SURVEY: Is it time to let foreigners own land?

[Ralf001]

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 ?

[Jud Canada]

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 

[Jud Canada]

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. 

[Ralf001]

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 ?

[Chris Lawrence]

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

[Jud Canada]

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. 

[Surelynot]

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".

[Captain Monday]

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.

[Ralf001]

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.

[1FinickyOne]

2 hours ago, worgeordie said:

they can buy anything.

but they can't buy everything - - - might that be worrisome? 

[Jud Canada]

1 minute ago, Ralf001 said:

 

so it is Thai majority owned.

 

Thanks, we got there in the end.

Of course it is. What is your point?

It's law.

[4MyEgo]

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. 

[Chris Lawrence]

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. 

[andyman57]

I bought house there 13 years ago had it in my daughter's name .and I have given her the house as a gift

[ThomasThBKK]

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....

[ThomasThBKK]

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.

[Cletus]

The problem is China buying the World.

[Surelynot]

Just now, Cletus said:

The problem is China buying the World.

100%...spot on.

[worgeordie]

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

[chainarong]

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  .

[chilly07]

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.

[chilly07]

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

[gearbox]

1 hour ago, Caldera said:

I actually admire the Thais for making an effort to prevent a foreign takeover of their country. If foreigners could buy land, prices in popular areas would soar, it's easy to see that most Thais would be priced out of the market. I wished my own country was more like that.

 

With that in mind, I think the current laws are acceptable. But a foreigner who has family here should have an easier path to citizenship. That doesn't apply to me, but I think Thailand treats foreign spouses of Thais unnecessarily poorly.

 

Thais (or any nationality) should never allow foreigners to own land, not only directly, but also via set up of fake companies which only purpose is to circumvent property ownership laws.

Selling land and real estate to foreigners is never a good model for sustainable economic development.

[Smokegreynblues]

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.

[wwest5829]

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.

[RobMuir]

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. 

 

[djayz]

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?

[GreasyFingers]

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 they should be the ones paying for their upkeep, not us.

[GreasyFingers]

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.)

[4MyEgo]

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.