Visa rules hurt married people

Post by **JimmyGreaves** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:53 pm

sargeant wrote: As i said in a previous post we have a name for someone living of a womans earnings
PC

That's a terrible sexist remark. So it's ok to live off a man's earnings without question is it. Never heard of equality sarge. Sounds as though your still living in the 1950's.

Marriage is a partnership through sickness and health. There is no scope here for shared earnings. People fall on bad times through illness, natural disasters etc etc. I take exception to you lumping everything on the man's shoulders when his hands are tied!

sargeant · Post by **sargeant** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 1:00 pm

Quote Lomu "How do you classify a farang who's genuinely married to a Thai, maybe with kids, but only gets 30K a month from his home country?
In the past, admittedly only for about a year, his wife was able to contribute towards the family income and hopefully her earnings would take the combined amount to the 40K."
Up to a point Lomu i agree they should have been grandfathered in on the Thais own rules
the nonsense to me is if we didnt have to mess around tying up immigration staff with 90 day reporting they would have more staff to weed out the crap by making house calls to check. The problem is the crap make it impossible for the Thais to give any concessions incase it opens up a sewer gate
The next thing and i expect this soon will be no more 800/400k in the bank because it is widely known some farangs are making money lending it just to make the requirements its already been extended to 3 months for that very reason
Quote Lomu "But a knee jerk reaction to a few bad apples has ruined the plot for a lot of genuine people."
Which is why after 27 years of marriage to a Thai taking care and educating 2 families i am still jumping through bluddy hoops and is My point exactely keep the bad apples out of the barrel in the first place,stop making excuses for them and stop encouraging them to come here and then maybe the Thais will see fit to reward the genuine and honest assets toThailand

Post by **Wanderlust** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 2:36 pm

I have just had a look back through the thread, after lomu's comment about abuses of the system, and the only potential abuses that may have happened are that a poor/rich under 50 year old marries so he can get the non O visa, a 'marriage of convenience'; as far as I am aware now, it is possible to get the single (and multiple from your own country) entry non O visas without needing to be married. The other 'abuse' is the men who, when the option was available, relied partly or almost entirely on their wife's income to obtain their extension, and I fail to see how this is an abuse, when all that mattered was the family income. I agree with JG's comments above regarding ancient attitudes about who the breadwinner should be; many Thai men are supported by their wives rather than the other way round.

Given that those on a marriage extension to a non O visa are not supposed to work unless they get a work permit (with a very limited availability and options for jobs) I would have thought it would be a very reasonable thing for them to be able to live here and stay here without the need for visa runs supported by their wife. Unless of course we think that families should be broken up for no other reason than regulations.

sarge,
For your information, the 400k in the bank was removed when the Family Income option was available for marriage extensions, and then reinstated when the other option was removed again.

I can't find any excuses for bad apples in my posts but then again you seem to think a man being helped by his wife is a bad apple, so maybe our definitions are different? What is a 'bad apple' to you? Who and what is 'encouraging them to come here' as well? The problem lomu isolated was the knee jerk reaction to the 'few bad apples' but that is a failing of the immigration department in dealing with them; even then I still don't know what they (the bad apples) are supposed to have done wrong. Again I look for answers to the questions in my previous post (and not about working illegally - that is a different subject).

Only a very small percentage of people really want to live outside their own country, even if it appears differently. There would not be a flood of people arriving on these shores if the current regulations were changed to make it easier for those who are in genuine relationships to stay with their partner and family here, and I agree that the reporting and other regulations could be changed to enable more time to be spent processing and investigating people wanting to reside here. My original point still stands though - other than those working illegally (which is often down to the draconian work permit rules rather than anything else), what harm is done to Thailand by those who stay here either supported by their wife or living off money outside Thailand which doesn't meet the extension requirements? Even those with almost no money are not even a drain on Thailand so why the rules if not xenophobia and sexism?

sargeant · Post by **sargeant** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:32 pm

WL maybe we are at different places because you believe every person coming here is coming here with good intentions and i dont
This forum spends a lot of time with individuals slagging of the Thais the Thai Govt the politics the culture the education and most of all the immigration department
As stated before if they dont like it go home another poopoo on the politically correct dogma sorry
I have done my bit payed my dues and because of irresposible or uneducated or blatant criminals with a total disregard or any respect for the Thai law every 90 days i am lumped in with them and waste my time my wife and families time
I have NEVER worked NEVER had any sort of business or made any money from this country just drawn it from the UK and spent it here
How did i do that simple i worked hard i saved hard and nobody or anything has ever been given to me. and i still pay tax in the UK
I can take you and show you people that are abusing the UK social system (ie my poxy tax)to live here and boasting about it (fine upstanding honest citizens who are i am sure obeying the laws and rules here exactely as they do ther home countrys laws ) i can show you people working here illegally but most of all i can show you people flouting the visa rules And unless i am wrong that is illegal it is also why i am lumped in with them
You know i dont get out that much and yet i can find them without looking how many if i actually went out and looked
Quote "(and not about working illegally - that is a different subject).
sorry WL but that is the problem for the Thais and 90% of the reasoning behind their regulations
as i say we come from different places but you will get there eventually takes about 27 years maybe longer i will let you know if i ever dont have to do 90 day reporting

Super Joe · Post by **Super Joe** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:51 pm

Wanderlust wrote:SJ,
While I broadly agree with your last post, I think the main real issue here is how and why the immigration rules are changed

Maybe the answer to this is they are constantly having to react to foreigners bending or abusing the rules, a large proportion of these being neighbouring migrant workers, Africans bringing in South American 'products' and the like.

The other question I would like to ask is what actual difference does it make to Thailand if a foreigner is living here courtesy of his wife's income?

I'd would say they have no problem with it as they introduced it afterall, but IMO the problem was that farangs were fabricating their Thai wives income which is simple to do, and then by paying just 4k a month in tax you have your magic 40k income from one partner. Question then is should they employ an army to investigate the employment sourse, or do they just say f*** it we tried to help you and you threw it back in our faces, you can go back to foreigners income only now.

I agree that we have to live and work within the system in place but that does not mean we shouldn't point out its inequities and failings, and it really does suggest that the Thai authorities 'have it in' for us, with no solid reason for it otherwise.

I think there is solid reason, many foreigners (incl myself) have not always worked within their system, instead exploit every loopholle there is in what is an imperfect system. There's plenty of examples of foreigners doing this dating back to the 90's and early 2000's where it's estimated that 50,000 illegal visas were issued via agents sending passports overseas without the person going. We had the 30 day visa runs by people staying long term, many people working illegally on the wrong visas, people passing round the bank 'show money' to friends just before extension time, farangs fabricating wives incomes and whatever else. It's human nature to bend the system but it would be a bit of a stretch not to associate this with their neccessity to ammend the rules often, in many cases, not all though.

IMO if they really 'had it in' for us, they could very easily and perfectly legitimately make it harder for us (and only attract the more wealthy) by increasing the money criteria for extensions every year in line with inflation, then it might look something like this:
- Retirement Visa show money today would be 1.6M instead of 800k, and income 95k/month not 65k. Don't think they've increased this since 2001!?
- Marriage Visa show money today would be 500k not 400k, and income 50k/month not 40k. Not increased since July 2004.

Cheers,

SJ

sargeant · Post by **sargeant** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:52 pm

Greavsie quote"when his hands are tied!"

Are you sure his hands were tied BEFORE he boarded the plane out here if so i will have a rethink

quote "Sounds as though your still living in the 1950's." obviously Greavsie

after all i am the sole provider of finance in my house

and have been all my adult 3Xmarried life

two of those being in the UK one only 800 yds from stamford bridge

Lev i am still waitin for a blank look emoticon

Post by **JimmyGreaves** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:06 pm

sargeant wrote:Greavsie quote"when his hands are tied!"

Are you sure his hands were tied BEFORE he boarded the plane out here if so i will have a rethink

Well, when he came out on the plane with the dual income recognition law his hands were untied. Then tied them whilst he was here, so rethink.

quote "Sounds as though your still living in the 1950's." obviously Greavsie after all i am the sole provider of finance in my house

and have been all my adult 3Xmarried life two of those being in the UK one only 800 yds from stamford bridge

Sole provider, Well as it happens so am I, but that don't make it right for everyone and it's nothing to blow your trumpet about!

Lev i am still waitin for a blank look emoticon

Super Joe · Post by **Super Joe** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:18 pm

Wanderlust wrote:even then I still don't know what they (the bad apples) are supposed to have done wrong. Again I look for answers to the questions in my previous post (and not about working illegally - that is a different subject).

I don't work for Immigration (yet

) but they may think, in respect of those fabricating Thai wives salaries, they are doing the following wrong:
- Giving false and fraudulent information in order to obtain an extension of stay.
- Some are then using this illegal extension to continue working here without a WP, and as it's not above board can not use this income for the 40k.
- Non payment of income tax due from above income.
- Taking jobs away from Thais due to above.

I know far more people doing this than those who genuinely have a Thai wife with a 40k a month job.

SJ

sargeant · Post by **sargeant** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:49 pm

My niece was living with me on the Northend road
I told her to clean the kitchen as she had left it in a mess
she told me this is the 20th century not the stone age and women were equal and men must do their share of the housework so i cleaned the kitchen
at the end of the month i was sat at the table going through the monthly bills so i told her to sit down
I reminded her of the 20th century lecture she had give me and then told her i was so pleased with her modern outlook on life and handed her the bills and said as its the 20th century and we are equal you pay the goddamn bills because i have cleaned up your mess for this month
its funny how women only want equality except when it comes to paying
just another small point i have never heard of a bargirl paying the bloke
does that make all punters sexist or does it make the bargirl sexist

Post by **JimmyGreaves** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:55 pm

However that's your circumstances Sarge.

If she was working as many ladies are, sharing housework, if agreed, sharing bills is a fair way to go. As stated previously it's give and take and not all relationships are the same as yours.

sargeant · Post by **sargeant** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:17 pm

Greavsie you are dead right "quote"not all relationships are the same as yours."
Nor yours greavsie but i dont know one relatonsip here in LOS where the manis NOT the predominant bearer of the financial burden includeing your admitted goodself
So when you know one where the wife isthe finance provider introduce me i am a glutton for education

Lev i am desperate for a blank look emoticon

Post by **dtaai-maai** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:28 pm

sargeant wrote:... i have never heard of a bargirl paying the bloke
does that make all punters sexist or does it make the bargirl sexist

Neither, it makes the bargirl a businesswoman.

Does that qualify as a blank look?

Post by **thaiorchid** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:32 pm

Well Sarge, you are about to get educated.

I our relationship -married more than 7 years- my wife is the sole financial provider.
OK, when we started out, I invested a little money in getting the business started, but since then my wife is running the show. And my investment I have had back many times over.
Without taking part of the daily business, I get half of the profit, so I am a kept man.

After taking out the money for our daily life, I get what we are able to save to invest in my trading account (my name) and will hopefully that way leave her a rich widow !
My wife loves what she is doing and I have the perfect life with my daytrading and renovating old army-jeeps.
In case we decide to go seperate ways in the future, we have already agreed how to split our assets (in writing) in a way fair to both of us.
Will probably never happen, coz we are both quite content with the way things are. But you never know.
I know I have been lucky, but I have always treated the missus with respect and seen her as a equal partner.
So Sarge welcome to the new century.

thaiorchid

Post by **JimmyGreaves** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:37 pm

thaiorchid wrote:Well Sarge, you are about to get educated.
I our relationship -married more than 7 years- my wife is the sole financial provider.
OK, when we started out, I invested a little money in getting the business started, but since then my wife is running the show. And my investment I have had back many times over.
Without taking part of the daily business, I get half of the profit, so I am a kept man.
After taking out the money for our daily life, I get what we are able to save to invest in my trading account (my name) and will hopefully that way leave her a rich widow !
My wife loves what she is doing and I have the perfect life with my daytrading and renovating old army-jeeps.
In case we decide to go seperate ways in the future, we have already agreed how to split our assets (in writing) in a way fair to both of us.
Will probably never happen, coz we are both quite content with the way things are. But you never know.
I know I have been lucky, but I have always treated the missus with respect and seen her as a equal partner.
So Sarge welcome to the new century.
thaiorchid

Well Well Well said the man with three holes in his back garden.

Can you believe it Sarge, you need to get out more, they are not all stuck in the kitchen

Super Joe · Post by **Super Joe** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:53 pm

Wanderlust wrote:sarge,
For your information, the 400k in the bank was removed when the Family Income option was available for marriage extensions, and then reinstated when the other option was removed again.

Not sure if I'm reading your point correctly or not WL, but the option to show 400k in a Thai Bank instead of the monthly income has always been available for the 'marriage' extension, since it was introduced back in July 2004.

So a foreigner who had either the 400k bank money or the 40k/month income when the criteria was first introduced back in 2004 has not been affected by any rule changes since that date.

SJ