Has the proof of income ie a monthly 65k deposited in to a thai bank changed to, it has to be a pension income

[marcusarelus]

19 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

So you're suggesting what? That most US retired expats in Thailand have a pension over 65k monthly? Based on what? Guessing? I told you a FACT. The average US social security check is much less. Too bad that the combo method has been trashed as that has been the answer for that for those using income under 65k.

 

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

There have been 2 reports out of 50 offices that the combo method does not work.  I'd say it's a stretch to say it does not work.  Many people on SS in the USA can't afford anything more than cat food to eat so I doubt statistics would be valid for them traveling to Thailand.  I'd take a poll on Thai Visa it you want some real info. 

Edited April 25, 2019 by marcusarelus

[gk10002000]

The document says "such as" and then gives pension as an example. I and I am sure others do NOT have pensions.  I have much more than 65,000 a month from my stock and dividend interests, and the recent and current trend was that the Thais were punting on any knowledge of the source of the income and were instead just going with the requirement one shows the monthly transfer in, and that is supposed to be from outside Thailand at the moment anyway.  If some office or officer is interpreting the document to mean only a pension, well that will not work for many people that don't have pensions or that perhaps have multiple smaller pensions/contribution sources.

[gk10002000]

7 hours ago, tigerbalm said:

Hi

Are you saying the No 3. is indicating pension or interest or dividends are an example of income that can be used, as opposed to just pension.

The way they have worded this particular example is a little bit open to different interpretations.

Personally i like the other one where to qualify you need a monthly income deposited in to a Thai bank of 65k a month after all a income is a income where ever it comes from (Legally)

As far as they cannot legally reject it goes, and i am sure you are quite correct, but can you imagine if i contested it, saving face and conceding wrong doings or mistakes are not part of Thai culture.

the ironic thing is i am pretty certain if i went to another immigration office i would be walking out with a new Extension.

 

Regards

TB

I actually think that some history of monthly transfers proves little to nothing about income.  It only shows somebody transferred in some money.  They could be spending down a lump sum, they could have begged, borrowed or stolen some funds from somebody to limp along, etc.  The transfers give no substantive proof of any sustainable future income such as a pension or military retirement pay would, or even a large stock or dividend paying portfolio, rental property income etc.   I am sure the original intent of monthly income to most Thais probably did mean a pension or military retirement sort of income. But that doesn't mean that other types of reasonably regular income are excluded. Most people just can't grasp or never did amass enough of a portfolio to live off of dividends and interest.  I have seen posts where people plan to spend down their 401ks, take enough out every month/year to meet the 65K baht requirement.  But that to me is not income.  It is just reported income as you make distributions from your 401k or IRA.  You are not earning or making any income.   It is a challenging issue as to the best way to show or prove future income.  Gosh, even many pension providers have gone broke and stopped paying pensions.

[gk10002000]

27 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

There have been 2 reports out of 50 offices that the combo method does not work.  I'd say it's a stretch to say it does not work.  Many people on SS in the USA can't afford anything more than cat food to eat so I doubt statistics would be valid for them traveling to Thailand.  I'd take a poll on Thai Visa it you want some real info. 

Yep, the average SS payout is well below the 65,000 baht month ~ $2,000 USD.   If I start social security at the end of this year my starting benefit will be right at $2,000.  I am still working so I plan to wait a year or so as the benefit grows by about 8% each year.  Having lived in Florida since 2000 the number of retirees limping by and scrimping and the numbers I hear about are disturbing.  Nothing wrong with getting a cheap meal, or saving some bucks,  but the old folks literally have to do the Wednesday's discount lunches at Denny's, or save up and then pig out at the local Chinese buffet on the one day they have $1 dollar discount. I mean so many just look horrible and are just existing, barely living 

[Jingthing]

There have been 2 reports out of 50 offices that the combo method does not work.  I'd say it's a stretch to say it does not work.  Many people on SS in the USA can't afford anything more than cat food to eat so I doubt statistics would be valid for them traveling to Thailand.  I'd take a poll on Thai Visa it you want some real info. 

I find your comment disrespectful to the majority of Americans on social security. Westerners often move abroad to countries like Thailand because they can afford a better quality of life on a modest pension.

 

 

I have described the current situation with the combo method PROBLEMATICAL generalized over the nation. I don't have a database about each office.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

[Jingthing]

More on US social security.

The 2019 average check is approximately 45K per month. That is 20K short of 65K. I see no logical reason to assume the average check for US expats in Thailand which is a large sample of people would be much different than average. A poll looking for information like that is not likely to garner a high volume of votes and the voters couldn't be screened for being legit so the results wouldn't be at all scientific. So I won't bother with doing that.

 

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

 

[JohnnyBD]

30 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

More on US social security.

The 2019 average check is approximately 45K per month. That is 20K short of 65K. I see no logical reason to assume the average check for US expats in Thailand which is a large sample of people would be much different than average.

The average figures probably include everyone (older people who have been drawing for 30+ years with much lower benefits and spouses who usually receive 1/2 of benefits). It would be nice to see what the average is for those who started in 2018 and for those that were working and not the spousal checks. If I started in Mar 2019 (age 62), my SS would have been $2,174 and if I wait until age 66, my SS will be $2,883 plus any COLA cost-of-living increases. So, I think the average for new working retirees are higher than the overall average of everyone (the older people and the spouses).

Edited April 25, 2019 by JohnnyBD

[WeekendRaider]

Just now, gk10002000 said:

I actually think that some history of monthly transfers proves little to nothing about income.  It only shows somebody transferred in some money.  They could be spending down a lump sum, they could have begged, borrowed or stolen some funds from somebody to limp along, etc.  The transfers give no substantive proof of any sustainable future income such as a pension or military retirement pay would, or even a large stock or dividend paying portfolio, rental property income etc.   I am sure the original intent of monthly income to most Thais probably did mean a pension or military retirement sort of income. But that doesn't mean that other types of reasonably regular income are excluded. Most people just can't grasp or never did amass enough of a portfolio to live off of dividends and interest.  I have seen posts where people plan to spend down their 401ks, take enough out every month/year to meet the 65K baht requirement.  But that to me is not income.  It is just reported income as you make distributions from your 401k or IRA.  You are not earning or making any income.   It is a challenging issue as to the best way to show or prove future income.  Gosh, even many pension providers have gone broke and stopped paying pensions.

it's the old style pensions, if anything, that are NOT EARNED even to such extent that they can be seen as "entitlements"... INCLUDING Social Security as such.  we know we are running deficits.  on the other hand,  funds in a 401k or IRA were definitely "earned" in every sense of the word.  not just based on promises by anyone.  cash.  and a distribution from an IRA or 401k is pension income.  that we refer to them as "accounts"  makes it sound like they are not pensions, but that kind of wording is for marketing purposes.... not anything that.... even in Thailand..... would be thrown out with the baby's bath water.       

Edited April 25, 2019 by WeekendRaider

[Jingthing]

29 minutes ago, JohnnyBD said:

The average figures probably include everyone (older people who have been drawing for 30+ years with much lower benefits and spouses who usually receive 1/2 of benefits). It would be nice to see what the average is for those who started in 2018 and for those that were working and not the spousal checks. If I started in Mar 2019 (age 62), my SS would have been $2,174 and if I wait until age 66, my SS will be $2,883 plus any COLA cost-of-living increases. So, I think the average for new working retirees are higher than the overall average of everyone (the older people and the spouses).

Obviously average means many people under and many people over.

 

https://www.mathsisfun.com/definitions/average.html

 

In regards to what the average is for U.S. expats in Thailand, that's anyone's guess. Nobody knows and nobody is ever going to know. Keep in mind that Thailand allows people to live here on retirement status at age 50.  For Americans that quit work at age 50 and moved to Thailand, that's usually going to mean a lower end check once they do make a claim at 62 or later. The fact that the requirement for the income method is 65K is irrelevant to the average U.S. social security check. There is the 800K bank method and previously the reliable combo method as alternatives to a full 65K income method. Of course many "retired" people have at least one other money source --  working (online, offshore, etc.), streams from owned businesses, savings, IRAs, stock investments, rental income properties, annuities, private pensions, military pensions, etc. The combo method becoming so unreliable is a major hit to people making income under 65K and the bank method seasoning changes are a burden to the many people that spent down from their 800K annually and then topped up as needed for the next annual extension. 

Edited April 25, 2019 by Jingthing

[gk10002000]

1 hour ago, WeekendRaider said:

it's the old style pensions, if anything, that are NOT EARNED even to such extent that they can be seen as "entitlements"... INCLUDING Social Security as such.  we know we are running deficits.  on the other hand,  funds in a 401k or IRA were definitely "earned" in every sense of the word.  not just based on promises by anyone.  cash.  and a distribution from an IRA or 401k is pension income.  that we refer to them as "accounts"  makes it sound like they are not pensions, but that kind of wording is for marketing purposes.... not anything that.... even in Thailand..... would be thrown out with the baby's bath water.       

It is tough to understand what you wrote.  But what I basically was saying that taking a distribution from a 401k, unless those monies were accrued interest or dividend monies, means one is basically spending down cash.  So many people and financial "advisors" talk about some 4% rule.  Well, why drawdown an account at 4% when one can earn 5% in that account?  Distribution from an IRA or 401K while granted may be considered "pension income", in many cases it just means people are spending down the cash value of those accounts.

[Jingthing]

18 minutes ago, gk10002000 said:

It is tough to understand what you wrote.  But what I basically was saying that taking a distribution from a 401k, unless those monies were accrued interest or dividend monies, means one is basically spending down cash.  So many people and financial "advisors" talk about some 4% rule.  Well, why drawdown an account at 4% when one can earn 5% in that account?  Distribution from an IRA or 401K while granted may be considered "pension income", in many cases it just means people are spending down the cash value of those accounts.

Distribution from retirement accounts is most definitely NOT a pension! However, in the U.S. case withdrawing from non-Roth IRAs is reported as taxable income. I'm sure that many Americans that used to get embassy letters included their IRA withdrawals as part of their claimed income. It's a bit of a grey area but I don't think there was anything wrong with that because it is a retirement fund and the withdraws are indeed "income" under U.S. standards.

 

As far as drawing down (the recommended percentage is typically 3 to 4 percent), that's a thing that older people are usually advised to do unless their main goal is to leave as big a legacy as possible. In other words, at a certain age it is not only OK but the wise thing to do to gradually spend down your nest egg. Obviously with care and with tactics that reduce any chance of running out of money before running out of life. 

Edited April 25, 2019 by Jingthing

[Suradit69]

18 hours ago, tigerbalm said:

after all a income is a income where ever it comes from (Legally)

 I agree that the source of funds anyone uses to pay in Baht 65,000 a month should be irrelevant. Among other reasons, there are people who meet the age requirement for retirement in Thailand but who would still be too young to receive a pension.

 

And the wide variety of sources of retirement income around the world would make it hard to settle on a single definition of "pension" even for those old enough to receive it.

 

But what law are you referring to that defines income "legally?" Even if you can find some dictionary definition that suits you, that doesn't rise to a legal definition of "income."

 

Certainly if you have a pile of money sitting in a bank account at home, you might draw on that money for living expenses in Thailand but, aside from the interest you earn, the money sitting in the bank wouldn't be defined as income. You'd be very upset if the taxing authority in your home country defined that money as "income"  and taxed it as such every year.

 

Some (most?) taxing authorities do provide explicit legal definitions of income that would exclude some reasonable sources of funds for retirement in Thailand, for example.

 

18 hours ago, tigerbalm said:

can you imagine if i contested it, saving face and conceding wrong doings or mistakes are not part of Thai culture.

Also agree that getting a decision reversed would be difficult when dealing with the same officer, but this reference to "saving face" and "Thai culture" is a little tired and often used as an excuse when some farang doesn't like something. There is an avenue for registering complaints re: immigrations and, when done diplomatically, there have been successful appeals.

 

Just a casual skim through Thai Visa provides evidence that "saving face" and admitting fault is rare among farang, from which I suppose it is not part of farang culture. In fact Thai Visa would probably be a far less successful enterprise if not for the masses of posts motivated by farang loss of face and stubborn refusal to admit to being wrong.

 

And I don't recall many news stories breaking about western governments announcing that they made mistakes, although certain world leaders seem to spend their days trying to save face.

 

 

Tossing about unsubstantiated terms like  "legally" and referring to "loss of face" and Thai culture don't really add anything to what might be a legitimate complaint.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 26, 2019 by Suradit69

[wwest5829]

Interesting to watch and best not to take any absolute bets on how this will work for each individual. I plan on renewing my Retirement Extension on the basis of income in July. My US Social Security goes into my US account. Then I have automatic transfers monthly for double my SS payment to Bangkok Bank NYC (different current issue but I think we are good to June 2019 - backup plan to use Transferwise). I have no "defined benefit" pension. My funds are on the market and I will not be transferring 800 K baht losing earnings growth.

[tigerbalm]

18 hours ago, sfokevin said:

Does the Bangkok Bank statement you showed immigration show the monthly Transferwise transfers as foreign transfers or domestic?

Yes

Regards 

TB

[xkkpafi]

8 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

My funds are on the market and I will not be transferring 800 K baht losing earnings growth. 

I'm am in the same boat and I don't see the merit of having 800k tied up at 1%. However I believe the 65k requirement states that it must be an inward transfer from a foreign bank. If you are invested in stocks on the SET then the dividend payments would not be from a foreign bank but a domestic transfer from the Thai Securities Depository Co Ltd.

[tigerbalm]

16 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

 

But that's not the reason that tigerbalm seems to have been given? Rather, he indicates that he needs to prove his monthly qualifying transfers come from a "pension".

 

 

Correct

Regards

TB

[AAArdvark]

13 hours ago, Jingthing said:

So you're suggesting what? That most US retired expats in Thailand have a pension over 65k monthly? Based on what? Guessing? I told you a FACT. The average US social security check is much less. Too bad that the combo method has been trashed as that has been the answer for that for those using income under 65k.

 

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

The 2019 average is just over ฿45,000

[xkkpafi]

3 minutes ago, tigerbalm said:

Correct

Regards

TB

Apologies for my misunderstanding. When the old embassy letter thing worked certainly foreign dividends, including US divis, were accepted as proof of sufficient income. It didn't have to be a pension. May I suggest that you get your transferee to put a reference on you inward payments like 'Pension'. There is usually a reference or notes field on most foreign transfer applications that goes along with all the important stuff like SWIFT codes etc. In that way you would get a specific reference to pension if you were worried.

[tigerbalm]

16 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Seems strange that the IO went through this process only to then ask for supporting documentation re: a qualifying pension as the source of your qualifying foreign transfers?

 

I'm not sure what benefit there was to providing Transferwise statements, those are totally unnecessary and probably caused confusion? The Bangkok Bank letter & statement would be sufficient.

 

I'm thinking that maybe something else influenced your experience/situation, but I'm hard-pressed to figure out what it might be.

 

 

 

 

Yes you are probably right in what you say, looking back on it i don't know why i provided the transferwise statements, just as additional proof i guess if needed, all i can say is looking back in hindsight it would have been better to have kept them under cover and not mentioned them.

Regards

TB

[tigerbalm]

2 minutes ago, xkkpafi said:

Apologies for my misunderstanding. When the old embassy letter thing worked certainly foreign dividends, including US divis, were accepted as proof of sufficient income. It didn't have to be a pension. May I suggest that you get your transferee to put a reference on you inward payments like 'Pension'. There is usually a reference or notes field on most foreign transfer applications that goes along with all the important stuff like SWIFT codes etc. In that way you would get a specific reference to pension if you were worried.

That seems a very good idear, next time i do a Transferwise Transfer i will look out for any additional comments that can be added to the transfer to include pension that may show up on any Transferwise print outs, Thanks for that.

Regards

TB

[ubonjoe]

13 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Too bad that the combo method has been trashed as that has been the answer for that for those using income under 65k.

That is not correct.

The combination is still available. Just look at the police order and it is still there.

You apparently you are basing that on rumors about one office not allowing it.

[malibukid]

i was told by my agent yesterday in CM that a bank statement clearly showing the automatic deposit from SS to my Citi account in the States would suffice.  no way will it be deposited directly into a Thai bank.  all my credit cards are linked to Citi and it would be very difficult to pay them from a Thai bank.  online banking here is pretty primitive compared to the States.  BB's website is a joke.

Edited April 26, 2019 by malibukid

[ubonjoe]

7 minutes ago, malibukid said:

i was told by my agent yesterday in CM that a bank statement clearly showing the automatic deposit from SS to my Citi account in the States would suffice.

Perhaps to prove the source of your income.

But not to prove your 65k baht income. The rules clearly states it has to be transfers from abroad going into a Thai bank account.

How much is the agent quoting you do the extension to get around the rules or perhaps they are giving you false info so that you have to pay them to get your extension.

 

[CMNightRider]

The stories that come out of Thai Immigration daily are astounding.  It is obvious the people processing one year visa extensions need close adult supervision.  Too bad that isn't available.  

 

Thanks again to the clerks at the American Embassy for complaining about having to confirm monthly income amounts claimed by retirees, and embassy officials for abandoning American retirees that counted on these letters once a year.  

 

Your failure to support American retirees have not gone unnoticed.  I sincerly hope the embassy will be able to find more competent staff and will reinstate these letters in the future.  ????  

[weelegs]

My wife , who has decades of experience in the Thai government, has cleared up a mystery for me. I've noticed that, at least as reported on this site, there seem to be more problems with documentation for extension based on retirement with extension based on marriage. She points out that retirement extenson is delegated to provincial level, while marriage extension is handled at central level (that's why marriage documentation has to be sent to Bangkok). When the Thai govt. delegates something to provincial level, they really mean it -- provinical immigration authorities can interpret the rules as they see fit (ostensibly to tailor to local conditions ...). Central authorities will not overrule them. In several other cases of delegation to provincial level, similar problems have come up.

 

When I switched from marriage extension to retirement several years back, The Chiang Mai immigration officer my wife talked to recommended using the 800K method, and said there were likely to be more inconsistencies and hang-ups with the income method. Seems like the IO was right.

[weelegs]

On the embassy letters: the notatization you paid $50 for at the US Embassy or consulate is merely a notarization that the signatory is really you. The notarization is not, and never was, proof that the contents (you declaration of income) is correct. ("A notary public is a third-party witness to not only the signature of a document but also the fact that all parties who signed did so willingly and under their own power.) The surprising thing is not that Thai immigration stopped accepting these letters as proof of income -- the real surprise is that they ever accapted these embassy letters at all.

[ubonjoe]

1 hour ago, weelegs said:

he points out that retirement extenson is delegated to provincial level, while marriage extension is handled at central level (that's why marriage documentation has to be sent to Bangkok).

It is done at the division level now. Many year ago it may of been done in Bangkok.

They are approved at the Immigration Division headquarters that the office you apply at is under.

I am on my 11th extension based upon marriage and all of them them have been approved by Division 4 responsible for the NE region of the country.

Chiang Mai is under division 5 for the northern region of the country that is headquartered there.

Only division 3 for the central region is in Bangkok.

Division 6 for the south is in Hat Yai.

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, weelegs said:

My wife , who has decades of experience in the Thai government, has cleared up a mystery for me. I've noticed that, at least as reported on this site, there seem to be more problems with documentation for extension based on retirement with extension based on marriage. She points out that retirement extenson is delegated to provincial level, while marriage extension is handled at central level (that's why marriage documentation has to be sent to Bangkok). When the Thai govt. delegates something to provincial level, they really mean it -- provinical immigration authorities can interpret the rules as they see fit (ostensibly to tailor to local conditions ...). Central authorities will not overrule them. In several other cases of delegation to provincial level, similar problems have come up.

...

Local offices generally hate doing marriage-based extensions because they are "more work" and are under district supervision.  While there are some things that must be met at the district-level (or extra agent-money included for that sign-off), the local offices still add on their own "undocumented requirements" to discourage the use of  marriage-based extensions.

[xkkpafi]

1 hour ago, weelegs said:

The notarization is not, and never was, proof that the contents (you declaration of income) is correct. ("A notary public is a third-party witness to not only the signature of a document but also the fact that all parties who signed did so willingly and under their own power.)

First, I thought letters from some embassies (obviously not the US) were still accepted. So what you imply is that the 65k monthly or 800k in the bank is still a requirement even with those countries still providing letters because these letters are not proof of income? So what would be the point of these countries providing letters if they have no meaning? Getting really confusing now I must say.

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, xkkpafi said:

First, I thought letters from some embassies (obviously not the US) were still accepted. So what you imply is that the 65k monthly or 800k in the bank is still a requirement even with those countries still providing letters because these letters are not proof of income? So what would be the point of these countries providing letters if they have no meaning? Getting really confusing now I must say.

I think the letters from all embassies are still accepted, but as always, officers have the right (and sometimes do) to demand some kind of backup proof of the income claims in the letters. That could get messy at some offices that apparently seem to be moving in the direction of only accepting PENSION income if your embassy letter reflects full or part non pension money. 

Have fun. 

Edited April 26, 2019 by Jingthing