Thai immigration considers forcing some retirees to show 800k in bank EVERY THREE MONTHS: report

Why is it that a marriage extension requires either 400,000Bht in the bank or 40,000bht/month (total 480,000Bht) yet a retirement extension is 800,000bht in the bank or 65,000bht/month (total 780,000bht

For Brits, whilst state pension alone is unlikely to meet the above minimum monthly figures it should be noted that state pension is paid every 4 weeks -hence 13 payments in a year!
 
Prakhonchai Nick said:
Why is it that a marriage extension requires either 400,000Bht in the bank or 40,000bht/month (total 480,000Bht) yet a retirement extension is 800,000bht in the bank or 65,000bht/month (total 780,000bht

For Brits, whilst state pension alone is unlikely to meet the above minimum monthly figures it should be noted that state pension is paid every 4 weeks -hence 13 payments in a year!
Click to expand...

yes, have also been thinking of that,
I can see one sound reason;

it is assumed that both spouses have work/income and contribute to running the family, ie pooling assets
hence, less is required from each
 
melvin said:
yes, have also been thinking of that,
I can see one sound reason;

it is assumed that both spouses have work/income and contribute to running the family, ie pooling assets
hence, less is required from each
Click to expand...
Wrong! It must assume that a retirement extension means you are a single man and, as such, have many lady drinks to buy at the bar. In contrast, they know that a married man is never allowed out of the house alone and, therefore, does not have the added expense of lady drinks on his bar bill. :D:D:D
 
nomad97 said:
Wrong! It must assume that a retirement extension means you are a single man and, as such, have many lady drinks to buy at the bar. In contrast, they know that a married man is never allowed out of the house alone and, therefore, does not have the added expense of lady drinks on his bar bill. :D:D:D
Click to expand...

That is a perfect answer for the difference between the "in bank" 400K and 800k. My point is why are the monthly amounts required some 80,000baht more than the money in a bank for a marriage "visa" (lets annoy CO-CO) yet 20,000baht less for a retirement "visa"
 
nomad97 said:
Wrong! It must assume that a retirement extension means you are a single man and, as such, have many lady drinks to buy at the bar. In contrast, they know that a married man is never allowed out of the house alone and, therefore, does not have the added expense of lady drinks on his bar bill. :D:D:D
Click to expand...

Except for @Eanto, of course.
 
nomad97 said:
I did get the impression, rightly or wrongly, that you were happily married to a lovely Thai lady. If so, an extension based on marriage and only 400,000 baht in the bank would be an alternate route for you to follow. Similarly, have 40,000 a month coming into your Thai bank account and not 65,000 baht as required for a retirement extension of stay. Surely your living expenses with a growing family of four exceeds 40,000 baht/month. I know mine does.
Click to expand...

Presumably using the combination method of income and capital provides further flexibility
 
ColinW said:
Presumably using the combination method of income and capital provides further flexibility
Click to expand...
GL will step in if I am wrong but I don't think the combination method, income and capital, is available for an extension based on marriage.
 
I don't think that the "combined" method is acceptable for a marriage extension, while for a retirement extension we're back to the riddle of proving the monthly income element if a "combined" method is allowed.

I haven't seen a version of the new rule that allows the combined method - only an insistence on a seasoned 800K thb for the application, followed by an 800K balance after 3 months, then 400K for 2 x 3months, and back to 800K for the next application.
 
Merlin said:
I don't think that the "combined" method is acceptable for a marriage extension, while for a retirement extension we're back to the riddle of proving the monthly income element if a "combined" method is allowed.

I haven't seen a version of the new rule that allows the combined method - only an insistence on a seasoned 800K thb for the application, followed by an 800K balance after 3 months, then 400K for 2 x 3months, and back to 800K for the next application.
Click to expand...

that is similar to what I have understood,
at point of extension 800 k (seasoned as required)
for the next 3 months 800 k
for the next 6 months never below 400k
for the next 3 months 800 k
point of extension

how would this be policed? bringing updated passbooks everytime you do a 90-day?

however, the visa gurus on TVF seem to see scope for combination with monthly income of 65000 baht
 
Yorky said:
Do you think the rule makers have considered how it could be policed?

They're not the sharpest knives in the drawer.
Click to expand...

Mind you either is Australia they passed an anti data encryption law on the internet. With absolutely no way of enforcing it. They might as well of legislated the tide from coming in Et al King Canute.
 
Left home at 08:15 this morning. Arrived back just before midday with a new ATM/Debit card and 12 month extension of stay. There was no mention of future proving that I still had Bht 800,000.00 in the bank after 90 days.

[Edit: my current bank passbook covers the period from January 2016 to today's date. There has not been less than Bht 800,000.00 in the account within that period.]
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top