SURVEY: Is it time to let foreigners own land?

[jacob29]

20 hours ago, worgeordie said:

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

What's the problem with 70 year  leasehold, if all people want is security?

 

Many landowners in tourist hotspots are making out like bandits, in many cases for little effort. Seems to me locals should be the beneficiary of easy money derived from natural resources.

[starky]

On 6/13/2021 at 12:11 PM, 4MyEgo said:

They could probably learn from Australia's mistakes.

 

Country by country, the UK is the biggest foreign investor in Australian farmland, owning 10.2 million hectares, followed by China with 9.2 million and then, each owning two or more million hectares, the US, the Netherlands, the Bahamas and Canada.May 27, 2563 BE

 

China holds the biggest interests registered, closely followed by the US, and then the UK and Canada. All up, the proportion of total water entitlement on issue in the Murray-Darling Basin with a level of foreign ownership is 9.4%.

China is not the second biggest foreign investor in Australia not even close. They do own a fair bit of land though that Aussies want to whine about. But that's why SEA is smart you can't buy something that's not for sale. And if something is for sale then you can't whinge about who buys it that's how a free market works.

 

https://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/resources/investment-statistics/statistics-on-who-invests-in-australia

Edited June 14, 2021 by starky

[Salerno]

3 minutes ago, starky said:

China is not the second biggest foreign investor in Australia not even close

 

The topic is about owning land, not investment.

[ThomasThBKK]

2 hours ago, poskat said:

I voted no because the risk is too high for big-spending organizations to come in and buy up huge amounts of land is too great.

 

the thais in the rural areas  wont really have an idea of what their land is really worth, and then will get priced out as the bidding levels keep going up and up.

 

I didn't vote for yes with restrictions because due to the rampant corruption in the government, any supposed limitations would be easily worked around with an appropriately stuffed brown envelope

 

Every BOI company can own land, <deleted> do u think Marriot, Hilton, tons of palm oil plantages etc are doing here already.

 

 

Do u know who owns all the land in Thailand, a bunch of Thai Hisos...thats the real problem.

 

 

[Hanuman2547]

Yes, foreigners should be permitted to own land and the houses built on them.  There should be some restrictions such as how many rai they are allowed to own and how many parcels.  For example, allowed to own up to two parcels of land that do not exceed 10 rai total.  In practice that could be a house in Phuket on three rai and a house in Chiang Mai on seven rai.  I do believe that there should be a reciprocal agreement between both governments.  If we cannot buy land/houses in Thailand then Thais would not be allowed to buy property in our home countries. 

[starky]

2 hours ago, Salerno said:

 

The topic is about owning land, not investment.

Yep and as far as Australia goes if it's for sale you don't get to whinge about who bought it.

[JESSVANPELT]

I may be mistaken but in the Mid 80's a foreigner could buy up to one rai of land then that changed with the new Land Act

[Captain Monday]

13 hours ago, JESSVANPELT said:

I may be mistaken but in the Mid 80's a foreigner could buy up to one rai of land then that changed with the new Land Act

It should allowed to be more than ane rai, if contiguous plots in a moo-bahn.  No boreholes, no renting out, no bnb/party house, no onsite business, no farming. Consistent with national security

[kynikoi]

The trial balloons the government has floated recently had me thinking again.

 

First, property is too expensive. I believe by at least 50%.

 

If money comes from abroad the property should be able to be owned outright with NO legal claim by wife.

 

Next, without permanent residency I will never buy. Visa extension too fickle and tedious. Hundreds if not thousands locked out during covid.

 

Next, I definitely do not like the politics of the country. It's crashing the economy. The young people are despondent and that should be food for thought about the future of your home. It's not a nice place to live anymore.

 

The government is totally inept and this government will continue into perpetuity.

 

Moreover, despite all the borrowing and spending, poor economy the currency is still way too strong. Bringing money in feels like being scammed. Bring in 7m for condo no way.

 

I've decided that condo associations are just thievery corporations. It would only be land and house.

 

Buying homes here have their own problems due to the way Thais live and take advantage of one another.

 

Disallowing property ownership is stupid. One cannot take property out of the country. Allowing foreigners to buy only competes with wealthy Thais. They don't want this and understandably so.

 

Foreigners have no power to affect change near their property.

 

What is needed is permanent residency for anyone married seven years, retired ten years, 40k job fifteen years.

 

Look at what can be bought for 7m in Florida and here despite US property bubble. It's shocking. Downside to FL is taxes on property. Upside is all the Thai problems disappear.

 

Wake up, millionaires not coming to save you Thailand.

 

Thailand will become irrelevant. We are entering a new economic era. Thailand has overplayed it's hand.

 

I think it's now so bad here only people from nations with less democracy and freedom will find it appealing. That and sex tourists.

Edited June 14, 2021 by kynikoi

[kynikoi]

16 hours ago, Hanuman2547 said:

Yes, foreigners should be permitted to own land and the houses built on them.  There should be some restrictions such as how many rai they are allowed to own and how many parcels.  For example, allowed to own up to two parcels of land that do not exceed 10 rai total.  In practice that could be a house in Phuket on three rai and a house in Chiang Mai on seven rai.  I do believe that there should be a reciprocal agreement between both governments.  If we cannot buy land/houses in Thailand then Thais would not be allowed to buy property in our home countries. 

 

That's a ridiculous amount of land. To meet this requirement one domicile of 2-4 rai.

[Captain Monday]

17 hours ago, Hanuman2547 said:

Yes, foreigners should be permitted to own land and the houses built on them.  There should be some restrictions such as how many rai they are allowed to own and how many parcels.  For example, allowed to own up to two parcels of land that do not exceed 10 rai total.  In practice that could be a house in Phuket on three rai and a house in Chiang Mai on seven rai.  I do believe that there should be a reciprocal agreement between both governments.  If we cannot buy land/houses in Thailand then Thais would not be allowed to buy property in our home countries. 

Reciprocity for property ownership is fairness and makes sense to me. The problem is , under US law it would be illegal discrimination.

[Hanuman2547]

7 hours ago, kynikoi said:

 

That's a ridiculous amount of land. To meet this requirement one domicile of 2-4 rai.

It was just an example.  First thing is to be able to purchase a house and land.  At some point the amount of land will be determined.  

[jacob29]

7 hours ago, kynikoi said:

Allowing foreigners to buy only competes with wealthy Thais. They don't want this and understandably so.

What difference does it make? If there's increased competition for premium land, this spills over into lower tier property as competing buyers are forced into the more affordable tiers.

[Hanuman2547]

6 hours ago, Captain Monday said:

Reciprocity for property ownership is fairness and makes sense to me. The problem is , under US law it would be illegal discrimination.

Not so much discrimination based on race or ethnicity but based on the practices in place in both countries.  The US already has reciprocal agreements with other countries based on business.  

[Captain Monday]

12 hours ago, Hanuman2547 said:

Not so much discrimination based on race or ethnicity but based on the practices in place in both countries.  The US already has reciprocal agreements with other countries based on business.  

Before I demand reciprocity like Americans buying Bayoke tower, let us visualize the completely harmless sale of certain freehold plots of graded dirt in a moo-bahn suitable only as a base to build a dwelling on. No risk to the nation and can only benefit property market Thai owners too, and developers.

 

[inThailand]

In a country controlled by the military, the wealthy and monopoly businesses that hate any foreign competition, why does anyone believe they will give foreigners the right to own land? 

[simon43]

On 6/13/2021 at 1:20 PM, Jud Canada said:

I am not married but am on the house book with my long time girlfriend as part owner of our Khon Kaen property. Possible..,yes!

The house book has nothing to do with ownership.

[Iron Tongue]

I say no.  If it becomes possible, everyone, including the Thais, will have to compete with the Chinese desperate to move money out of China.

Quick stat; there are now ~700,000,000 "middle class" Chinese with incomes up to US$80K/year.  If just 1% wanted to buy in Thailand, that's 7,000,000 people competing to buy land.  Everyone else would be priced out.

(and I'm not counting upper middle class, wealthy & professional investors)

[Rampant Rabbit]

Survey "Is  it time to stop  pointless  surveys  on Thai Visa"

[Rampant Rabbit]

1 hour ago, Iron Tongue said:

Everyone else would be priced out.

I'd  see  that as a  massive  sales  opportunity.

[1FinickyOne]

On 6/13/2021 at 11:01 AM, Myran said:

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

Only what they can carry in the overhead compartment... 

[inThailand]

What does trolling mean on social media?

A troll is Internet slang for a person who intentionally tries to instigate conflict, hostility, or arguments in an online social community.

 

Is this post a text book troll? 

[FalangJaiDee]

Thailand would just be colonized overnight by wealthy foreigners. I admire the ethno-nationalism. The absence of such is why america is in terminal decline 

[impulse]

22 minutes ago, FalangJaiDee said:

Thailand would just be colonized overnight by wealthy foreigners. I admire the ethno-nationalism. The absence of such is why america is in terminal decline 

And has been for 350 years...  "Any minute now, it'll implode", said some guy in 1830 when discussing Irish immigration.  Or was it Italians?  I forget.

 

[JensenZ]

On 6/13/2021 at 10:37 AM, RotBenz8888 said:

It'll never happen. 

It should never happen. No country should sell out its sovereignty to foreign interests. Maybe lease it, but don't sell it.

 

It got so bad in Australia in the 1980's with the Japanese buying everything they could get their hands on without restrictions that the state governments had no idea how much was owned by foreigners. It pushed the prices up to make it hard for Aussies to afford property in desirable locations.