Yes, it’s more liberal than the OA visa requirement but it specifically applies to the health insurance requirement. At least in their wording it is 100k or a health insurance policy. I just used the health insurance policy I was using for my previous OA visa.
There is probably a slice of those retirees that can afford the yearly costs of an agent but don’t have the lump sum for a deposit. Basically, a cash flow problem. It does appear to me that some people are retiring here on very a marginal income and savings but they are getting a better life and are more secure than they would be at home.
So there are 3 methods to meet the non-O financial requirements: the 800k deposit method, the 65k/mo monthly income method, and the combination method (only in some immigration offices). There are also different deposit requirements for single (800k) and married (400k) extensions.
All these allowed methods don't add up, to me, to be consistent with the simple explanation that the 800k is to bail you out in an emergency. There is no consistency. (not that there has to be)
Correct me if I am wrong but do they ask for the wife's financials when applying for a marriage extension? If not then that doesn't explain the lower 400k deposit for the marriage extension.
Also, my previous OA visa required health insurance AND I was required to deposit 800k. I actually kept a deposit of 1,200,000 in my bank to cover the immigration requirement and 400,000 to cover emergencies.
My 10 year pensioner LTR visa doesn't require a bank deposit but does require health insurance and a fairly high yearly income. That combination makes a little more sense.
I don’t think it is a conspiracy to support the banks but it is something many countries do. Maybe they are just copying each other.
It is a bit of a filter to discourage poor people from settling here. I’ve heard plenty of people comment that they have never had 800,000 ($22,555) in any bank in their life.
You can use 400,00 for a period of 7 months. The monthly income method (65,000/months) is an example of why the 800,000 story doesn’t make sense. They don’t require you to have emergency funds if you use the 65k/mo method.
The problem is that if you actually use the money for that purpose then you mess up your ability to extend the next time. At some level that story doesn’t make sense. I’ve never heard an explanation of the 800,000 from Immigration
Of course. Much better than consulting Facebook. As an American I know how this type of taxation works for me. I’m not expecting these Thai changes to affect me but I will wait and see.