Up2u wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 8:35 am
I hope that never comes to pass as it is simply unfair to change the rules midstream.
In your comment re hoping this will never come to pass, am I reading the post correctly in suggesting you consider it unfair to change the rules midstream for O-A holders? If so, then surely O-A visas only last a maximum of two years after which either a new O-A has to be issued outside Thailand or the O-A is then converted into what we call on this Board an annual retirement visa. Some change of the rules in such short-term cases is surely unlikely to be a major issue.
I also think it is not wholly unfair to introduce some change of conditions to the O retirement visa requirements - provided these are done over a period of years to permit individuals to adjust to them or, if necessary, to make alternative arrangements. Other countries do it. As a UK citizen resident overseas for many years, I have seen several of my rights reduced unilaterally with no appeal. The key one re this debate is that I am no longer permitted to use the National Health Service unless I return to live in the UK for a minimum of 6 months per year - despite my having paid my National Insurance taxes to the government for the full 40 years (most whilst overseas). I was never informed of this change by any government department even as I continued to pay my monthly contributions. So I as a citizen who has paid the relevant taxes am treated worse than a refugeee or a citizen retired to Spain or France where - at least until Brexit - the EEC's reciprocal health service arrangements apply.
Here in Thailand we know that some have knowingly abused the Thai medical service and this is plain not fair. So introducing some way to prevent this continuing is, in my view, far from unreasonable. But new regulations need to be properly thought through over time with lots of specialist advice and not rammed through with a sledgehammer. And their introduction should be coupled with a fair and reasonable appeals process. That is one area where Thailand has it all wrong.
I realise that if you change one regulation for long-term stayers, then the door is open to change others. But surely again there has to be some flexibility for the government. How long have the Bt. 65K/Bt. 800K limits been in place? I don't know but I am assuming at least 20 years or more. What is the level of Thai inflation during that time? What will it be over the next 10 years? With some people taking early retirement, their monthly/annual payments could continue for 30 years. Is it actually reasonable to assume that there should be no change in those amounts over a 20 to 30 year period? I have a difficulty with that question because I based my retirement decisions on the Bt. 800K regulation and will start to have difficulties if that is increased. But I can see the argument that - eventually - it should be increased.
That clearly opens up another can of worms. Why is it that the limits are identical for those who own apartments and those who rent? I have written to the Immigration Department about this and of course have received no reply! I know a retired gay couple in central Bangkok who pay Bt. 50K in monthly rent. I know another individual who lives much farther out and pays Bt. 17K. I happen to own my apartment and pay way less than that in management and annual maintenance fees. Why am I and most other owners not subject to a lower monthly/annual limit?
I only use this as an example of why I believe the entire retirement system is mess. I doubt if anyone in the government decades ago realised that some retirees would actually purchase apartments. Likewise that they would not have enough cash to pay for the much lower hospital fees in those days.