Thai govt urged to ease rules on condo transfers for foreigners

[WinterGael]

3 hours ago, Jerno said:

Finally someone in this inept govt proposing a common sense policy.  And who is the retarded moron that called it treasonous?  Sheesh!

It is a stupid idea.  Look at other countries that allow foreign ownership, like Canada.  A few made a lot of money quick, and now it is a total nightmare.  Places like Vancouver, Calvary, and Toronto a Canadian can barely afford to buy.  Provincial governments now putting restrictions, stopping the renting of foreign owned properties, adding extra taxes, especially if it is known the property is not a principle residence, all in an attempt to make housing (both renting and owning) more affordable for Canadians.  Even all federal parties have made it an election issue.  This is a Pandora's box that the average Thai does not need to see introduced here...

 

 

[DefaultName]

I'm an owner/occupier. 

As it stands, I can't sell and use that money to buy a different condo as I could elsewhere.  Instead, I have to sell, store the contents somewhere, move the money out of the country, and back in.  Then buy.

 

It's silly.

 

Perhaps it doesn't matter to those who have the available funds to buy before selling, but I don't.  My money, what there is of it, is in places where it would cost me if I took it out.  In one case, I couldn't put it back (UK ISA).

[Misty]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

Mr Atip also rejected claims that Thailand’s proposals to relax laws surrounding foreigners owning property in Thailand were treasonous. 

 

He said that Thai people were largely free to buy property in other countries without restrictions.

Reciprocity might help make the argument.  Other countries could adopt policies that allow Thais to purchase property in their countries, when their citizens can purchase property in Thailand. 

[Misty]

21 minutes ago, WinterGael said:

It is a stupid idea.  Look at other countries that allow foreign ownership, like Canada.  A few made a lot of money quick, and now it is a total nightmare.  Places like Vancouver, Calvary, and Toronto a Canadian can barely afford to buy.  Provincial governments now putting restrictions, stopping the renting of foreign owned properties, adding extra taxes, especially if it is known the property is not a principle residence, all in an attempt to make housing (both renting and owning) more affordable for Canadians.  Even all federal parties have made it an election issue.  This is a Pandora's box that the average Thai does not need to see introduced here...

 

 

It's a point worth considering.  Local governments may need to adopt policies to protect those who live and work there and wish to own primary residences.  Some Canadian cities are definitely a case in point. 

 

And wealthy buyers entering a property market for speculation or to hide money need not be foreigners.

[mokwit]

56 minutes ago, DefaultName said:

move the money out of the country, and back in

Most don't realise how much that really cost - they look at commission not spread. HSBC in my retail account charged me 340 pips off interbank to convert GBP to USD- that's about 3% in and 3% back out if done so that would be 6% round trip.

 

I had to turn around $250k that had been wrongly sent to me - from memory that cost literally $9,000 to do with the best non institutional rate they could give me, although there was some currency movement.

[Toscano]

For all the Thai government urging wealthy foreigners to retire in Thailand , truth is they don't want foreigners at all , only their money brought from abroad .

[metisdead]

A post trolling about Joe Biden has been removed. 

[ukrules]

7 hours ago, kiwikeith said:

I do not understand this, if I was  to buy a condo in LOS ,I can sign the requires government transfer documents, to enable me to take money out from NZ to do this, its a legal transfer required by customs and banks for any amount over 10k NZ.

So if I transfer 4 million Bhat to Thailand to purchase a condo, what the hell is the fuss about.

The funds are clear , checked by ther nZ govt , clear of money laundering, what's the big deal here??

 

You might not realise it but in most places you don't need to ask permission from the government to access your own money.

[cncltd1973]

7 hours ago, kiwikeith said:

I do not understand this, if I was  to buy a condo in LOS ,I can sign the requires government transfer documents, to enable me to take money out from NZ to do this, its a legal transfer required by customs and banks for any amount over 10k NZ.

So if I transfer 4 million Bhat to Thailand to purchase a condo, what the hell is the fuss about.

The funds are clear , checked by ther nZ govt , clear of money laundering, what's the big deal here??

I think it's about ensuring the stream of money coming into Thailand. Thai gov't doesn't want the expat living in Thailand to use Thai money to buy Thai property, they want the Europeans etc to send Euros to prop up their real estate market. (I doubt they care if it's laundered money, as long as it comes from outside)

[Crok]

What about looking after those foreigners who have already bought condos?  
And as for transfer of money for condos sold by foreigners. Just the extra taxes paid and the need to send money out of Thailand and back in to buy another. Is a pain.

[hereforgood]

I made my baht working here in Thailand when i wanted to buy my condo a very popular Currency Exchange company got me the needed Tor Tor 3 from the bank in about 1 hour for a fee of course. But better that going through the mess of sending out and having to send back in. I had a Business visa and WP paid taxes here but still suppose to bring the money in from outside the country. Silly

[hotchilli]

18 hours ago, webfact said:

He said that Thai people were largely free to buy property in other countries without restrictions

Even football clubs.

[hotchilli]

15 hours ago, nobodysfriend said:

That is right and just shows how open minded foreign governments are .

Thai government appears narrow minded and xenophobic by sticking to quasi racist rules regarding foreigners who , after all , financially benefit the country .

 

What you say above is correct, but it serves a purpose.

It's protectionism so that property prices are not used as quick investment plans thus pricing Thais out of the housing market by over-inflated prices.

There are not many countries in the world where you can buy a property for the same price as a car.

 

[hotchilli]

12 hours ago, WinterGael said:

It is a stupid idea.  Look at other countries that allow foreign ownership, like Canada.  A few made a lot of money quick, and now it is a total nightmare.  Places like Vancouver, Calvary, and Toronto a Canadian can barely afford to buy.  Provincial governments now putting restrictions, stopping the renting of foreign owned properties, adding extra taxes, especially if it is known the property is not a principle residence, all in an attempt to make housing (both renting and owning) more affordable for Canadians.  Even all federal parties have made it an election issue.  This is a Pandora's box that the average Thai does not need to see introduced here...

 

 

Agreed, but could you imagine the backlash from all the Chinese owned properties that are rented out if Thailand said you can buy it but you have to live in it.

Thailand has to come up with a way to distinguish between property speculation/investment and residence.

[Destiny1990]

They want to change the rule because in their data they can see once a foreigner has sold his condo the money flows out and doesn’t come back anymore. If can keep the money in Thailand and buy something else many will do but they like to complicate procedures and extra expensive.   

[dutchweller]

16 hours ago, nobodysfriend said:

That is right and just shows how open minded foreign governments are .

Thai government appears narrow minded and xenophobic by sticking to quasi racist rules regarding foreigners who , after all , financially benefit the country .

 

Appears?

I think you mean IS narrow minded, xenophobic and racist.

You only need to look at the recent courts ruling on 2 tier  prices " its OK because it's beneficial to Thailand"..

 

 

[mavi]

yes, let chinese buy all with their scams !

 

[mavi]

22 hours ago, lapamita said:

old story i angry so long time about ( ok before 2016 you could solve it easy by fake docs)

 

when you sell legaly a condo in thai, get your tax receipt ( blue receipt-bill) from landoffice ( for buissenes tax and transfer tax) 

YOU CANT USE THIS AS PROOF TO BUY A NEW ONE, even the money is legally taxed. only choice send money out and send it back in , whats costing a lot of money in exchange and transfer fees

 

long ago , ok , was easy just buying a fake TT3 , whats today not possible more

who told you that it changed ?

still easy...

 

 

[Keesters]

On 10/28/2021 at 11:54 AM, webfact said:

described the process as being complicated

That just about sums Thailand up. 

[lapamita]

1 hour ago, mavi said:

who told you that it changed ?

still easy...

 

 

yes if you buy what you not legal own, like a condo or house in company name or the best on GF name ???? , than you dont need, and you still can buy with or without any proof.

to buy a F property

the way just buy a TT3 at a moneychanger for 100.000usd -10.000thb , is not possible anymore. if you lucky and send money i ´n over the last 2 years , where you not get a  TT3, a bank can acumulate the total, and issue a letter over the total amount, that it was inward transfers , what would fit too..but be lucky to find a person in the banks who does, and it even work only , if you send a lot of unproof money ( where tt not issued before) for spending

 

..so only roundtrip  money  and when you have a cheap bank cost you all in all 2.5%...but depend on banks could go a lot higher too

 

Edited October 29, 2021 by lapamita

[MyFriend You]

20 hours ago, mokwit said:

It is/used to be the way to send as your home currency via SWIFT was to demand they included as an instruction "remit as currency" which was theoretically to stop any correspondent banks converting it into THB along the way to make their spread - if you were sending to a USD account in Thailand you would then have to pay again as the Thai bank would convert back from illicit conversion to THB. If your NZ bank has a branch here that is less likely to be an issue.

 

What I can say for sure is that Thai bank onshore rates are [surprisingly] better than any rate you get offshore. I am pretty sure conversion to THB onshore is a requirement for it being accepted for condo purchase. I always thought you had to give "property purchase" as the reason for sending when transferring, but somebody who seemed to know more than me said this was not required.

 

Maybe start a thread with your concerns as there are people who have done this and can give better advice than me.

 

 

I don't know who said the words "For Property Purchase" does not have to be on the paperwork as a reason for the transfer but they are dead wrong.............I almost had to send my money back out of Thailand and back in because this statement was omitted.........and would have lost a good amount of Baht in the transactions.  Lucky for me I had enough in US Bank to do another transfer with the statement "For Condominium Purchase " on it before the Bank would accept is as payment for the condo.   Bank Mgr told me it was required because of money laundering  -  so I asked her, "If I won the Lottery big prize I couldn't use that money to buy a condo??".  She said "Impossible". for foreigner, has to come from overseas.   

[newnative]

12 hours ago, dutchweller said:

Appears?

I think you mean IS narrow minded, xenophobic and racist.

You only need to look at the recent courts ruling on 2 tier  prices " its OK because it's beneficial to Thailand"..

 

 

Not 'racist'.  Foreigner isn't a race.  Neither is Thai.  One might consider the dual pricing in this example nationalistic.  

[zaZa9]

What about repatriation of the money from a home sold by a  farang ?

Years back a friend had a hell of a time getting his money back out as I recall.

Is it now just a matter of  just transferring it ?

[dutchweller]

10 hours ago, newnative said:

Not 'racist'.  Foreigner isn't a race.  Neither is Thai.  One might consider the dual pricing in this example nationalistic.  

 

race 
1. A group of people identified as distinct from other groups because of supposed physical or genetic traits shared by the group.

 

Racial discrimination

Racial discrimination is any discrimination against any individual on the basis of their skin color, or racial or ethnic origin. Individuals can discriminate by refusing to do business with, socialize with, or share resources with people of a certain group. Governments can discriminate in a de facto fashion or explicitly in law, for example through policies of racial segregation, disparate enforcement of laws, or disproportionate allocation of resources. 

 

 

[newnative]

27 minutes ago, dutchweller said:

 

race 
1. A group of people identified as distinct from other groups because of supposed physical or genetic traits shared by the group.

 

Racial discrimination

Racial discrimination is any discrimination against any individual on the basis of their skin color, or racial or ethnic origin. Individuals can discriminate by refusing to do business with, socialize with, or share resources with people of a certain group. Governments can discriminate in a de facto fashion or explicitly in law, for example through policies of racial segregation, disparate enforcement of laws, or disproportionate allocation of resources. 

 

 

   Yes, as I said.  Foreigners are not a race; neither are Thais.  Foreigners in the posted example are not being discriminated because of '...their skin color, or racial or ethnic origin...'.  A foreigner in Thailand can be any race, have any ethnic origin, and any skin color.   Obviously, it makes more of a negative impact to label something racist.  "Thailand is being racist" sounds a lot worse than "Thailand is being nationalistic".  But, it's not correct, it's lazy, and it erodes the true meaning of the word. 

   You can certainly make the argument that the dual pricing in the posted example discriminates against foreigners.  But, it's not racial discrimination and not racist.  If the park had one price for Thais, a higher price for foreign Asians, and an even higher price for Blacks and Caucasians, that would, indeed, be racist.  

    As the definition says, governments can discriminate racially by segregating races, enforcing the laws unfairly by race, and allocating resources unfairly by race.  All of these would be considered racist.  None of that applies to a higher entrance fee for foreigners.  

[jacko45k]

8 minutes ago, newnative said:

If the park had one price for Thais, a higher price for foreign Asians, and an even higher price for Blacks and Caucasians, that would, indeed, be racist.  

That does not make sense..... adding an extra category does not cause a crossing over into the 'racist' category. One can be racist based on ethnic groupings and being 'Thai' certainly is that. Perhaps just easier to stick with the term discrimination ..... they can keep their national parks and I will always regard these policies as a deterrent.  Property is a more stark demonstration of discriminatory policies. 

Edited October 30, 2021 by jacko45k

[newnative]

6 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

That does not make sense..... adding an extra category does not cause a crossing over into the 'racist' category. One can be racist based on ethnic groupings and being 'Thai' certainly is that. Perhaps just easier to stick with the term discrimination ..... they can keep their national parks and I will always regard these policies as a deterrent.  Property is a more stark demonstration of discriminatory policies. 

   Crikey, don't be so anal.  I was just using that as an example.  The number of price categories isn't the point.  The point being that different price categories based on race is racist.  'Foreigner' isn't a race. 

[jacko45k]

6 minutes ago, newnative said:

   Crikey, don't be so anal.  I was just using that as an example.  The number of price categories isn't the point.  The point being that different price categories based on race is racist.  'Foreigner' isn't a race. 

You not being able to read is not my problem, you not knowing what racist means is clear. Having different rules based on ethnicity is racist.... 

Your 'example' failed.

And mind your ill manners.

Edited October 30, 2021 by jacko45k

[newnative]

13 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

You not being able to read is not my problem, you not knowing what racist means is clear. Having different rules based on ethnicity is racist.... 

Your 'example' failed.

And mind your ill manners.

   I can read just fine.  Being a foreigner is neither a race nor an ethnicity.  Thailand having one price for its citizens and a higher price for foreigners has nothing to do with race or ethnicity.  Rather, the pricing is nationalistic.  As I said previously, one could make the argument that it is discriminatory, but it is not discrimination based on race or ethnicity.  Instead, it's based on citizenship.  

[jacko45k]

1 minute ago, newnative said:

   I can read just fine.  Being a foreigner is neither a race nor an ethnicity.  Thailand having one price for its citizens and a higher price for foreigners has nothing to do with race or ethnicity.  Rather, the pricing is nationalistic.  As I said previously, one could make the argument that it is discriminatory, but it is not discrimination based on race or ethnicity.  Instead, it's based on citizenship.  

Look up ethnicity and tell me why 'not being Thai' is not that?