Jump to content



SURVEY: Is it time to let foreigners own land?


Scott

SURVEY: Is it time to let foreigners own land?  

345 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Jud Canada said:

Hahaha ya something like that. But our house in the south is bigger and nicer and is owned by my company. It keeps her grounded.

Who is the majority share holder of the company ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

...and there in lies the problem in a nut shell.......own or part own the house......don't own the land.......massive problem....potentially.

I have checked around a little bit. You do have rights....this is not the same as years ago 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ralf001 said:

Who is the majority share holder of the company ?

Wow.... I have had my co. Since 2001....and purchased a number of properties with it. I know where you are going and say " c'mon man" do you think everyone is stupid. My company is secured up proper. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jud Canada said:

Wow.... I have had my co. Since 2001....and purchased a number of properties with it. I know where you are going and say " c'mon man" do you think everyone is stupid. My company is secured up proper. 

 

Who is the majority share holder of the company ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the recent spat of various virus's from 200 to now or there about's show's how a country relying on the tourist trade can be volatile to the economy. The one thing with land or buildings is that they are in-situ. You can't take them with you. In Sydney OZ 1960's saw 70% or there about of the CDB office buildings in foreign hands. It got down to about 10% in the late 1980's and was fueled by world global events where other countries had to sell and sell at low prices. This is also similar on the Gold Coast. I remember one fellow tell me a client said sell 6 units; it was a fire sale due to money problems in another country. Land title is not a sacred cow. It can inject money into the economy. Just my thoughts. Chris

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ralf001 said:

 

Who is the majority share holder of the company ?

Thanks for your interest and attempts to be the oracle of real estate in Thailand. The majority shareholder holding the A class shares is me. How I have the Thai 51% organized  is not really your business but I can assure you My end is sorted and my knowledge in this area is well established. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chris Lawrence said:

It can inject money into the economy

Very true......but it does feel like you are selling your soul to the devil at times.....

 

China's long march through UK industry - which until recently attracted stunningly little scrutiny - is a symptom of Britain's broken economic model. As this week's NS leader notes: "No other major Western country has allowed so many of its strategic industries, assets and pre-eminent companies to fall into foreign ownership".

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes with restrictions. The one homestead concept in selected moo-baans only. No beachfront or unesco/ historical site adjacent. No farming or farmland, No crims (police check from home country and Thailand). No onsite business, no party house/bnb,  and absolutely no mineral rights or boreholes.

 

Otherwise the whole country is sold to China and rich foreigners and Thais become largely tenants on their own nation.

Edited by Captain Monday
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jud Canada said:

Thanks for your interest and attempts to be the oracle of real estate in Thailand. The majority shareholder holding the A class shares is me. How I have the Thai 51% organized  is not really your business but I can assure you My end is sorted and my knowledge in this area is well established. 

 

so it is Thai majority owned.

 

Thanks, we got there in the end.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Ralf001 said:

lol @ usefructs and superficeries.

 

If it is not my name on the title deeds Iam not interested.

 

This is were you have to weigh it all up, e.g. do I have kids, if so, do I want them to have a decent roof over their heads, yes, can I afford it, yes, if it all doesn't work out, will it hurt my finances with the kids remaining in that house with a roof over their heads while I go elsewhere, no, ok then, so hypothetically speaking I get to enjoy the house while I am in it to, i.e. if the marriage is a happy one, yes, so might as well buy her a car in her name too because she will need to run the kids to and from school.

 

Will I lose more than 10% of my finances from what I have spent, no, heck those odds are far better than the 75%-80% that the courts would give her if I was in my home country, so I am miles ahead ????

 

It all boils down to people's circumstances and finances and how much they are prepared to lose, for me, it's a win/win a huge win for her when I depart this life so it's happiness all around for at least another 20 Buddha willing. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Very true......but it does feel like you are selling your soul to the devil at times.....

 

China's long march through UK industry - which until recently attracted stunningly little scrutiny - is a symptom of Britain's broken economic model. As this week's NS leader notes: "No other major Western country has allowed so many of its strategic industries, assets and pre-eminent companies to fall into foreign ownership".

Look at history. I was a registered Real Estate Valuer with an interest in the past. 9/10 its the off shore buyer that buys develops and sells in their property in hard times. That's when opportunity comes the local way. My first boss was worth about $10 million; 10 years later he was worth $250 million. I have met a few like that. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Ralf001 said:

lol @ usefructs and superficeries.

 

If it is not my name on the title deeds Iam not interested.

 

Both is registered on the title deed in your name....

 

Plus company can own land and u can have majority voting rights and be the director additionally.

 

 

Doesn't stop anyone from.buying here who has money anyway. This just makes it easier for normal people....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Captain Monday said:

Yes with restrictions. The one homestead concept in selected moo-baans only. No beachfront or unesco/ historical site adjacent. No farming or farmland, No crims (police check from home country and Thailand). No onsite business, no party house/bnb,  and absolutely no mineral rights or boreholes.

 

Otherwise the whole country is sold to China and rich foreigners and Thais become largely tenants on their own nation.

Lol who the <deleted> wants to life in a moo ban...especially people with money...

 

Such an odd restriction. 

 

If you want people to spend money here let them buy beachfront land, there's tons of it in thailand.

 

If not just spare u all this <deleted> as its of no interest to anyone anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jacob29 said:

The solution to an existing problem.. is to make it worse? Foreigners buying up land is a rational concern, and foregone conclusion if the laws are too permissive. 

Not at all, give those that settle here the right to buy a plot big enough

to build a home on ,all people want is security, there is plenty of land

in Thailand....after all like I said, you cannot take it with you .

What is the existing problem...

regards worgeordie

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, zyphodb said:

Why shouldn't us from Blighty own most of Oz? 

 It was always OUR island after all lol   (irony alert)

As a part of the Glory-ous  Empire jolly old chap and an Aussie to boot I can't see much wrong with the British having an invested part of Oz and we can buy in England , however China is an altogether kettle of fish , try buying land in China  .

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes-it would be the biggest boost to the Developer/Construction and Housing and Investment Markets ever probably exceeding Tourism.  Land gifted by the Government should have liens attached to retain the value of public investment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Surelynot said:

Very true......but it does feel like you are selling your soul to the devil at times.....

 

China's long march through UK industry - which until recently attracted stunningly little scrutiny - is a symptom of Britain's broken economic model. As this week's NS leader notes: "No other major Western country has allowed so many of its strategic industries, assets and pre-eminent companies to fall into foreign ownership".

For Wufluland read Russia India Israel and many others

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A foreigner working in Thailand for many years on a WP ,who makes a Thai wage, Should be allowed to buy "One" landed property, as a primary home. This should keep speculation at bay and keep land prices down. Premium foreigners, just increase the price of premium properties, making developers focus more on premium, and creating wealth disparity in future. Yes. I am looking at you Australia. There are 4 million foreigners(Skilled and unskilled)  working, willing to pool in their monies for a sense of safe space to live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The proposed land ownership, surprise, surprise would affect only the wealthy investing substantial funds in Thailand. As such, not a concern of mine. I can document only the spending of a million Thai baht brought into the country for the past decade. As to a care for equity, I do think that my own country should have like restrictions on Thai citizens in the US as I am to fulfill here in Thailand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

Ain't that the truth, if I recall that was straight after you stole it from them black fella's.

And then they sold it to the Chinese etc and pocketed all the cash.

 

It isn't any wonder why the blackfellas have a bit of anti British bias. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Myran said:

Yes, but we should be restricted to one fairly small piece of land to build a house on. 

Are there similar restrictions for those living legally in Faranigstan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

This is were you have to weigh it all up, e.g. do I have kids, if so, do I want them to have a decent roof over their heads, yes, can I afford it, yes, if it all doesn't work out, will it hurt my finances with the kids remaining in that house with a roof over their heads while I go elsewhere, no, ok then, so hypothetically speaking I get to enjoy the house while I am in it to, i.e. if the marriage is a happy one, yes, so might as well buy her a car in her name too because she will need to run the kids to and from school.

 

Will I lose more than 10% of my finances from what I have spent, no, heck those odds are far better than the 75%-80% that the courts would give her if I was in my home country, so I am miles ahead ????

 

It all boils down to people's circumstances and finances and how much they are prepared to lose, for me, it's a win/win a huge win for her when I depart this life so it's happiness all around for at least another 20 Buddha willing. 

This basically is the problem with our name not being on the title. I (she) purchased before we were married so I have no claim on our property. If my name was on the title it would go to her anyway via my will when I die (and vice versa). So it does not really matter unless the marriage fails and I would like some return on my money. (but this one has lasted longer than the last one back home where I had no claim.)

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, GreasyFingers said:

This basically is the problem with our name not being on the title. I (she) purchased before we were married so I have no claim on our property. If my name was on the title it would go to her anyway via my will when I die (and vice versa). So it does not really matter unless the marriage fails and I would like some return on my money. (but this one has lasted longer than the last one back home where I had no claim.)

 

I do believe you can create something where she can will it to you, but you have I believe 12 or 24 months to sell it, otherwise I believe if I read it correctly the government or family would get it, so might be worth while looking into if that is what you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.