Jump to content
Technical Difficulties Read more... ×
BANGKOK 15 November 2018 17:37


Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

502 Excellent

About JimGant

  • Rank
    Platinum Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Recent Profile Visitors

15,651 profile views
  1. You're right. A consular official couldn't possibly know if a document looks real, particularly a gov't pension statement. In fact, just present your income supporting documents in longhand, misspellings and all. That consular bozo wouldn't know the difference. So, I can see why TI is so worried -- the embassies will be overwhelmed with Photoshop forgeries, reviewed by consular bozos. Best, then, have all income filtered through a Thai bank.
  2. How about: "They just check/verify that the applicant has a document confirming the income being claimed." And that this verification includes that the document looks genuine, based on the knowledge of the consular official on what government pension documents look like and/or that the Ford Motor company pension is on a genuine looking Ford Annuity Company letterheaded document. Etc. Absolute certification? Of course not. But 'good enough?' Should be, if TI really has thought this through. Big "if" apparently.
  3. Indeed. Even TI's 65k per month, for 12 months, is an historical statement. So if TI actually told the Danes that they have to certify "future income," of course they said, 'no can do, we're outa here.' Thus, it begs exactly what each embassy has heard from TI.... If the Brits also heard "future income," again, of course they can't verify this -- they can only do what they've been doing, namely checking/verifying the applicants' statements of income, presumably historical. And if anyone is home at TI, this should be "good enough." So, are different Immigration officers telling different things to different embassies? Or is verification of "future income" really what they want? Or is something being lost here in translation? Logic would dictate that "good enough" should prevail. And only those (US, Oz) not checking applicants' statements need to come up to the "good enough" level. But logic and Thai Immigration in the same sentence can often be a head scratcher.
  4. Too bad this didn't happen in Indonesia -- or Singapore. Hang 'em high, me thinks. Certainly cuts down on repeaters.
  5. It's kind of a Catch 22, in that too low a coverage sets the banks up for 'runs' by those depositors with more on deposit than what insurance covers (thus, in crisis, the gov't has to quickly up the coverage, re the US in 2008, going from 100k to 250k). Maybe this is only a problem for the very few in Thailand -- but a run by more than a hand full could have serious herd effects. But too high a coverage attracts easy money to questionable financial institutions, whereby the fat cats, knowing the high coverage protects their deposits, will gladly deposit money in risky banks advertising way above market rates of return. Hey, no risk to me if the bank fails..... say these fat cats. That's why, when the US made the 250k coverage permanent -- as it was supposed to be only temporary -- there were some loud groans. And not just because of the above -- remember, banks have to pay the premiums, which, of course, are higher for higher coverage. So, you know the Thai Bankers Association (or whatever it's called) are happy with low (too low) coverage and related premiums. Anyway, good article here: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/100000-is-plenty-for-deposit-insurance/
  6. Actually, it has mattered before, as the late great US income statement said income "from US sources." But the new post income letter guidance from the embassies, such as it is, said, "You should now show that you have the income required by the Thai authorities by transferring the minimum funds needed into a Thai bank account." Says nothing about having to come from outside Thailand. So where did the rumor come from about money into a Thai bank account needing to come from overseas? Maybe the now defunct "from US sources" income letter has shaped the rumor. Certainly we haven't heard anything yet from Immigration, so maybe they won't care where it's from. Let's hope so.
  7. Yeah, maybe so. I but I think this matter has Thai Immigration in total disarray at the moment. I'm just thinking positive for when the music stops -- when, hopefully, it's the ogre without a chair.
  8. That's nice. I'm talking about one having the required disposable cash flow stipulated by Thai authorities to qualify as a welcomed expat. If somehow they came up with a method to prove money sitting in a foreign bank is, indeed, available for transit to Thailand, I'd welcome that. And, for sure, this is going to flush out some, probably many, that don't have the means stipulated by Thailand. I would certainly, then, endorse Thailand lowering the monthly rate for "retirees" from 65k to 40k. Why a married man needs less to live on than a retiree is one of those questions I hope Thai Immigration ponders in depth. I really feel the Thais will be more accommodating than seems apparent right now....
  9. Yep. And that's apparently where we are headed. Ah, but you're wrong. Cash flow coming into Thailand is the only way you'll prove an "income stream" acceptable to the Thais (better call it cash flow, as some of that money coming to Thailand may be from a recent inheritance). If it's not coming into Thailand, the Thais won't care that maybe the only income stream going on is between you and your former wife living in the Bahamas.
  10. Oh Christ, can't we get away from this circle jerk? I wonder how many farangs, living under bridges, had legitimate proof of required income? If it's not disposable income, available for use in Thailand, it's of no use to what the Thais are trying to determine, i.e., your sustainability in Thailand. A baht in the hand is worth, what, a million bucks stuck in a foreign land? And by having proof filtered through a Thai bank seems very prudent, from a Thai perspective.
  11. Could you please show me this, as I've never seen anything in Police or Immigration regulations or guidance that mention "embassy letter." I'm not doubting you, I'd just like to be pointed to the English translation of this regulation.
  12. Simplicity plus -- and just what's been told to the Brit and US embassies. So, after all has been implemented and phased in (and will be the interesting part .....), your annual trip to Immigration will include your bank book, showing deposits over the past 12 months, averaging 65k per month. What? You don't spend 65k mo 'cause you mainly use your cash back credit card? Well, serendipity. All that unspent cash from your 65k/mo deposits will eventually grow into an 800k deposit -- and then no more monthly deposits required. So, if you've got 65k (or 40k) per month to spare for awhile, welcome to Thailand.
  13. Well, I guess if Immigration looked at ATM slips, it proves you have the cash flow into Thailand that meets their stipulated 65k requirement for supporting yourself. Cash is king, eh. Why? If all that guaranteed income ended up in the pockets of my 3 former wives, and 25 kids, such proof is worthless to Thailand as far as your ability to support yourself. Cash and carry. Pure simplicity, and quite manageable from the Thai perspective.
  14. Indeed. Yes, most Government pensions are petty stable about their existence going forward. But that says nothing about whether or not that money is actually being utilized in Thailand. Only seeing that money in Thailand is proof positive that you can support yourself here -- and folks, that's strictly historical data (and forget Immigration reviewing a year's worth of ATM slips, which at a minimum would be 36). Why is this so hard to understand? It's all going to be about historical monies brought into Thailand, whether it's the historical 800k fermenting for 3 months, or it's 780k brought into Thailand 12 months ago in one chunk, or in pieces equaling 780k (65k x 12) over a period of 12 months. And it certainly doesn't need to be "income" per se -- it can be cash flow chunks from the sale of your home, whatever. Cash flow, not income, is what the Thai authorities are interested in. Phasing this in will require that, at first, a requirement to show 12 months of historical cash flow input to Thailand be waived. Maybe a token one month of 65k --. But at the next year's extension renewal, yep, show that passbook with either the 800k 3 month deposit; or 780k up front deposit 12 months ago; or bits and pieces of that 780k deposited over a 12 month period; or a combination of 3 month deposit and monthly income. Easy for Immigration to peruse a single (or a couple) passbooks to ascertain of of this. What? After one year, you can't show that 65k/mo is actually on shore, available for your support? I guess we'll have to wait to see how that scenario pans out. One scenario, I'm afraid, may be you sitting on a beat up airliner between two Nigerians.