You're not being taken for a ride. The agent is being super cautious. Most of them offer a guarantee, ie your money back or a free reapplication. They can't actually guarantee anything, and they know it. They're looking to belts and braces the application so they actually get paid without loss of face. I'm guessing the wife chose the agent, sometimes it's because the agent is also from Isaan, and for isaan ladies that's seen as more trustworthy than other thais. They think if you have more money in your uk account that will increase the chances of her getting a visa, and them being paid. Right now it seems, a lot of applications are being rejected. Keep the proposed visit short, letter of invitation factual. Frankly, if you are married it is none of the governments business to know how much you give her, beyond that you support her. Different if girlfriend. I think you are going to have to bide your time. It seems the main reason is for her to meet your extended family. It's a lot easier for them to go to thailand to visit.

@Ady *****

visitor visa rules have not changed.

Its only changed for partner visa. No change for visitor visa.

@John *********

Correct, the requirement is a Public Company or private company showing $150m in accounts over the last 3 years. Its the private company that needs to disclose revenues. And guess what, private companies, depending on the jurisdiction, don't really disclose revenues in the public domain. Thats why Bloomberg, Reuters and other resort to essentially guessing. I think you are right, his only real options are to marry a Thai or get a job in Thailand, but likely, given his role, he will be in competition with Thais for the job.

@John *********

Or they would say, no you cannot. Go find another job. No, it will have tax implications, because they have to react to the employee moving as assessing the risk of PE. A Public Company cannot do nothing. There is a cost. My employer, on the FTSE, says any employee wanting to do this is responsible for all the legal costs. PE is not yes or no. There might be no risk now. But the risk might change in 6 months, because business changes. And LTR is not permanent settlement; it offers no route to permanent risidence. The visa is issued initially for 5 years. There is an expectation that it will be extended then for a further 5 years. Its not an immigration visa. There is a risk that after 5 years, the Thai government has decided to cancel the scheme. Anyhow, looking at the OP, its clear that LTR is a complete irrelevance. He's got to get a job first with a relevant company, and demonstrate sufficient experience in his field.

@John *********

Its called Permanent Establishment, which is about whether an employee creates a tax liability. It depends on the employee's role in the company, and the risk that he or she may conduct business with Thai entities, thereby making the company liable to Thai corporation tax. The danger is the employee might think right now they don't do work with Thai customers, but they might. Said employee might be asked, because they are on the ground, to go and get a contract signed off. Big no no, because now you are involved in the sale. A lot will hinge on interpretation of PE defined in the tax treaty, and also the word "habitual" that appears in most of the texts. As employee, you might refuse, and it will impact on career progression. You're a senior manager, and now you are telling your employer they must never involve you in any Thai transaction. Few listed businesses with $50m in revenue will say they have no interest whatsoever in dealing with customers in Thailand, one of the key emerging economies. And then what happens if you are made redundant? You are not only out of work, but homeless, as you need to leave Thailand immediately. A company might also be asked to provide accounts to the Thai government, proving their Thai revenue, and how that revenue is not due to their LTR employee. If they don't, I believe the fine is 5% of global revenues..... The LTR requirements mean that you have to be an employee of a public company, with I think $150m in revenue over the last 3 years. Corporations of that size have to do due diligence when an employee requests working from Thailand, and it can fall apart then, because what is in it for the employer. Why should they pay the lawyers to identify the financial risks? Also, post COVID, many companies are allowing employees to work overseas, but many will only offer local level wages. That will be a big cut in salary for many in the West in the senior roles defined in the regulation. But as ever, you do need to check the requisate tax treaties. Not saying its not an option, but its not straightforward.

@John *********

LTR Work from Thailand also has requirements about the nature of your employer (registration, revenue) but also the employees work experience (5 years experience in current field of employment). LTR has significant tax implications for the non-Thailand employer.

@Ruth ******

He is trying to cut corners. The obvious answer is to learn to ride a bike at home and get his licence updated. But he doesn't want to do that, expecting to get a licence magically issued in some ASEAN country for him

AIA, but you might not get emergency evacuation home.inckuded in a Thai domestic policy

@Ronald **********

Previously, the £18k was based on the threshold for a typical couple before they could access benefits. There was a certain rationality to that, ie the government didn't care about your standard of living, just as long as you couldn't access benefits. Now, its likely to increase, over a period, to £38k, a number based on the median salary of a skilled worker. Suddenly the government wants you to live comfortably. The numbskulls didn't even think about pensioners chasing their red wall votes. Or maybe they did. Its not kind of, but completely discriminatory. ECHR Article 8 "right to family life" means a government has no right to interfere in normal family relationships. Except the government does. Interestingly, in Canada, its an absolute right for a spouses to remain together.