retirement visas

[aot871]

how are people who cannot use the 800,000 bht means of obtaining a visa but have a 65,000 monthly income going to get on, , the way i read it is that you have to show proof that you have been bringing in at least 65,000 for at least 1 year. Its seems a truly thai F--k up in that if you cant stay for a full year how can you prove you have the 65,000 each month

[Smiles]

Entanglements found here: https://sawatdeenetwork.com/v4/showthread.php?20410-Australia-ending-Income-Verification-Letters

[lonelywombat]

Had a discussion tonight re the money in the bank. I was not really interested until it was suggested that the money could be onloaned to say another 3 people in the 12 month period.
I did not want to get involved but it was stated $800,000 does not have to stay in one bank and can be transferred to others. It has been happening for many years.

[scottish-guy]

Of course, that little scheme relies on one of the participants not running off with the 800,000B when it's his turn to have it in his bank, right?

[Nirish guy]

Sorry I realise everyone is at different places in their lives and things happen that affect peoples finances etc but is it not reasonable to expect or assume that once you reach the age where you're retiring to Thailand or wherever that it's not an unreasonable expectation that you might have that 800.000 ( £18,000 Stg) stashed away in some bank or other hidihole ?

I mean surely by that point most people who decide to move have sold a house to help relocate, or if not have even just rented out their house and so have some form of even a small rental income ( and one assumes no mortgage needing offset against that anymore?) so reaching either of the governments basic limit requirements wouldn't it appears on first glance to be THAT onerous on a person - and actually more to the point if by that point in life you can't hit those numbers then maybe you DO have a bit of a problem and shouldn't perhaps be thinking of living overseas in the first place when it comes to considering future medical issues arising etc maybe - which is the Governments whole point I'm guessing ?

And again I dont mean the above as a dig or insult towards anyone who is maybe finding themselves in that position I just find it hard to calculate how that might be the case at our rough collective ages ? No doubt I'll soon be informed how that IS very easily the case and how it's easy to find oneself in that position through no fault of that person - and if so I do apologise in advance and repeat no offence is intended in my observation / question.

[scottish-guy]

I guess, NIrish, that there may be long term retirees who when they first arrived in Thailand would have had the surplus funds necessary to stick a large amount in the bank to satisfy the Thai authorities, but those "lump sum" funds have over the years dwindled and may be now reliant on pensions or other income to fund their continued retirement there.

Just a guess

[Nirish guy]

Yeah I get that - but If one assumed that you want to live on even say a modest £10k STG a year for retirement if it were me I'd like to think I had say two or three years worth of retirement funds put away for when that times comes ( perhaps from the house/rental things as above or other investments / policies coming good) and not be SOLELY dependent on a (state) pension as if I didn't I think I'd honestly be shitting myself.

Maybe I'm just unaware of the pressures that others face on a daily basis re such things as I'm not there age wise yet in life and I've all that to look forward too still ! :-(

Oh and IF that is the case for others I absolutely get that even if things are tight they'd still rather live in the warmth of thailand than the cold UK etc ! That I DO understand.

[frequent]

The most fascinating episode on any ex-pat Forum during my posting absence has been Thai Immigration’s clusterfuck about income verification letters. The new Immigration chief, the aptly-named “Big Joke”, seems to want to be seen to be making a difference without thinking the consequences through. My guess is that the Thais believed it no big deal to insist that as the embassies were certifying income, they should also be required to verify it. Possibly they even thought it means the same thing

It seems some embassies do check that when a citizen makes an income affidavit, they can produce some evidence to back it up, but documentation is easy to forge. A friend uses a rental agreement with a non-existent tenant for a property he used to own back home; he shuffles the same money each month between two different bank accounts in his home country and then uses the statement from one of them to “prove” his significant rental income. The embassy does not verify the genuineness of what they are being shown

The embassies have evidently dug in their heels, asserting that verifying income is not their role. In their own countries it would be the role of the tax authorities, in the sense that it is they who “verify” taxable income by issuing demands for payment of tax on it. Privacy legislation alone means that the taxation authorities cannot share this information will-nilly, another concept (privacy) completely foreign to the Thai bureaucracy

If this were a policy thought out in advance, Thai Immigration would have already published guidelines about how those relying on income can evidence this in future, or announced that the income verification option is being abandoned. Quite clearly, they have been caught flat-footed by the embassies’ response. Needless to say, fuckwit farangs are blaming their embassies and are assuming that somehow this is a deliberate campaign by the Thais to get rid of them. The usual decision between a conspiracy and a cock-up is to choose the cock-up; it much better accords with human nature

[francois]

Sorry I realise everyone is at different places in their lives and things happen that affect peoples finances etc but is it not reasonable to expect or assume that once you reach the age where you're retiring to Thailand or wherever that it's not an unreasonable expectation that you might have that 800.000 ( £18,000 Stg) stashed away in some bank or other hidihole ?

t no offence is intended in my observation / question.

First question NIrish guy, is "are you on a retirement extension in Thailand"?

There are many, including myself, who live on a pension which is in excess of the 65K monthly stipulation by Immigration. But we don't have 800,000 Baht to put in an account in a Thai Bank or even in a bank in our home country.
That is why the new regulation of eliminating the Embassy certification income letter is a big deal!

Thus it is not reasonable to expect that we have 800,000 in a hidihole or a bank!

[latintopxxx]

what a sorry state of affairs where 800K is ....a considerable amount!!!

[scottish-guy]

Dear Latin,

Could you please lend me £20,000.00 - it's only a small, inconsiderable amount and you'd never miss it.

In return I'll do a nude cam show for you.

Thanks in anticipation

SG

[goji]

Sorry I realise everyone is at different places in their lives and things happen that affect peoples finances etc but is it not reasonable to expect or assume that once you reach the age where you're retiring to Thailand or wherever that it's not an unreasonable expectation that you might have that 800.000 ( £18,000 Stg) stashed away in some bank or other hidihole ?

Absolutely. After many of them have spent 30 or 40 years driving around in BMWs or whatever, then they really should have saved less than the value of one of these cars.

Also, Thailand has to set some kind of minimum income level, otherwise they might have millions of people from Bangladesh and other such places turning up and getting retirement visas. They need to make sure immigrants are solvent and will not be a burden on the Thai taxpayer. This is how the world works. In some places in the world, buying a retirement visa is much more expensive.

Life is tough & the reality is that money is needed for the entry ticket. I don't earn enough to fly at the front of the plane*. Some can only just afford to get on the back of the plane and billions of people around the world cannot even dream of long haul holidays.

Finally, if the rules have required you to have either 65,000 baht monthly income or 800,000 baht in a bank account, then it is only reasonable that you do one or the other.

Also, if your income is actually in another currency and just scrapes past 65,000 baht, it's way safer to already have the 800,000 baht in your Thai bank account. Then if your pound note only buys 20 baht after 5 years of Mr Corbyn in no 10, you still have the 800,000 in baht.

[* Well, I could fly further forward, but NOT whilst saving for retirement. Also figured I could save a shed load by running older cars for years too.]

[scottish-guy]

Imagine ever having to depend on SGT members' empathy/generosity of spirit.

You'd be better to just go out on the balcony and toss yourself off.

:drink:

[Nirish guy]

I dont see any part of what Goji (or myself) has said in our posts that is mean in any way, just our opinions ( as far as I can see anyway) - I'm sure people have a 100 reasons for not saving a bit for their retirement and that's fair enough but it's also not crazy to question that seemingly and apparently we're being asked to believe that the vast majority of pensioners in Pattaya at least haven't managed to do that - personally and as Ive said before I find THAT hard to believe. BUT it if is the case then fair enough, but still hard to believe none the less.

[goji]

I'm just saying it how it is. Some people in the UK have a misplaced sense of ENTITLEMENT. The real world doesn't owe us a living and retiring to a tropical paradise costs money.

As for the savings, I agree with NIrish. If you look at the way people live in the UK, it's hard to believe most people aspiring to retire to Thailand have not got assets worth at least £18k.

[Nirish guy]

......retiring to a tropical paradise costs money.


Yeah, or even retiring to PATTAYA too it seems ! :-)

[poshglasgow]

And over the past 13 years we have seen the value of the £ fall from 75 BHT to the £ when it hit that level in September 2005, to just under 43 BHT today. That must have had a significant impact on those who retired to Thailand around that time and are still resident in the Kingdom now.

I do seem to recall that the exchange rate was even lower back around 1993 when I started visiting the LOS. Am I right in thinking that it was around 36 BHT to the 1GBP?

[francois]

what a sorry state of affairs where 800K is ....a considerable amount!!!

Too true.:(

[latintopxxx]

...thanks...hope none of the MBs are lurking on this board...imagine their shock at the fact that 800k is looked at as a considerable amount...enuf to loose sleep over because it would endanger residency...pitiful...sad...

[sglad]

There are many, including myself, who live on a pension which is in excess of the 65K monthly stipulation by Immigration. But we don't have 800,000 Baht to put in an account in a Thai Bank or even in a bank in our home country.
That is why the new regulation of eliminating the Embassy certification income letter is a big deal!

Thus it is not reasonable to expect that we have 800,000 in a hidihole or a bank!

What happened? Just how much meatloaf and Mont Clair have you been having, francoise??

[lonelywombat]

The comment that many people have saved to an affordable retirement is a waste of space.
The huge numbers that went down, lost everything due to the Financial Crisis has to be taken into consideration.
Good businesses, profitable with good cash flows wiped out.
Those that were not bankrupted and tried to keep their businesses open, are to be congratulated.
BUT MANY WERE BURNT AND SOME STILL PAYING OFF THOSE DEBTS.
It is so smug to talk about people driving around in good cars that did not save enough for retirement.
Those who were protected are lucky, even though they still may not understand why.
There are many in Pattaya that have lost everything ,not because of not saving, but caught in the downturn.
it is fortunate that some got through without any financial penalties. Maybe they should contemplate those who did not.

[DoubleDutch]

...thanks...hope none of the MBs are lurking on this board...imagine their shock at the fact that 800k is looked at as a considerable amount...enuf to loose sleep over because it would endanger residency...pitiful...sad...


Pitiful and sad, you say, latintopxxx.

What is the amount that you consider substantial?

And a personal question, how much do you have in your bank now, cash, something you could walk in, and withdraw this afternoon? Do you have 20.000€ right now?

[francois]

What happened? Just how much meatloaf and Mont Clair have you been having, francoise??

No meat loaf but lots of Mont Clair, sglad. :mad:

[scottish-guy]

(LatintopXXX) ...how much do you have in your bank now, cash, something you could walk in, and withdraw this afternoon? Do you have 20.000€ right now?

Remember you're addressing a guy who travels to Thailand on China Southern - so he's bound to have a few thousand tucked away from saving money on flights.

[sglad]

No meat loaf but lots of Mont Clair, sglad. :mad:

Aaaah that explains your posts. You know what they say, never drink on an empty stomach.

[goji]

The comment that many people have saved to an affordable retirement is a waste of space.
The huge numbers that went down, lost everything due to the Financial Crisis has to be taken into consideration.
Good businesses, profitable with good cash flows wiped out.


Well that is a fair comment, particularly those with everything in a good business that got wiped out.
I still think they would be a minority, although a minority that deserves a little sympathy.

I suspect a more common cause of people being short of cash is blowing it all on BMWs & fine living when times are good.

Anyhow, irrespective of how compassionate we are, or how you or I would like it to be, we shouldn't be feeling any sense of ENTITLEMENT to live in Thailand. If we're not Thai nationals, we have to buy our way in.

Don't confuse how we would like the world to be, with how it actually is.

For most of us, the only place we are entitled to live for free is in our home nation. Some people are even less fortunate than this and get kicked out when their country is invaded, or some other such mishap happens.

[scottish-guy]

Unless I've missed it, nobody has been claiming any entitlement to remain in Thailand if not meeting the new rules.

What has been expressed is dismay that the rule changes have the potential to end the ability to remain for some existing ex-pats, and what those affected are looking for are ways of becoming compliant with the new rules so that they can continue to live in Thailand.

[sglad]

Also, Thailand has to set some kind of minimum income level, otherwise they might have millions of people from Bangladesh and other such places turning up and getting retirement visas. They need to make sure immigrants are solvent and will not be a burden on the Thai taxpayer.

This doesn't make sense. Why would someone from a country with a much lower GDP per capita and cost of living (Bangladesh) choose to retire in a country with a much higher GDP per capita and cost of living (Thailand)? For the same amount of capital, the Bangladeshi retiree can have a much a higher quality of life in his own country where he is a first class citizen compared to being in Thailand where South Asians have traditionally been looked down upon. Isn't that why many farang choose to retire in Thailand - because they can have a much higher quality of life than they could in their home countries with the same amount of retirement capital?

Moreover, people from the poorer Asian countries with strong kinship values tend to remain at home upon retirement where they have access to family networks and support systems.

[scottish-guy]

I'm intrigued as to how a Bangladeshi (or indeed any non-Thai) could become a significant burden on the Thai taxpayer?

There is no chance of receiving any state benefits and if you were to be hit by a truck I suspect you'd be ejected from the hospital PDQ once they discovered that (as a non-Thai) you weren't entitled to Govt funded/subsidised treatment and you personally couldn't pay or had insurance.

So what exactly is it that a destitute Bangladeshi or Englishman would likely be receiving from Thai taxpayers?

[goji]

Unless I've missed it, nobody has been claiming any entitlement to remain in Thailand if not meeting the new rules.

What has been expressed is dismay that the rule changes have the potential to end the ability to remain for some existing ex-pats, and what those affected are looking for are ways of becoming compliant with the new rules so that they can continue to live in Thailand.

If I am not mistaken, anyone who can prove they are genuinely compliant with the original 65,000 baht rule is OK.
It's just no longer OK to fake it.

As for the entitlement issue, well perhaps that's just something that I see implied in some of the posts. Rightly or wrongly.


The reality is people can retire in Thailand as long as they can comply with the financial rules of the day.

Whether they like it or not, they are most likely screwed if any of the following happen:
Thailand changes the rules
Thailand indexes the 65,000 baht with inflation and your income does not follow
The exchange rates move
For anyone dodging the rules, Thailand tightens loopholes
Or numerous other scenarios

So a little bit of risk mitigation is advised.

Finally, even if this is inconvenient, there have been bigger hardships in the history of the human race. This is not like catching the plague or being in Poland in 1939.

[scottish-guy]

Goji - I think the issue (and I'm second guessing Francois here, so I hope he forgives me if I'm wrong) is exactly the process of "proving" the 65,000B minimum monthly income.

I'm speculating that people who are in this uncertain situation are wanting to know what "proof" is acceptable if (for example) the 65,000B minimum isn't paid directly into a Thai Bank account every month.

For example, suppose I was receiving a monthly UK pension which is paid into a UK Bank account and is easily the equivalent of 65,000B or more - but I only need 50,000B to live on in Thailand so that is what I have been transferring each month - or maybe what I require varies each month so the transfers are variable.

Technically, I have easily the required amount as income but I'm not bringing it all into Thailand so I then fall below the threshold.

Where do I stand then? Can I submit UK Bank statements showing more than 65,000B a month or are those irrelevant? Is it only what I transfer to my Thai Bank that's acceptable and if so then it looks like I'm up the creek without a paddle as I haven't been transferring 65,000B as neither the rules nor my circumstances required it.

There's no point starting to transfer 65,000B a month NOW because when I come to renew/extend my retirement visa/leave to stay then it will be what I've transferred in the last year that will be relevant, not what I'm starting to do now.

And maybe I don't have around £20K that I can shove into a Thai Bank account either. Maybe I didn't have a house to sell or maybe I'm renting it out. Maybe I'm living in Thailand entirely on a pension or other income and never thought I would suddenly need £20K to stick in a bank account to ensure my residency. Who could have predicted that?

I'm just giving that as an example, I'm not saying it's a real scenario for anybody - but it illustrates a potential difficulty, and the problem is there seems to be no advice whatsoever to ex-pats to help them comply. They seem to have been left high and dry by their Consular officials.

[kkjason]

Have you ever been to Bangeledash? I have - it is definitely not a place I would want to stay in when retired - particularly if I had money - I would get the hell out of dodge, with my money in tow, and live in Thailand in a heartbeat. Who gives a fuck if they looked down on me, because I would have the money to enjoy myself.


This doesn't make sense. Why would someone from a country with a much lower GDP per capita and cost of living (Bangladesh) choose to retire in a country with a much higher GDP per capita and cost of living (Thailand)? For the same amount of capital, the Bangladeshi retiree can have a much a higher quality of life in his own country where he is a first class citizen compared to being in Thailand where South Asians have traditionally been looked down upon. Isn't that why many farang choose to retire in Thailand - because they can have a much higher quality of life than they could in their home countries with the same amount of retirement capital?

Moreover, people from the poorer Asian countries with strong kinship values tend to remain at home upon retirement where they have access to family networks and support systems.

[sglad]

Have you ever been to Bangeledash? I have - it is definitely not a place I would want to stay in when retired - particularly if I had money - I would get the hell out of dodge, with my money in tow, and live in Thailand in a heartbeat. Who gives a fuck if they looked down on me, because I would have the money to enjoy myself.

This isn't about you or what you want. It's not cost effective for a Bangladeshi to move to Thailand; they would need twice the amount of money to have the same standard of living as they would have in their own country. You can do a cost of living comparison using one of the online tools available. And if they could afford to spend twice the amount of money, they can have a very good standard of living in their own country. Yes, I know what life in Bangladesh is like. But if you have the money you can live in a bubble, just like the farang living in Pattaya.

Moreover, the concept of moving away after retirement is quite alien in most Asian cultures. Most would rather live close to their families, friends and grandchildren. If they're religious, they'd want to spend more time in prayer and contemplation and getting more involved in church/temple/mosque activities. My parents bought a terrace house in JB some years ago and we sometimes spend our weekends there.They plan to spend longer periods there when they're retired but the reason they picked JB is because it's only a 45-minute drive away in good traffic and the cost of living in Malaysia is lower than in Singapore. We did have neighbours who moved to Melbourne, a city with a higher cost of living than Singapore. They were an elderly couple who had two kids who had migrated there after their studies and had become Australian citizens. The kids could bring in their parents under some exceptional PR scheme because the parents were old and had no other living relatives in Singapore.

[mr giggles]

800K upfront and 65K a month is a paltry sum for westerners.

How anybody of retirement age could not scrape that together is beyond me..

And if you can't , why would Thailand want an indigent individual like that?

IF you are that skint, you can always retire in Afghanistan or Syria.

[mr giggles]

Imagine ever having to depend on SGT members' empathy/generosity of spirit.

You'd be better to just go out on the balcony and toss yourself off.

:drink:

I usually do toss myself off, my sex life has been rather scarce :unknw_mini:

[DragonMaster]

Goji - I think the issue (and I'm second guessing Francois here, so I hope he forgives me if I'm wrong) is exactly the process of "proving" the 65,000B minimum monthly income.

I'm speculating that people who are in this uncertain situation are wanting to know what "proof" is acceptable if (for example) the 65,000B minimum isn't paid directly into a Thai Bank account every month.

For example, suppose I was receiving a monthly UK pension which is paid into a UK Bank account and is easily the equivalent of 65,000B or more - but I only need 50,000B to live on in Thailand so that is what I have been transferring each month - or maybe what I require varies each month so the transfers are variable.

Technically, I have easily the required amount as income but I'm not bringing it all into Thailand so I then fall below the threshold.

Where do I stand then? Can I submit UK Bank statements showing more than 65,000B a month or are those irrelevant? Is it only what I transfer to my Thai Bank that's acceptable and if so then it looks like I'm up the creek without a paddle as I haven't been transferring 65,000B as neither the rules nor my circumstances required it.

There's no point starting to transfer 65,000B a month NOW because when I come to renew/extend my retirement visa/leave to stay then it will be what I've transferred in the last year that will be relevant, not what I'm starting to do now.

.

Here is a quote from the Thai embassy website in Washington D.C. I'm guessing the very same text is available to those of you in the U.K. It pretty clearly gives you the requirements to obtain an O-A visa to enter and live in Thailand. For those of you renewing your permission to stay, which is what you get after your original visa expires, the requirements do not change and haven't for the last 15 years.

6. Bank statement or evidence of adequate finance showing a deposit of the amount equal to and not less than 800,000 Baht or an income certificate (an original copy) with a monthly income of not less than 65,000 Baht, or a deposit account plus a monthly income totaling not less than 800,000 Baht In the case of submitting a bank statement, a letter of guarantee from the bank (an original copy) is required.

If you don't have the required 800,000 Baht in a Thai bank account, you can show monthly deposits plus an amount in savings that adds up to 800,000 Baht. Not that complicated.

If in Scottish-Guys example, if he only brings in 50,000 Baht/month, that's 600,000 Baht and 200,000 short of the requirement. That's roughly $6250.00 USD that you can put in a Thai bank account to make up the difference. Problem solved.

Now for the coming argument that I haven't been transferring 50,000 Baht a month for a year. Not a good reason either. If you get an initial O-A visa from your home country, you have at least one year to bring money monthly into the country, and if you are creative you can make that one year visa last for almost a full 2 years before you have to get a permission to stay extension. In that time, you should be able to comply with the Thai regulations.

This has nothing to do with empathy/generosity of spirit as SG has posted, it has to do with complying with Thai requirements which have not changed. I also don't understand why some posters feel that it is a requirement of any embassy to provide you with affidavits for certification of income. As one embassy official indicated, you can put down any figure you like and they will certify your letter, however if you lie about the content, you are guilty of a crime and can be prosecuted by your own country. At least this holds true for the U.S. Not that they would waste time doing it, but you are taking the chance.

Notice the last line in item 6 above. " a letter of guarantee from the bank (an original copy) is required."

When I got my current O-A visa in D.C., the consular officer chastised me for bringing a letter of guarantee from Bangkok Bank and said "Why didn't you bring a letter from your bank here in the U.S.?" The fact was I had 850,000 Baht at Bangkok Bank and have left it there for the last 15 years just for renewals, but could have done as she suggested.

The last remaining and probably the most important is what will immigration accept as a guaranteed letter from the bank. My bank in the U.S. will provide the letter at no charge other than postage. I would guess that this is not uncommon for other banks, as these letters are commonly needed for business purposes as well by customers.

[francois]

Aaaah that explains your posts. You know what they say, never drink on an empty stomach.

Wrong.

[Pattayamale]

I understand I am going off in a different direction in my reply. But it is the logic of the law that escapes me. I understand that the government wants a retiree to have 850,000 baht in a Thai bank or show 65,000 baht coming in each month.

But what puzzles me is that if that retiree is married to a Thai, they need only need 400,000 in a Thai bank.

Of course Thailand is free to set the rules it wants. But it is the logic I have a problem understanding. Here is another one.......

Investment visa 2014, 10 million baht
What’s more, the THB 10 million can be distributed across the three different investment types. It would, for example, be possible to purchase a pair of THB 4 million (USD 125,000) condominium units and deposit THB 2 million (USD 62,530) into a Thai bank account to hit the THB 10 million minimum investment requirement. Unlike the retirement visa, there are no age restrictions on the THB 10 million investment visa. And family members may also get a visa.

We probably know retirees that moved to Thailand planning to live out their lives here. They might have taken their savings and bought a couple condos, worth more than 10 million but since it was before 2014 it does not count

Those retirees came Robert Thailand with a fairly good nest egg. They never planned room return to their home country. They might have met a person they planned to live out their life with. Over 20 years they used part of that nest egg to buy a house for them to live in, the above mentioned condos, maybe some farm land for their partners future, even a proper house in the village for his family, a small business so the family could make some money for their own living expenses, and car for transportation.

Some may consider it reckless. But with a fairly good monthly pension, health insurance, high limit credit cards for emergency only, and reaching a respectable old age, there seemed no need to have 800,000 Thai baht to put in a Thai bank as it was never required before.
Like others that have posted, my pension is much higher than the amount needed as income.

So why the change? In my opinion, the number of people that may falsify their income is extremely small. I have not heard of any really rampant problems. The average income in BANGKOK for a person working in Bangkok is $800 a month. This means that even though some are making more, there are a large number making less.

And so again I wonder why would it be only 400,000 baht for the farang that married a Thai????

Note: I legally married my Thai male partner in the USA in 2016 (together now almost 20 years).....waiting for Thailand to recognize gay marriage

[kkjason]

You're right - ti's not about me - Your original question was why would someone from Bangledesh want to retire and move to Thailand. I was answering that. Unlike you - I HAVE BEEN to Bangledesh. Multiple times in fact. How can you you possibly know what life is like there, as you mention here, if you have never been there? That's like telling someone that you know exactly what spicy som tom with anchovies tastes like just by looking at it. Even for the wealthy in that country, there are few places that one can go to escape the sheer poverty that most of the country lives in. Electricity - even in the 'hi-so' suburbs goes out routinely - multiple times a week. The list goes on. This is why someone from that country - if they could afford it - would gladly come to a country such as Thailand to retire. It is not about reasons why YOU would not want to retire to Thailand - and it has nothing to do with some cost of living index. We haven't even touched up on the horrible weather that Bangledash has for 10-11 monhts out of the year. No matter how much money you have, you can't escape when mother natures decides to call your name. I am not even sure what your point is here. People get tired of their culture in many cases. They appreciate life in another country. Why is that so hard to understand?


This isn't about you or what you want. It's not cost effective for a Bangladeshi to move to Thailand; they would need twice the amount of money to have the same standard of living as they would have in their own country. You can do a cost of living comparison using one of the online tools available. And if they could afford to spend twice the amount of money, they can have a very good standard of living in their own country. Yes, I know what life in Bangladesh is like. But if you have the money you can live in a bubble, just like the farang living in Pattaya.

Moreover, the concept of moving away after retirement is quite alien in most Asian cultures. Most would rather live close to their families, friends and grandchildren. If they're religious, they'd want to spend more time in prayer and contemplation and getting more involved in church/temple/mosque activities. My parents bought a terrace house in JB some years ago and we sometimes spend our weekends there.They plan to spend longer periods there when they're retired but the reason they picked JB is because it's only a 45-minute drive away in good traffic and the cost of living in Malaysia is lower than in Singapore. We did have neighbours who moved to Melbourne, a city with a higher cost of living than Singapore. They were an elderly couple who had two kids who had migrated there after their studies and had become Australian citizens. The kids could bring in their parents under some exceptional PR scheme because the parents were old and had no other living relatives in Singapore.

[DoubleDutch]

I understand I am going off in a different direction in my reply. But it is the logic of the law that escapes me. I understand that the government wants a retiree to have 850,000 baht in a Thai bank or show 65,000 baht coming in each month.

But what puzzles me is that if that retiree is married to a Thai, they need only need 400,000 in a Thai bank.

Of course Thailand is free to set the rules it wants. But it is the logic I have a problem understanding. Here is another one.......





Basic mistake of a foreigner, searching logic here, where there isnt't any.

You are right, of course, a married person presumably needs higher income than a single man. But no lol, Thai law requires him to only show half of what single guy needs to prove. It is definition of retarded, but I guess that is why we love Thailand.

[frequent]

Basic mistake of a foreigner, searching logic here, where there isnt't any.

You are right, of course, a married person presumably needs higher income than a single man. But no lol, Thai law requires him to only show half of what single guy needs to prove. It is definition of retarded, but I guess that is why we love Thailand.I wonder how many other countries refuse to grant a long-term visa to the foreign spouse of a citizen

[mahjongguy]

"...Thai law requires him to only show half of what single guy needs to prove. It is definition of retarded, but I guess that is why we love Thailand."

Seems perfectly logical to me. Those on marriage extensions can be of any age and are allowed to get work permits. Those on retirement extensions are not allowed to work, so they need to show better financials.

[gerefan2]

Thank you Mahjonguy...just goes to show how little some here know about the regulations!