Easing restrictions on foreign property ownership in Thailand a good idea, says leading industry figure

[BritManToo]

36 minutes ago, Showtime said:

3. Who wants to lease land for 70 years and build something on it?  That is just not long enough

If you're 50 already, then 70 years is probably long enough.

[Neeranam]

3 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Not with your own money anyway, best to borrow 90% from a bank in her name.

Actually that's what I did but 97%

[BritManToo]

Just now, Neeranam said:

Actually that's what I did but 97%

I was happy enough to give mine 300kbht after having my (DNA tested) son.

[natway09]

Meanwhile in NZ, Australia & soon in the UK they are looking at restricting non nationals

from owning many types of landholdings.

Thailand, do not sell your soul, the Real Estate Companies will tell you how many billions can be generated, BUT ONLY ONCE & 20 million farmers with their pockets full of cash will descend on the cities & be homeless & broke in 5 years,

[wprime]

5 hours ago, 2009 said:

Okay....thanks, I guess ????????????

 

Wow, wouldn't I just love to be able to own an asset that increases less than 5% a year at best, and is virtually impossible to sell.....ooh...sign me up!

 

If they would stop building so much, I'd consider it an investment.

 

And Thailand ain't gonna see the growth over the next 10 years as it did over the last.

 

Why would I buy a Thai property now when I could just buy the S&P500 and in 10 years I will be able to buy 3 of them instead? 

 

That's the way it would have worked if you had invested in the S&P a decade ago vs. a condo here - 3 for the price of 1!

 

And the housing market has done even worse than the condo market which I will never understand, but anyway...

 

 

 

It's not really for investment but for your lifestyle. Yes, with your funds properly invested you could just rent and you'd be better off in the long run, but there are advantages to owning property that suit some people like having a permanent base (well 10 yr considering the visa), a place to raise a family or even just the ability to renovate a property to perfectly suit you. If the intent was investment they wouldn't limit the amount of property people can buy. What they want is to make it easier for rich people to make Thailand their home so they spend more money here.

[kynikoi]

1 hour ago, Neeranam said:

Of course bitcoin is a thing. Countries have started using it as a currency. El Salvador, this week. 

 

Yes, I saw that. By all means move to El Salvador and enjoy your Bitcoin economy.

[kickstart]

6 hours ago, Pedrogaz said:

Rich foreigners are agro-corporations seeking cheap fertile farmland to exhaust with intensive farming. They want very large lots and to do away with the farmers. Saudi leases large tracts of Thai farmland to produce rice for itself. 

Ask yourself why when you drive into Bangkok you don't drive through tens of miles of slums like you would into Delhi, Kolkata, Mexico City or Caracas....it is because farmers in Thailand can still eke out a living by farming and so live on the land. This means they don't migrate to vast slums around the capital city. The last thing Thailand needs is agro-corps like ADM buying up farm land in Thailand. So let's make sure that stimulate the overbuilt condo market isn't the thin end of the wedge for foreigners owning farmland. 

I have read some BS on TV before, but this takes some beating ,they is no way would any  Thai government sell land to big foreign  corporations , they are just too protective  of the land/market , they will not sell us farangs just a rie or two ,no way would they sell waves of land, yes you are right Saudi does leas land in mainly Ayutthaya province ,and have done for at least 12  years .the reason is that province can grow up 3 crops a year ,water supply permitting, they have not  expanded  else were ,not  worth their  while . 

Also, the big corporations will not come to Thailand  knowing  they will not make any money farming in Thailand ,with most farmers only growing one crop a year , the main reason is the land is just not fertile ,just monoculture of rice the land is just exhausted ,water being in short supply, no outside company would come to Thailand ,not just worth their investment ,for one crop of rice a year 

Thailand is slipping down the league  of rice exporters ,and has done for a few years now ,reasons no new rice varieties no change in growing practices for some years ,Vietnam ,and India are now the main rice exporters.  

[Sydebolle]

As long as the government firmly believes, that the dirty farang and alien are able to roll up a piece of land, stash it away in a suitcase and wing away to faraway lands, this country is and will remain medieval. 

Tiny countries, i.e. Switzerland, regulates it by making sure, that - as a Swiss - you can own a residence and a holiday hideaway; everything else is taxed as commercially generating a (possibly non-existing) rental income. 
Non-resident foreigners face restrictions only in areas of extremely high demand and, guess what, it works beautifully, without bogey "Co., Ltd. constructs" to circumvent the 51%/49% condominium rule or the 100% Thai land rule. 

[Jimbo53]

9 hours ago, tgw said:

 

 

designated areas and restriction for residential use are the answers.

Ludicrous!

Countries that allow Thai or other foreign ownership should have reciprocal rights to buy ,try telling a foreigner in the U.K or other Western country you can only buy in certain area's,there would be riots.

[MayPutThai]

9 hours ago, tgw said:

 

the thing is - if you invest at least 10 million, you also get a visa, that is the current law.

 

so foreigners can right now invest 10 million in a condo and live in Thailand, that is not a problem.

You get a 10 years visa, not for lifetime. You can't inherit your land to other foreigners.

I understand that the government want to keep the ground in the hand of Thai and that is good so. But this is more important for the big size of farm land.

For the private sector they can restrict to areas and self using your own property. Means You would be allowed to own only one piece of ground. Additional the Thai government should ease the visa restrictions for people who want to live permanently in Thailand as their new home and stop calling them also tourist.

If I have a Thai Family and probably Kids, I'm not anymore a standard Tourist! Only the government don't want to accept this and dream from fantastrillion of Thai Bath what Tourist MUST spend in Thailand without giving rights by law.

This keep away the big investors to buy ground out just for speculation.  They anyway have the own rules under their Board of Investment (BOI) law. Think, a lot of Chinese Lion sit already prepared to jump into Thailand.

If I could turn back the time 20 years back, I would never jump into Thailand again and that is what I give everyone on the way to think about some points before they decide to permanently live in the LO No S anymore.

[Crok]

Where can I get what TAT uses? Dreamtime again?

[TooBigToFit]

17 hours ago, laislica said:

It's a bad idea. 

Land prices will skyrocket and locals, like children will not be able to afford to pay the higher prices. 

Good idea for the estate agents though.

 

See what happened in Spain. 

Locals greedily pushed the price as high as they could, then complained that foreigners had ruined their country.

I would prepare for a backlash on foreigners especially foreigners who owned land.

 

True. Just look at the US property market with 10s of millions of illegals and foreigners allowed to buy up anything. it would be nice if the world were open to people of all, not just some nations and not just those with loads of money. Working in Thailand as a foreigner, there aren't many options to invest and save money here. And should you be out of job, you can't just start a small business like anyone else. It's xenophobia for sure. It does help Thailand's poor to some extent keeping land and jobs away from foreigners in favor of the locals. At the same time, the US is open to pretty much everyone that can get there.  Thailand also taxes imports at 100% which is unfair. It also forces the 51% Thai ownership of businesses so that Thais keep control. This helps the rich in Thailand mostly rather than their poor.

 

This last semester a lot of Thai students in my class wanted to talk about or do presentations on anti-Asian racism in America. They have no real connections to the US but I think they see it as their other option to Thailand as if it were some far away Thai lands. Well, all these students getting excited about supposed anti-Asian racism out of control in the US was quite annoying to me considering the real racism and xenophobia going on here and written right into Thai law. I didn't stop them from looking into the topic or discussing it. When they did I mentioned that the concerns I had and that they consider Thailand's issues right here with human rights.

[bradiston]

24 minutes ago, TooBigToFit said:

 

True. Just look at the US property market with 10s of millions of illegals and foreigners allowed to buy up anything. it would be nice if the world were open to people of all, not just some nations and not just those with loads of money. Working in Thailand as a foreigner, there aren't many options to invest and save money here. And should you be out of job, you can't just start a small business like anyone else. It's xenophobia for sure. It does help Thailand's poor to some extent keeping land and jobs away from foreigners in favor of the locals. At the same time, the US is open to pretty much everyone that can get there.  Thailand also taxes imports at 100% which is unfair. It also forces the 51% Thai ownership of businesses so that Thais keep control. This helps the rich in Thailand mostly rather than their poor.

 

This last semester a lot of Thai students in my class wanted to talk about or do presentations on anti-Asian racism in America. They have no real connections to the US but I think they see it as their other option to Thailand as if it were some far away Thai lands. Well, all these students getting excited about supposed anti-Asian racism out of control in the US was quite annoying to me considering the real racism and xenophobia going on here and written right into Thai law. I didn't stop them from looking into the topic or discussing it. When they did I mentioned that the concerns I had and that they consider Thailand's issues right here with human rights.

Being set on, gunned down or run over in the street because of your ethnicity is hardly the same as not being allowed to buy land. 

[Zack61]

This is not a good idea for the average Thai. The only winners from this proposal is "old mate" and his real estate buddies. The average Thai is going to be priced out of the market and future generations will be paying rent to foreign carpet baggers. The rules governing foreign ownership of property in Thailand, I believe, are one of the best things going and protects the vulnerable from overseas opportunists who would have no interest other than get rich at their expense. It'll be a sad day if and when this happens and god help future generations. The Thai government needs to serve the best interest of it's people and this would only sell them down the gurgler if allowed to happen. Selling off to foreign interests does not bode well in the long run.

Don't do it!!!!!

[LivinLOS]

17 hours ago, mrmicbkktxl said:

They didn't, I bought a condo at that time at one point I left Thailand for 18 months and they didn't give me a new investment visa when I wanted to come back.They change the rules whenever it fits them

 

Your not understanding what grandfathering in of extensions means. 

It means you do not let the extension expire, if it does it then it is a new extension of stay and doesnt qualify. 

 

[Purdey]

I doubt this helps anyone who isn't married to a Thai. I live in a detached house I bought for my wife and I. She is the landowner and I have an usufruct agreement allowing me to live here with all rights, even if divorced, until I die. I just read that if she passes away before me, I can inherit and own the land if less than one Rai (it is). This is important to me. However, I have to sell all her other land within one year. 

[chalawaan]

Yes. But theres no brown envelope big enough to overcome the xenophobia needed to give overseas guests a fair go.

[jacko45k]

24 minutes ago, Purdey said:

I can inherit and own the land if less than one Rai (it is). This is important to me.

That is quite a good point.... but I would expect some catch or rule behind it. Surely the land cannot remain in a foreign name ad-infinitum and perhaps you have to specify a Thai inheritor on your death?

[chalawaan]

3 hours ago, Zack61 said:

This is not a good idea for the average Thai. The only winners from this proposal is "old mate" and his real estate buddies. The average Thai is going to be priced out of the market and future generations will be paying rent to foreign carpet baggers. The rules governing foreign ownership of property in Thailand, I believe, are one of the best things going and protects the vulnerable from overseas opportunists who would have no interest other than get rich at their expense. It'll be a sad day if and when this happens and god help future generations. The Thai government needs to serve the best interest of it's people and this would only sell them down the gurgler if allowed to happen. Selling off to foreign interests does not bode well in the long run.

Don't do it!!!!!

Au contraire, if the Thai market was healthy outside of Bangkok, then why are there hundreds of thousands of empty properties in CM?

 

Who owns most of the land? Thais, middle class and up. They would benefit, just as the Canadians and Aussies benefitted from their price rises when the Chinese arrived, and let's not forget that "white" locals sold up, so don't blame the Chinese for taking advantage of it. 

 

Likewise here, Thais would benefit.

 

And if that puts the poor further behind, then it only hastens the changes they so desperately need to apply here.

 

There is nothing in the current xenophobic land regs that benefit the Thai dispossessed anyway. They're dirt poor and have no hope in hell of ever owning a house or apartment short of winning the big one, whether the elites and middle class sell up to carpetbaggers or not. 

 

 

Edited June 11, 2021 by chalawaan

[ThLT]

Even speaking as a foreigner: this is a bad idea.

Chinese will buy tons of Thai land (and increase the price for Thai citizens)—and ruin Thailand. 

[chalawaan]

3 hours ago, bradiston said:

Being set on, gunned down or run over in the street because of your ethnicity is hardly the same as not being allowed to buy land. 

Quite, thought one has to accept that there's also a world of difference between the Asian attacks being the product of a few deranged and ignorant <deleted>, vs a government that proactively disadvantages guests with double pricing initiatives.

All guests on long term visas should get Thai prices to recognise their contribution to the wider economy here. 

[chalawaan]

17 minutes ago, ThLT said:

Even speaking as a foreigner: this is a bad idea.

Chinese will buy tons of Thai land (and increase the price for Thai citizens)—and ruin Thailand. 

You're speaking as a racist, not a foreigner. Chinese are foreigners too, even if the equally racist Thais call them by a different label.

Edited June 11, 2021 by chalawaan

[bradiston]

45 minutes ago, chalawaan said:

Quite, thought one has to accept that there's also a world of difference between the Asian attacks being the product of a few deranged and ignorant <deleted>, vs a government that proactively disadvantages guests with double pricing initiatives.

All guests on long term visas should get Thai prices to recognise their contribution to the wider economy here. 

Not sure on how that would work in practice. The pink card doesn't guarantee anything either.

[chalawaan]

I wonder how they police the 51% Condo rule? 

 

I wager they will let a 100% foriegners buy up a condo building, then swoop in and say 49% are illegal, and it's the buyers problem for not doing due diligence.

 

I would not touch this market with a barge-pole.

 

As my wise Chinese property buying friend says of South East Asia, there are good reasons why cheap countries are cheap...

[chalawaan]

16 hours ago, kynikoi said:

 

Yes, I saw that. By all means move to El Salvador and enjoy your Bitcoin economy.

This will be an unmitigated disaster, I give it six months, if that.

[Purdey]

7 hours ago, jacko45k said:

That is quite a good point.... but I would expect some catch or rule behind it. Surely the land cannot remain in a foreign name ad-infinitum and perhaps you have to specify a Thai inheritor on your death?

No one has said who I have to leave it to but my family in Thailand is all Thai so it is moot. My family in England would probably sell because they don't want to to live here. 

[ThLT]

22 hours ago, chalawaan said:

[...]

 

Has nothing do do with race. If my own race would be doing exactly that, I would be saying the same thing. . .

See what Chinese have done to Cambodia:
 

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/jul/31/no-cambodia-left-chinese-money-changing-sihanoukville

 

[ThLT]

Quote

The speed of development has left many locals unnerved. Some estimate that the Chinese make up almost 20% of the town’s population. Of the total number of foreign arrivals in 2017, nearly 120,000 were Chinese – an increase of 126% year-on-year. This fear has fuelled rising hostility among locals towards the new influx of Chinese residents. The two communities live side-by-side in Sihanoukville but rarely interact.

 

Quote

“Everything has changed in Sihanoukville in just two years,” says Dy, who is learning Chinese to try to integrate better with the city’s new community. “Before it was really quiet here, but not any more with all the Chinese construction. I am worried that it’s very destructive to the environment, all this building … and what will happen when all the construction is finished and thousands more people come? There will be no Cambodia left in Sihanoukville.”

 

'No Cambodia left': how Chinese money is changing Sihanoukville - The Guardian

 

 

Edited June 12, 2021 by ThLT

[ThLT]

I've always found Thai laws of not allowing foreigners to buy land practical and intelligent (good for the Thai population and Thailand).

I've seen the effect of large-scale sale of land to foreigners in my country, and it has created havoc in others around the world. When you allow a non-citizen to buy land, you are essentially selling pieces of your country in exchange for $$$. It then creates competition between wealthy non-citizens and less wealthy citizens. If you have difficulty buying land as a citizen, because you're being outbid by wealthy foreigners, how is that a good thing?

 

Some might be happy of this change, because it means that you can finally buy land. However, if little-by-little it affects Thailand as a whole. . . is your single piece of land worth it?

 

Edited June 12, 2021 by ThLT

[mrmicbkktxl]

On 6/11/2021 at 5:22 AM, LivinLOS said:

 

Your not understanding what grandfathering in of extensions means. 

It means you do not let the extension expire, if it does it then it is a new extension of stay and doesnt qualify. 

 

I understand that but it's not my point.Point is you own a property and you got a visa for it.If I go to travel for a year and come back I still own a property but I don't get a visa because they changed the visa rules.So what is the point of owning a property here if they change the visa rules whenever it fits them?