mackes

I struggled for three years with learning Thai now and I start to suspect that Thai are more difficult for us westerners to learn than the opposite, Thai learning english quite quick, most people I talked to within a year.

I could be interesting to hear your experience in learning Thai, I attached a poll about time to study and years to handle discussions. Just to get an idea of average learning time that from my experience is quite high.

I assume that only people that achieved a discussion level of Thai or given up reply to the poll. Any comments appreciated.

Anybody who knows how the finance business works in Thailand with regards to motorcycle financing.

People finance motorcycles with loan from the vendors finance company. The fees are sky high with nearly double price for 3 years (33% per year on the full amount.

Apparently many poor people do not pay back, the word is that you can whenever you want give back the motorcycle to the shop and then you do not have to pay anything more.

Actually what happen is that the shop sells the motorcycle for whatever the can get, pay off the finance company with that amount minus fees and the rest of the debt is booked by the finance company on the customer as a claim.

As the customer have no assets there will never be any further payments but he can go to the next vendor and buy a new financed motorcycle. How is this business possible? Is it by financed by the large interest rates, seem to me like a bad business.

Is there not a national system in place in Thailand to claim debts and to offer finance information on individuals like most western countries have? The only message people not paying getting is a balance sheet each year that they throw away. I believe this is a ticking bomb.

Is it so hard to see the logic? Try to put yourself in the place of the Thai's!

If Thailand need help from educated people they will allow them to stay in the country on a Thai income, living as a Thai.

If someone wish to come here without contributing with anything, just for his own pleasure it is ok if he contribute with money. Therefore there is a demand on an income in the upper class levels, 65 000 a month. Westerners often demand a higher standard of living then Thai's and therefore they will probably spend the money. And add to Thailands economy.

If they do not have an income or a lower income than demanded it is ok if they can show same amount in cash for the the coming year e g 800 000. It is also allowed to combine the two if it add up to the same sum.

If you are married with a Thai citizen, one can assume that you live "Thai style" with a lower budget and therefore the demand is lowered to half the sum, 400000. So you can live with your family in Thailand even with a lower income.

Thailand do not want people who don't contribute with anything, people who will probably be a burden on the country and use money that could be used for Thais.

This rules are to protect their own people. Very logical!

The op asks how are Brits coping with the poor GBP/THB rate, well personally I have stopped transferring money from UK to Thailand.

People quote that the rate has changed xx % from some previous date that appears to have been arbitrarily selected.

For info, below is a graph of GPB/THB exchange rates over the last 50 odd years. You can see that it ranges from 27 to 90 in that time.

Hmmm, interesting graph. So, your opinion is that we are back to normal...

About 5 years ago the pound loss about 20% against the baht, the last month it has lost another 10%. That will be 1/3 loss for five years. The Thai baht has strenghten but this is more than other currencies

How are you british people with income in pound handling this? Leaving for home, find new places or just cope with it?

Anyone who have a clue about what the Thai law say about personal intrusion like this from the police. Hardly a matter of suspicion if they stop all bypassing on a soi.

Court? In a country not run by laws?

If you really do believe this, all further argumentation is futile.

Ok. I understand your situation, it's a pity that you are spreading false rumors on the net. This is entirely your problem.

OK, I'm pulling outta the pissin' contest.

Moht laow.

Out of arguments?

Did you go to court?

When somebody catches you in the ass you are never wrong because people must be responsible of their vehicle.

Another poster who sees Thailand through western-colored spectacles.

I was rear-ended by a motorcycle a few years back. Had to pay all the damages of the person who rear-ended me, and I paid for my own damages. Reason: I was the "richer" driver (an employed farang, vs. a poor university student).

I believe you misjudged the reason, there can occour situations where the one rear-ended is to blame.

As example, you are not allowed to make a sudden stop seemingly without reasons.

And of course, there are bad and misjudging policemen here as anywhere but did you really go to court with this?

Up to my expiriece: Farangs are always wrong.

Why does people go on spreading those rumors, there are laws in Thailand as anywhere else...

If it's really your experience. something wrong with you.

The fact that Thai people are obsessed with ghosts, can it have something to do with level and quality of edjucation?

so all you friends who dropped out of school believe in Ghosts, most Thais have a BD.

The post was a question (question mark) and not a statement. No, my drop-out friends do not believe in ghosts, that is not a part of my culture. Let me make an example, a Thai friend had a single car accident. After a very short while the rumors fly in the village that she saw a ghost on the road and thats why she crashed when in reality she had a flat tire in bad weather conditions and run in to a tree.

This rumor would be impossible to spread in the western world, and I believe it is a matter of education.

ok, If you do believe that its education or lack of it, why when I asked if your friends believe in Ghosts did you write it's not part of your culture.

your saying lack of education is the reason, in another sentence you say culture.

if education is the key, a person with a Batchalor Degree would have a greater belief in Ghosts then a person with a Masters.

culture makes sense, they were not strongly influenced by westerners until recently compared to many cultures, the village beliefs are still strong as they were not battered around the head with bibles by mormons and jehovas and thus continued believing their tribal law.

later they infused their tribal beliefs with their Buddhist beliefs until they are somewhat unaware that certain beliefs of theirs are in fact not Buddhist until it's pointed out to them.

Whilst their tribal beliefs still invade every aspect of their lives, so do many old Europeans, and if you read the Bible or the Koran you will find a few thousand stories well on par with The three Bears and little red riding Hood.

There is a whole country that exists in Europe, the vatican, based on the belief that the son of God walked on water amongst other things, raising the dead, mum was a virgin.

considering all that, are they really uneducated, after all the beliefs predate most.

Thank you for a very clarifying explanation.

You answered my question, and you convinced me that the answer is no.

It's a part of their old religion, not about their poor education.

The fact that Thai people are obsessed with ghosts, can it have something to do with level and quality of edjucation?

so all you friends who dropped out of school believe in Ghosts, most Thais have a BD.

The post was a question (question mark) and not a statement. No, my drop-out friends do not believe in ghosts, that is not a part of my culture. Let me make an example, a Thai friend had a single car accident. After a very short while the rumors fly in the village that she saw a ghost on the road and thats why she crashed when in reality she had a flat tire in bad weather conditions and run in to a tree.

This rumor would be impossible to spread in the western world, and I believe it is a matter of education.

The fact that Thai people are obsessed with ghosts, can it have something to do with level and quality of edjucation?

I fully agree that sitting on the back of a truck is not a good practice from a traffic security point of view

and would be totally unacceptable in the west (Europe, America) where people can afford decent cars.

But you are not in the rich west here.

Thai people in the country side can't afford million baht cars, that's why pickups are economicly supported

by the government and so commonly used. In families with maybe 20 persons on one car.

Yes, there are a lot to do in the Thai traffic. Thailand have a by the Thai people elected government that

handles questions about traffic security among many other things. It is big picture with hard prioritizing.

Who are you coming here from another culture telling Thais how to run their country? You can hardly see

the full picture and understand what implications your suggested rule will result in. As a immigrant in a

country I think you have to accept a lot of things that doesn't feel right for you. And trust that the native

handle the running of the country.

And there are a mentality in the west to create laws to protect people from themselves. What about responsibility?

Not sure what you are talking about; in every state in the US I know of it is quite legal to ride in the back of a pick up; there are a few restrictions on the highway though; no one under 16 etc. But it is legal.

Agree. I've seen people riding on the back of pick-up trucks in the USA all the time when, clearly, seat belts are required when riding in passenger cars. I also don't recall seeing seat belts on buses in the US--even school buses--although I haven't been on a bus for awhile. So it's not a "Thai thing."

As usual, these type of threads encourage certain unsavory elements to spout off their high horse about how "it wouldn't happen in my country," when in reality, it does. When will the TV hypocrisy end??

Hypocrisy ? You are not very well informed...

http://www.iihs.org/laws/cargoAreas.aspx

http://www.whosehighway.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85%3Aqlr-caropass&catid=1%3Alatest-news&Itemid=62

and it is not legal in the EU.

I travelled around on motorbike a couple of years ago and besides Thailand I visited Cambodia and Laos.

Thailand is from my point of view excellent for Westerners with almost all product and service from the west

accessible to fair prices.

Laos is still very poor and have a long way to go, lacking many things and more expensive than Thailand for

foreigners, For me it would be impossible to live there despite a very interesting culture.

Cambodia is a disaster when it comes to infrastructure. The fact that it is not possible to rent a car in Phnom Pen

due to the many traffic accidents and bad roads says something about the country. They are still suffering from the

Red Khmer period where many of the intelectual and educated citizens was killed. No money in the world can cover

the gap there is and the lack of local educated people to make the country running in all aspects.

I would not move to Cambodia if not my aim was to work as a developer or volunteer.

However Phnom pen is a beautiful town to visit.

With people who don't have much resources it's as easy as that, they share everything there are to share.

Within the family, between friends, within the village. All depending on the size of the community.

If you come and add resources to such group, don't expect people to change behavior immediately. You have

to be crystal clear what rules do apply on your possessions or on your gifts. Crystal clear, not the Thai way but

the western way where you enforce the rules and apply penalties on fouls. Your decision and it will be impopular!

So, Mackes, you expect the car coming up in the outside lane, the short distance of 100 metres behind you, to slow down and let you pull out in front of him just because you used your indicator?

Have you considered checking what's coming up behind you, indicating, then pulling out when the road is clear, or do other drivers already executing an overtaking manoevre have to give way to you?

Regarding the other situation you describe, why shouldn't an oncoming motorist give you a visual warning that he's there to avoid your pulling out into his path and possibly creating a dangerous situation

Seems like it's you with the "egocentric" driving manner.

Seems that we find a Thai driver, glad to hear from you. Maybe I can have an understanding for you manners.

Let me explain the situation a little bit mor in detail in case one with a car in the left lane.

Normally I drive in plus 100 km/h in the left lane, when I catch up with a truck which drive in 70 km/h I approach him with appx 250 met in 30sek.

About 200 met (20 sek) in advance I blink right to pass him in the right lane. I can see a car about 100 met behind me driving in appx 110-120 km/h,

he approach me with appx 100 meter in 30 sek. There is plenty of time for me to go out, pass the truck and go back left before he will catch up with me.

I prepare to accelerate and pass the truck as quickly as possible.

But when the driver behind me see my blinker he suddenly accelerate to 140-150 and blink frenetic with headlight to stop me. It is not uncommon that

even before my signal to go out, he understand my situation and speed up thus force me braking for the truck.

Instead of just lift his right foot slightly and let me pass without inconvenience for any part. Now I have to brake and slow down to 70 km/h behind the

truck and will disturb traffic even more when going out the next time.

This happen almost every time I need to pass someone so the simplest way for me is to go up in speed and stay right as most other people do, but that will

not be my traffic pace and would definitively be more dangerous for everyone. But thats the result of your traffic culture, forcing everyone to exceed his limits.

So I am not talking about cars cruising in 140, I would never even think of trying to get out in front of a car with that speed.

Regarding case number two, I can have an understanding for your point of view. the thing is that in the rest of the world a blink means, please pass before me...

But that seem not to be a part of Thai traffic culture, it seems to always be "me first".

Section 1417 refers to enjoyment, management and exploitation. It does not give a right to work.

Usufruct wordings can be changed from the official sample. I've done it twice with the help of my lawyer.

Mackes, as farang you are prohibited from engaging in what usufructs cover, you can't hire Thais to work for you, or you are running a business.

I believe you mix things up.

As a foreigner I am prohibited to work, not prohibited to act as an owner of property and thus take care of the land. I do not need a company for that purpose, I can hire a handyman or whatever as a privat to solve the caretaking.

If that would not be allowed foreigner should not have the right to sign usufruct agreements as it would be a terms of contradiction.

I am not trying to circumvent the Thai laws, I just use the oppurtunity that the Thai laws offer foreigners that are willing to invest in caretaking of land to the benefits of both parts.

I think you seriously misunderstanding the intent of the usufruct.

So you can buy a bar, hotel and just hire people to work for you and you don't need a W/P. Think again. Jim

OK, let us look on what Thai law say about foreigner and working in Thailand:

A work permit is required for every foreigner who engages in work by “exerting energy or using knowledge whether or not in consideration of wages or other benefits”

That tell us that work is defined as "exerting energy" or "using knowledge" and you are not allowed to work regardless if you are paid or not.

I can not run a Bar or a Hotel because that demands someone in charge with the "knowledge" and that can not be me

and if I hire staff and managing director we are running a business and I am not allowed to own the majority of that.

But cutting my grass or have someone cleaning my window is hardly a business, that is an everyday task in each home.

And as I am not allowed to do it myself if we read the law I need to pay someone to do it.

I believe that this is also the intent of the work permit demand, foreigners should not take work from Thai citizens but shall generate work.

It seems to me that you are fixed in that usufruct is for business, why is it in that case not mentioned anywhere? The title say:

"An immovable property may be subjected to a usufruct by virtue of which the usufructuary is entitled to the possession, use and enjoyment of the property."

It state the possession, the use and the enjoyment of the property. The only thing that I can connect to business is the word "use", hardly possession or enjoyment.

I possess the land and I enjoy it, But I do not own it.

Business is your interpretation of the word use.

Section 1417 refers to enjoyment, management and exploitation. It does not give a right to work.

Usufruct wordings can be changed from the official sample. I've done it twice with the help of my lawyer.

Mackes, as farang you are prohibited from engaging in what usufructs cover, you can't hire Thais to work for you, or you are running a business.

I believe you mix things up.

As a foreigner I am prohibited to work, not prohibited to act as an owner of property and thus take care of the land. I do not need a company for that purpose, I can hire a handyman or whatever as a privat to solve the caretaking.

If that would not be allowed foreigner should not have the right to sign usufruct agreements as it would be a terms of contradiction.

I am not trying to circumvent the Thai laws, I just use the oppurtunity that the Thai laws offer foreigners that are willing to invest in caretaking of land to the benefits of both parts.

I think you seriously misunderstanding the intent of the usufruct.

TITLE VII

2nd line down Management, that means work the land for profit, nothing to do with houses. No W/P needed in a prohibited field.

A usufruct either is or isn't, you can't just pick the bits you like. Jim

Sorry, I do not understand the comment

OK, let us take it one by one:

Really how would that work, usufruct is a right to work the land for pleasure and profit. So a farang would not need a work permit to work in a prohibited field.

The civil code is pretty clear, think you should read it before rehashing farang myth.

Only way for a non Thai to control land is you invest over 20 mil or a 50 year BOI lease.

You can't just pick which bits of the law you like and discount the rest.

I do not understand how you got work permit rules into this.

No I can not as a foreigner work on the land without permission, but I can have Thai people doing it for me and thus enjoy the "pleasure and profit"

Please explain why 1469 of the civil code doesn't apply or why a usufruct which covers immovable property, soil, rocks, trees, plants etc is some magic right to own a house. Buildings are movable for the purpose of a usufruct, there are other laws dealing with habitation. Jim

First for the people how have not read, here is section 1469:

"Section 1469. Any agreement concluded between husband and wife during marriage may be avoided by either of them at any time during marriage

or within one year from the day of dissolution of marriage; provided that the right of third persons acting in good faith are not affected thereby."

Section 1469 certainly applies, but it is hard for your wife to apply for avoidance after her decease, is it not?

However, the land office does not agree on a usufruct from your wife if your married at the time, it has to be done before marriage.

Who said I will got the right to own the house on the land? No I certainly do not got that right.

However, in most cases it is not feasible to move a house other than in theory and as I mentioned before it is more or less impossible to sell a land with no rights for the buyer to use it.

Tessaban and Land Office are not the same. The Amphur has nothing to do with land ownership and taxes. If the land is registered at the Tessaban then the title is not Chanoet but something less.

We have chanoet land and have never been asked to pay tax of any kind. We also have some land registered at a Tessaban and the annual tax is THB50 for three rai worth THB1m per rai.

Despite what one poster wrote, usufruct is well worth having for several reasons. It entitles you to occupy and care for the property during your lifetime. It's also a useful device, for those who feel they may need it, to put off would be buyers and money lenders and is perfectly legal. You can enter into a usufruct agreement with any landowner, not just a wife or girlfriend.. Now, even if you trust your wife as much as I trust mine, there may still be a problem if she predeceases you. The family and scooter boy husbands of daughters will be round the property like flies around a dustbin. Usufruct is a contract between you and the land owner, registered at the Land Office and noted on the Chanoet. Copies of the standard wording are available at land Offices and can be amended as required.

There is no tax for registering the usufruct other than the initial processing fee. What you were told about tax at Tessaban is nonsense unless there's something I have yet to encounter. Usufruct is a private contract registered at the Land Office. It does not state or imply that ownership has changed and, other than registration, has nothing to do with any government department.

I can't say whether usufruct contracts are accepted for registration at Tessaban as they are at the Land Office. If they are not, then the other option is a 30 year renewable lease. I believe that involves a small annual tax.

You, the OP, have said that the land has chanoet and is registered at Tessaban rather tnha the Land Office. You need to get that clear. The chanoet document is large format, two sided and the paper is eggshell blue.

I hope that helps.

Amphor collects land taxes, not the land department. Land Department only registers who owns the land. ownership, lessees etc.

If your wife dies you will have 12 months to sell the land or the land office will wil sell it for you.

You pay taxes on all land, many areas do not bother to collect the land taxes as they are not worth the effort for such a small fee, in may case some land works out at 20 Baht a rai.

More than one usufuruct can be put on a piece of land and it does not cover housing. It's a right to use land for mining or farming.

Think you want to have a look at the civil code, you as a foreigner have not rights at at all, you can not make amendments to the usufruct agreement.

Think things have gone from stories the urban belief. Read the civil code and show where a farang can keep, own or control land. It ain't there. Jim

This comments that a foreigner in Thailand has no rights at all is totally nonsens! We are appplying to the same law as the Thais. However, when the law is not clear and it comes to a judgement of a court you are not in favour. But the usufruct agreement is clear without room for interpretations, you have the rights of this even if you are a foreigner.

Noone will buy a land he can not use, which is the case with a land wich have a usufruct agreement, so in practice it is not possible to sell the land before the usufruct expires.

I believe that it is some ubersmart officer at the land office trying to refresh his budget. Unfortunatly there are a high grade of room for personal initiative everywhere here in Thailand.

I doubt that the argument you mentioned in the OP will be valid in a courtroom, the question is do you want to go there.

I believe the best you can do is to tell them that you spoked to your lawyer and he instructed you not to pay as it is an illegal request.

Then see what happen, if the guy have balls to drive it through. I doubt. If so, the situation is not worse than before.

This is a kind of blackmailing so often used against farangs, they are rich, they don't care...

That's an approach that may see the OP in handcuffs. If he signed a statement saying the money for the land was a gift and he made no claim to the land. Then went and made a claim by usufruct, he signed a false statement. That's a crime anywhere in the world.

Local Government person could report that to his/her husband, wife, brother, cousin, friend, cop. The cuffs could go on, don't make waves unless you have family or friends in high places.

Remember most of us are guests in the country, visas or extension of stay do not have to be given and an arrest for a criminal charge may see you deported or no new visa issued.

Stay legal and say safe. No some people who have been refused entry into Thailand other than a 30 day tourist visa. Jim

It seems to me that you do not know what you talking about and certainly not about usufructs.

There is a reason why it is allowed for foreigner to register a usufruct, there is nothing illegal about that. However some Thai officials interpret the law in their own way.

The case is that a women owns land and married to a foreigner. As the foreigner is not allowed to take the ownership of the land if his wife passes away before him the jucyfruct will protect him during his lifetime from other relatives sell the land and throw him out.

If you read the paperwork on the usufruct there is no mentions about taxes and that was not what the official claim, they made a comparison with a company wich in my ear is very farfetched. To say no to this or to ask to have it proven will not put you in handcuffs.