing. If you want to bring all the money in by one transfer on day 1 you need to transfer in an extra 3 months living expenses. If you put 800K in an account and leave it you still need other funds to cover your living expenses.

 

One way or another you need 800K plus living expenses, now and before.

 

So before you could use an embassy letter to claim you were in receipt of 65K pm month (gross) when infact you only received 60K, BUT now you have to prove you actually receive 65K. That is a massive gaping "LOOPHOLE".

No, it is Thai Immigration changing the standard/rules.  What we did before was not a loophole.

 

Quote

The rules have not changed. They've been added to. Another way to prove income has been provided for those that can't get embassy letters.

For those who still can get embassy-letters, the rule is still "income," as before.  The new-rule, for those w/o embassy letters, is "Minimum net income after taxes and other expenses which you remit to Thailand on a monthly schedule."

 

Quote

One way or another people still needed to get their income to the country. Agreed they had flexibility before, but at least they still have a way of proving income. If they don't spend all the money they can always send it back periodically.

 

To qualify for the extension you need a minimum income of 65K pm. That has not changed. The fact you have to prove you actual have 65K pm going into your bank, proves you needed an actual income of 65K before. Unfortunately that "LOOPHOLE" has closed.

No, it proves they now have a new and different rule applied only to those with canceled embassy letters (due, at least in part, to immigration's demands for a new-standard at a meeting in May 2018).

 

Quote

No they didn't. Immigration added an option to solve a problem. It might have created other problems for some, but IMO it's better than nothing. Without this new option many more would be paying out for agents or moving on.

Some, who have enough net-income to qualify, and who can manage the monthly schedule, will manage to avoid using agents or moving.  Many more will be using agents than before, however, which was the point of the exercise (and the bank-money rule-changes).

 

Quote

The retirement criteria has changed in the past and will change again in the future. Whenever changes happen someone is going to be shut out. At best you get a 1 year stay with no guarantee of the criteria being the same the next year. That is just something we all have to accept. 

I agree on that (why I say always have a "Plan B" at the ready) - but "grandfathering" of those already here was something many believed would be part of any future rule-changes.  This is a degree of humanity which was being projected on Thai-immigration, based on our own humanity and past-grandfathering.  This was clearly an inaccurate perception.

Edited April 22, 2019 by JackThompson

[sandyf]

You can take any ambiguous statement and interpret it in any manner you choose.

Income can come with a variety of adjectives, the most significant being "disposable". Whatever income level you want to refer to, it means an awful lot more to those that live rent free than those that don't.

 

PS Don't know why the quote disappeared.

The rules state:

2.22 In case of retirement

"Must have evidence of having income of no less than Baht 65,000 per month:"

 

Edited April 22, 2019 by sandyf

[luckyluke]

14 hours ago, pagallim said:

never have I seen a 'net income' definition

It seems to vary from one Nationality to another. 

 

I am Belgian and always had to show my net monthly pension income and to prove that this amount was/is monthly credited on my Belgian bank account, in order to obtain a Letter of Income. 

 

Happy that Immigration still accept Letter of Incomes. 

 

So far. 

[KhunFred]

I need to know what kind of experience I am in for, when I convert my Non-O based on retirement, to a Non-O based on marriage. I read conflicting reports that suggest they don't want us marrying Thai women for purposes of staying here, but they make it impossible to use any other method.

Does anyone have any experience with this? My GF is getting her papers and information from her Amphur and I am going soon to get my "Free To Marry" letter from the Embassy.

 

I can't talk to the people at Immigration because the potential for misunderstanding is too high. Maybe I can get my GF to go with me. Difficult because of her work schedule..

 

I am going to have to shell out money to a visa service for this year because I will lack the necessary number of months of deposits. I'm also trying to sort out the IAT issue and whether I can have my Social Security payment deposited in another bank, now that the IDD rules have changed.

 

The process is overwhelming. Next year, I can begin using monthly deposits of my Social Security check to get my extension.

[The Old Drunken Man]

Now I’m a bit more sober, I’m trying to get my head round what the bar room lawyer told me last night.

Facts- I am UK National been on a Non O retirement extension for last 3 years, next renewal Sep 2019.

Married to a thai for nearly 20 years.

Up until March this year my income was coming into a joint account here in Thailand but just below the 65K required for the retirement Visa, this was only because the UK embassy letter was gross amount and that was above the 65K rule.

Now changed bank to my name only and from May this year will have increased net income above 65K rule.

Now bar room lawyer tells me.

Need to show income above 65K for 12 months in your name only, or put 800K in the bank (never going to happen) or could covert to marriage extension, well I hate paperwork, pictures of me and her, no chance (I don’t look good naked any more) I don’t want them visiting me and the wife at home, so forget the marriage extension.

Use an Agent, again never ever ever going to happen, I would rather go and get a new O visa at Savannakhet, cheaper than the agent fee.

If I get any grief from IO I think I will just pack up and move

 

Edit because I forgot ask if my Knowledgeable  bar room lawyer is correct.

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, The Old Drunken Man said:

Use an Agent, again never ever ever going to happen, I would rather go and get a new O visa at Savannakhet, cheaper than the agent fee.

When I last priced it in the Pattaya area, the cost was about the same as the Savannakhet trip plus the required border-bounces. 
I went with the Visa, instead, due to concerns about the agent's 90-day reporting being incorrect.

 

1 hour ago, The Old Drunken Man said:

Now bar room lawyer tells me.

Need to show income above 65K for 12 months in your name only

Depends on the office.  There is supposed to be "leniency" this year, but every office can make up whatever it wants to manufacture more agent business money, apparently shared with the hierarchy (why this is never shut-down).

Edited April 22, 2019 by JackThompson

[sandyf]

1 hour ago, The Old Drunken Man said:

Need to show income above 65K for 12 months in your name only, or put 800K in the bank (never going to happen) or could covert to marriage extension, well I hate paperwork, pictures of me and her, no chance (I don’t look good naked any more) I don’t want them visiting me and the wife at home, so forget the marriage extension.

I did a retirement extension in November and for the first time had a home visit shortly after, not the easy option it used to be.

[The Old Drunken Man]

If the IO doesn’t give the retirement extension because of my lack of funds for the 12 months, the wife just said it doesn’t matter.

She says to go get a 3 month O visa from Laos, then start a fresh retirement visa extension that way I don’t show 12 months bank income only a couple of months.

As for them visiting she said I’m never flipping home much anyway.

[elviajero]

14 hours ago, JackThompson said:

For those who still can get embassy-letters, the rule is still "income," as before.  The new-rule, for those w/o embassy letters, is "Minimum net income after taxes and other expenses which you remit to Thailand on a monthly schedule."

No. The rule is exactly the same. It is just the way you prove your income that has changed. It has always been a minimum income go 65K, you're now seeing evidence that it was always 65K net. 

 

The rule.

2.22 In the case of retirement.

"Must have evidence of having income of no less than Baht 65,000 per month"

 

[elviajero]

15 hours ago, sandyf said:

You can take any ambiguous statement and interpret it in any manner you choose.

Income can come with a variety of adjectives, the most significant being "disposable". Whatever income level you want to refer to, it means an awful lot more to those that live rent free than those that don't.

 

PS Don't know why the quote disappeared.

The rules state:

2.22 In case of retirement

"Must have evidence of having income of no less than Baht 65,000 per month:"

I agree, but in the context of an extension application it's a stretch to believe they mean gross income.

 

When they say no less than 800K for the cash option, they mean the actual amount of 800K. Why would no less than 65K mean 60K is ok after tax?