Anything and everything about Thailand
- Posts: 1518
- Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 8:47 am
- Has thanked: 13 times
- Been thanked: 219 times
24 respondents does not a good poll make!
"In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king"
OK, just did my bit.
- Posts: 1943
- Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:45 am
- Location: Bangkok
- Has thanked: 156 times
- Been thanked: 461 times
I absolutely can not agree with that. To target a whole section of the retired expat population with major new requirements just to root out the bad apples is crazy in my view. Some can not remit 65,000 a month from overseas for a variety of reasons. Those who have obeyed all the laws and regulations for years going the 800,000 route now have to find an additional US$12,500 or so to put in a savings account for 7 months and another similar sum for 5 months.ceejay wrote:I would comment that the Thai Government and Immigration Service are being given an unfairly hard time here.
In planning for retirement, I expect most people assess what their annual needs will be and add in an additional amount for the occasional emergency. Being used to importing roughly $25,000 per year which can then be spent after the 3 month lock up, it is quite a different issue now to expect these same people suddenly to find that additional cash - cash which can not be used for the rest of one’s life! You think that is reasonable?
I find that argument more than a little flawed! The present system results in most people actually spending most of the 800,000 over a 12 month period. Isn't is obvious that locking all the new money up in a bank account with almost zero interest, does not increase spending in Thailand one bit! All it does is little more than increase by a tiny fraction a bank’s ability to lend and perhaps add a similar fraction to its overall profits.ceejay wrote:They want you to bring money here - and, preferably, spend it. You can own real estate worth millions, but you cannot spend those millions in a shop.
Besides, those who purchased apartments contributed very considerably to the economy at the time of purchase and renovation. Anyone actually owning an apartment does not require as much each year to live compared to someone who rents - another reason why those who own should pay a lesser annual amount than those who rent. And in my view, owning shows a greater commitment to living long term in Thailand than renting (apart from those on very long term leases).
But a key part of my argument is that those who can take the 65,000 monthly route have come out of this new system pretty well. Those on the 800,000 route are being very substantially penalized. And why? Not because we have done anything wrong. Only because others have done something wrong and to catch some fish along with some crook agents and crook officers in their own Immigration ranks, an entire group of innocent retiree expats has to get caught up in the net. It’s the height of idiocy.
Further, it illustrates, just as was the case initially with the 65,000 route, that the Immigration Department jumped in with both feet assuming it had solved a problem without thinking through a great many of the ramifications.
And if they don’t change this ridiculous new penalty system, I for one give the middle finger to a retirement visa!
- Posts: 15449
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:21 am
- Location: Thailand
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 591 times
Absolutely right. If there was a way to agree more with you, I would agree more.fountainhall wrote:But a key part of my argument is that those who can take the 65,000 monthly route have come out of this new system pretty well. Those on the 800,000 route are being very substantially penalized. And why? Not because we have done anything wrong. Only because others have done something wrong