Thailand Considers Law Revisions to Attract Foreign Real Estate Investment

[Purdey]

But... But how are foreigners leasing land supposed to help lower household debt? No one is paying off their debt are they? 

 

Edited Saturday at 10:57 AM by Purdey

[bkk6060]

Other places in the world lease land.  But, there is usually some type of caveat that under certain circumstance the lease can be raised.  Especially 99 years that sounds crazy.

[Brave-Fart]

2 hours ago, newnative said:

     I doubt it.  I certainly wouldn't be interested in it at all--and my Thai spouse and I have bought about 20 properties in Thailand, a mix of condos and houses.  

I wonder then as to why you needed to retire in Thailand if you had the finances to buy "about" 20 properties.

Surely real estate in another country would provide better returns for your money upon resale. ?

[Elkski]

Only one reason to live in Thailand me thinks. 😁 

And if you are married and your wife doesn't allow, just why?

 

[chondan]

The land dept.  always get their share ++

 

[jaywalker2]

This is bull crap. The problem is that developers have put up a huge number of ridiculously expensive condos and now can't unload them. Look at Sinhorn Lumpini. A 2-bedroom condo goes for 180,000 baht a month. How about buying a condo at The Embassy on Wireless Road? That will only set you back over 8 mllion for a 35 sqm. condo. Too small? Don't worry, upgrade to 46 sqm for just 14 million. It's scandalous what they're been allowed to do. And since Thais can't afford them, you have to change the law to attract those "rich" Chinese who have already lost a bundle in the real estate crash over there. Another problem is that these luxury developments drive up prices all through the food chain. I get pissed off just thinking about it.

[CallumWK]

5 hours ago, BritScot said:

When I was building my house in Thailand I did a lot of research and one thing I found interesting was that US citizens were allowed to own land in Thailand to build a house on due to an agreement they had to make with America. However, upto that date 2010 no land office in Thailand had granted said right of ownership of land to an American!!!

 

You should have done more research, because there is no law that allows US citizens to own land in Thailand.

US citizens can own 100% of a company, in certain business sectors, but even that company can not own land

 

Treaty of Amity Company Restrictions

While the Thailand Treaty of Amity provides the above-mentioned advantages, the US citizen is also subjected to several restrictions stipulated in the treaty. The Thailand Treaty of Amity prohibits American investors from engaging in the following reserved activities:

• Communications
• Transportation;
• Fiduciary functions
• Banking involving depository functions;
• Land Ownership, Exploitation of land or
• Other natural resources; and
• Domestic trade in indigenous agricultural products.

[newnative]

2 hours ago, Brave-Fart said:

I wonder then as to why you needed to retire in Thailand if you had the finances to buy "about" 20 properties.

Surely real estate in another country would provide better returns for your money upon resale. ?

     We didn't buy 20 properties at once.  They were bought one at a time, starting in December 2009.  Thai spouse and I fixed each one up, usually while we lived in it, sold it at a profit, and then used the money we made to buy the next one, usually a little bigger.  We started with a studio condo as that was all we could afford when we moved to Thailand.   

    Although our finances are much better than when we arrived and I suppose we could move somewhere else, we still find Thailand a great place to live.   We especially like Pattaya, which has a huge variety of housing on offer, both in condos and houses, at all price points.  There's also the big and diverse year-round expat community and we have made some nice friends.  Pattaya has changed tremendously since we first arrived in 2010, and we find it checks the most of our wants and needs boxes in a place to live year-round than anywhere else in Thailand. 

[john donson]

so first they tax you the 35% on the money you sent, then when the lessee dies... how does that go again if a foreigner owns a condo and a family member back home has to pay 100% of the value of the condo, to inherited it here?

[newnative]

13 hours ago, jaywalker2 said:

This is bull crap. The problem is that developers have put up a huge number of ridiculously expensive condos and now can't unload them. Look at Sinhorn Lumpini. A 2-bedroom condo goes for 180,000 baht a month. How about buying a condo at The Embassy on Wireless Road? That will only set you back over 8 mllion for a 35 sqm. condo. Too small? Don't worry, upgrade to 46 sqm for just 14 million. It's scandalous what they're been allowed to do. And since Thais can't afford them, you have to change the law to attract those "rich" Chinese who have already lost a bundle in the real estate crash over there. Another problem is that these luxury developments drive up prices all through the food chain. I get pissed off just thinking about it.

       Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy or rent a 'ridiculously expensive' condo, here or anywhere else.  I certainly do agree with you that there are condo projects, and also not just here, that are ridiculously expensive.  As dear old Dad used to say, 'Too rich for my blood'.   

      That holds true, by the way, for many other things, from women's pocketbooks to automobiles.  There are lots of watches that are ridiculously expensive, for example.  But, no requirement to buy one.   I could spend $5,000 for a watch but I don't want to.  Watches don't interest me that much.  I'm happy with my inexpensive sports watch that counts my steps and tells me I've been sitting too long.  I'd rather put my money towards another property, or stocks.  That's me.  Others covet owning expensive timepieces or jewelry or cars and more power to them.   As always, whatever floats your boat.  

     As far as Bangkok condos go, should you want to rent or buy, there is a huge choice.  You're not limited to Sinhorn Lumpini, 98 Wireless, The Embassy, or any other super high-priced project.  There's likely a condo to fit your budget, whether you are renting or buying.   Spouse and I have a condo in a nice project steps away from the Phetchaburi MRT station.  1 bedrooms that are 48 to 52 sqm rent for around 25,000 baht a month.  About $714.    Wonder what something like that would rent for in a nice center city doorman project in New York City.  I think you will find that your 'huge number' of condos built has kept prices affordable, rather than driven them up.  Especially true for rentals.  

      

[lordgrinz]

I consider any investment in Thailand to be like playing Russian roulette, not worth the risk.

[Aussie999]

Ok, You invest in an unstable governments proposal... but even if you can lease for a fun 99 years, on the surface is ok, but you invest a lot of money, in land, and infrastructure, which you might hope to leave for your offspring... lease runs out, and being Thailand, guess what might happen.

[jaywalker2]

2 hours ago, newnative said:

       Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy or rent a 'ridiculously expensive' condo, here or anywhere else.  I certainly do agree with you that there are condo projects, and also not just here, that are ridiculously expensive.  As dear old Dad used to say, 'Too rich for my blood'.   

      That holds true, by the way, for many other things, from women's pocketbooks to automobiles.  There are lots of watches that are ridiculously expensive, for example.  But, no requirement to buy one.   I could spend $5,000 for a watch but I don't want to.  Watches don't interest me that much.  I'm happy with my inexpensive sports watch that counts my steps and tells me I've been sitting too long.  I'd rather put my money towards another property, or stocks.  That's me.  Others covet owning expensive timepieces or jewelry or cars and more power to them.   As always, whatever floats your boat.  

     As far as Bangkok condos go, should you want to rent or buy, there is a huge choice.  You're not limited to Sinhorn Lumpini, 98 Wireless, The Embassy, or any other super high-priced project.  There's likely a condo to fit your budget, whether you are renting or buying.   Spouse and I have a condo in a nice project steps away from the Phetchaburi MRT station.  1 bedrooms that are 48 to 52 sqm rent for around 25,000 baht a month.  About $714.    Wonder what something like that would rent for in a nice center city doorman project in New York City.  I think you will find that your 'huge number' of condos built has kept prices affordable, rather than driven them up.  Especially true for rentals.  

      

Housing is not a like a watch, so the comparison is moot, and to compare Bangkok to New York is ridiculous. The market is completewly different These condo projects force up land prices, which in turn forces up rents. Housing is a need, it's not optional. Even a 35 sqm condo downtown is renting for 25, 30,000 baht and how many Thais do you think can afford that. Vendors get forced back to the provinces and your middle class Thais get forced further away from the center and their jobs. Sure, there's the BTS and MRT (both expensive vis a vis Thai salaries) but people used to be able to live close to where they work There used to be communities.  Not anymore.  Maybe you've forgotten that the area around Lumpini, Chidlom, Ploenchit, Witthayu and lower Sukhumvit was once a thriving cultural area, replete with streeet food, vendors, affordable housing and entertainment options.

 

Even places like Udomsuk now rent rabbit hutches for 20,000 as ordinary workers are forcesd out of the city. Look at One Bangkok. Is another megamall downtown wiith attached luxury condos that only the rich can afford what's really needed? The government has been trying to force out people living on public land in places Bon Kai and Makasan for years and eventually they'll succeed and we'll have more luxury condos in buildings that are only a quarter full bought with laundered Chinese and Russian money. And now the government is urgently considering measures to solve the traffic problem. Well, hey, maybe if you had affordable housing close to where people work and didn't swallow up the land with malls and luxury condos the traffic problem wouldn't be as bad and the city wouldn't feel increasingly sterile.

 

Salaries in New York and London dwarf those of Bangkok, where the minimum wage is still around $10 a day. You can't even buy a burger in New York for $10. Even so, housing in major US and Canadian cities has become unaffordable for ordinary workers. No wonder so maany people still live at home and refuse to get married and start a family. Then everybody moans about the coming depopulation crisis. Yeah, well who caused that?

 

 

[Lorry]

1 hour ago, jaywalker2 said:

Housing is not a like a watch, so the comparison is moot, and to compare Bangkok to New York is ridiculous. The market is completewly different These condo projects force up land prices, which in turn forces up rents. Housing is a need, it's not optional. Even a 35 sqm condo downtown is renting for 25, 30,000 baht and how many Thais do you think can afford that. Vendors get forced back to the provinces and your middle class Thais get forced further away from the center and their jobs. Sure, there's the BTS and MRT (both expensive vis a vis Thai salaries) but people used to be able to live close to where they work There used to be communities.  Not anymore.  Maybe you've forgotten that the area around Lumpini, Chidlom, Ploenchit, Witthayu and lower Sukhumvit was once a thriving cultural area, replete with streeet food, vendors, affordable housing and entertainment options.

 

Even places like Udomsuk now rent rabbit hutches for 20,000 as ordinary workers are forcesd out of the city. Look at One Bangkok. Is another megamall downtown wiith attached luxury condos that only the rich can afford what's really needed? The government has been trying to force out people living on public land in places Bon Kai and Makasan for years and eventually they'll succeed and we'll have more luxury condos in buildings that are only a quarter full bought with laundered Chinese and Russian money. And now the government is urgently considering measures to solve the traffic problem. Well, hey, maybe if you had affordable housing close to where people work and didn't swallow up the land with malls and luxury condos the traffic problem wouldn't be as bad and the city wouldn't feel increasingly sterile.

 

Salaries in New York and London dwarf those of Bangkok, where the minimum wage is still around $10 a day. You can't even buy a burger in New York for $10. Even so, housing in major US and Canadian cities has become unaffordable for ordinary workers. No wonder so maany people still live at home and refuse to get married and start a family. 

 

 

Best post I have read on AN for a  long time. Just 3 comments:

 

1 hour ago, jaywalker2 said:

BTS and MRT (both expensive vis a vis Thai salaries

They are (especially in combination with busses and motorcycles) much more expensive  than in the most expensive cities of my home country, which is a rich country. 

 

1 hour ago, jaywalker2 said:

housing in major US and Canadian cities has become unaffordable for ordinary workers

Same in Spain, Paris, London, Germany,  NZ...

 

1 hour ago, jaywalker2 said:

Then everybody moans about the coming depopulation crisis. Yeah, well who caused that?

I don't think unaffordable housing is the main reason for decreasing populations. But that's another topic.

[newnative]

1 hour ago, jaywalker2 said:

Housing is not a like a watch, so the comparison is moot, and to compare Bangkok to New York is ridiculous. The market is completewly different These condo projects force up land prices, which in turn forces up rents. Housing is a need, it's not optional. Even a 35 sqm condo downtown is renting for 25, 30,000 baht and how many Thais do you think can afford that. Vendors get forced back to the provinces and your middle class Thais get forced further away from the center and their jobs. Sure, there's the BTS and MRT (both expensive vis a vis Thai salaries) but people used to be able to live close to where they work There used to be communities.  Not anymore.  Maybe you've forgotten that the area around Lumpini, Chidlom, Ploenchit, Witthayu and lower Sukhumvit was once a thriving cultural area, replete with streeet food, vendors, affordable housing and entertainment options.

 

Even places like Udomsuk now rent rabbit hutches for 20,000 as ordinary workers are forcesd out of the city. Look at One Bangkok. Is another megamall downtown wiith attached luxury condos that only the rich can afford what's really needed? The government has been trying to force out people living on public land in places Bon Kai and Makasan for years and eventually they'll succeed and we'll have more luxury condos in buildings that are only a quarter full bought with laundered Chinese and Russian money. And now the government is urgently considering measures to solve the traffic problem. Well, hey, maybe if you had affordable housing close to where people work and didn't swallow up the land with malls and luxury condos the traffic problem wouldn't be as bad and the city wouldn't feel increasingly sterile.

 

Salaries in New York and London dwarf those of Bangkok, where the minimum wage is still around $10 a day. You can't even buy a burger in New York for $10. Even so, housing in major US and Canadian cities has become unaffordable for ordinary workers. No wonder so maany people still live at home and refuse to get married and start a family. Then everybody moans about the coming depopulation crisis. Yeah, well who caused that?

 

 

       Plenty of Thais own condos in my Bangkok condo project.  The fact that many Bangkok condo projects still have foreign quota available after the project has sold out or almost sold out points to many of the units being purchased by Thais, in Thai name, leaving foreign quota still available for what is left or for when something comes up for resale.   If there wasn't a market, these projects would not get built.   And, when a market slows for one type of housing, developers will shift to other types, such as single family homes, which you are seeing with some of the developers.   And, not just Bangkok.  Supalai built a condo project in Pattaya some years ago but has recently been doing townhouses.

      Not all Thais are being forced out of housing.  There are plenty of Thais with money.  My Thai brother-in-law recently bought a home in a Bangkok suburb.  Single family 2-story 3 bedroom house in a nice gated project by one of the big Bangkok developers.  6.5MB, unfurnished.  Driving through the project a number of times, we saw mostly Thais, including two Thai families that had also just bought across the street from my brother-in-law, the last units left in the large housing project.  Also almost all Thai owners in my sister-in-law's upper middle class housing project.   Contrary to the wisdom of some Asean Now posters, not all farangs are poor and not all Thais are poor, either.  

     Of course, there are Thais who have been priced out of owning in expensive center city areas and others who have to make longer commutes to afford something to rent or buy.  And, plenty who would like to own a mansion--including me--but can only afford something smaller--also including me.  That is certainly not unique to Thailand.   It was exactly the same where I lived in the US.   Welcome to the real world.  

[ukrules]

On 11/16/2024 at 11:47 AM, doily19 said:

The tax area is certainly a little blurred. When capital gains is discussed in DTAs there doesn't appear to be a differentiation between investment RE versus the sale of one's own home. My Thai wife are looking to move to Thailand and navigating the tax aspects is a challenge. I need to sell my house here to buy a house, and other things such as a vehicle, new furniture etc. I can not afford to do this if I'm to pay a large tax on the money I get for my house in Australia (Australian tax laws do not require home owners to pay capital gains on the sale of their own homes). I will become a resident of Thailand for tax purposes as I plan to reside permanently in Thailand on a Marriage Visa. Understand, I'm not the typically rich westerner that most Thais envisage.

 

It's simple really, you sell the house during a year of non residency in Thailand, then there is never any liability in Thailand when the resulting funds are remitted.

 

If however you make the mistake of residing in Thailand in the year you sell the house in Australia then yes, they will want to tax you on the capital gains even if it's zero rated back home - so keep to less than 180 days during and years of 'big profit' and you're good.

 

[Njoku]

22 hours ago, jaywalker2 said:

This is bull crap. The problem is that developers have put up a huge number of ridiculously expensive condos and now can't unload them. Look at Sinhorn Lumpini. A 2-bedroom condo goes for 180,000 baht a month. How about buying a condo at The Embassy on Wireless Road? That will only set you back over 8 mllion for a 35 sqm. condo. Too small? Don't worry, upgrade to 46 sqm for just 14 million. It's scandalous what they're been allowed to do. And since Thais can't afford them, you have to change the law to attract those "rich" Chinese who have already lost a bundle in the real estate crash over there. Another problem is that these luxury developments drive up prices all through the food chain. I get pissed off just thinking about it.

Dont know why you think all Thais are poor, Developer's the world over know there market, they know how much the public will spend in each segment, its quite normal for the developer to hold on to some of there condos or houses in a development. Keep reading about oversupply its here its going to happen but there still putting them up which means theres a market for the product. And yeah the Chinese and the like are buying in Australia too but there not looking to buy there or here what the average Thai wants to live in.

[jaywalker2]

1 hour ago, Njoku said:

Dont know why you think all Thais are poor, Developer's the world over know there market, they know how much the public will spend in each segment, its quite normal for the developer to hold on to some of there condos or houses in a development. Keep reading about oversupply its here its going to happen but there still putting them up which means theres a market for the product. And yeah the Chinese and the like are buying in Australia too but there not looking to buy there or here what the average Thai wants to live in.

I don't think all Thais are poor and never said that. But prices in most markets these days tend to be driven by the high end segment, which is why housing has become unaffordable for ordinary middle-class people in most major markets. Real estate markets are notorious for boom/bust cycles.  Just the other day a major developer clearly said that they were targetting the luxury market because most Thais were too indebted to afford buying a house and the lower end of the market was stagnating.

 

As an aside, Trump declared bankruptcy with his companies six times.  In fact, he said it was a smart business decision because you get to wipe out your debts. Many developers end up in bankruptcy at one point or another. And if the market is doing so well here, why the desperatioin to change the laws? When Srettha first tried to change the ownership structure to 99 year leases and 100 percent foreign ownership for condos, he gave as his reason the need to attract more foreign buyers. I don't even know why this would be controversial it's so obvious.

 

 

 

[Dakhar]

Logically, until Thailand gets it's tax rules ironed out, the real estate market will remain stagnant. 

[gk10012001]

14 minutes ago, Dakhar said:

Logically, until Thailand gets it's tax rules ironed out, the real estate market will remain stagnant. 

Yes.  That tax thing is quite a large unknown.  Even if the dollars and cents become not an issue, the alleged and possible need to report income, provide tax records, argue about capital losses or net gains, or deductions etc.  will stop a lot of actions by many people.  I know that when i retire in February of next year I will not be spending the 180 days in thailand.  Not a big deal but it will require me to sort out my living here in the USA with any long term rental in Thailand differently than i was planning.

 

  I remember back in 2004 when I was so going to buy a condo in Pattaya.  It would have been OK for about a dozen years but as my work and time habits changed, then COVID, and not to mention whatever problems might have cropped up such as crazy neighbors, condo maintenance not happening, immigration paperwork for my visa, etc..  I am glad I did not buy.  So many less headaches.

[Njoku]

12 hours ago, jaywalker2 said:

I don't think all Thais are poor and never said that. But prices in most markets these days tend to be driven by the high end segment, which is why housing has become unaffordable for ordinary middle-class people in most major markets. Real estate markets are notorious for boom/bust cycles.  Just the other day a major developer clearly said that they were targetting the luxury market because most Thais were too indebted to afford buying a house and the lower end of the market was stagnating.

 

As an aside, Trump declared bankruptcy with his companies six times.  In fact, he said it was a smart business decision because you get to wipe out your debts. Many developers end up in bankruptcy at one point or another. And if the market is doing so well here, why the desperatioin to change the laws? When Srettha first tried to change the ownership structure to 99 year leases and 100 percent foreign ownership for condos, he gave as his reason the need to attract more foreign buyers. I don't even know why this would be controversial it's so obvious.

 

 

 

As I pointed out to you the first time developers are not going to borrow money to stick up  exclusive condo towers if the market cant afford it, so clearly there is a market for them, and builders hold on to some of the stock, one time I checked out a 9 year old condo in Ari that was never sold and still owned by the developers, as for builders going bankrupt, one time a roofing sales rep met us on site and casually said we wont sell roof tiles to that mob, they had gone bankrupt rebranded and back in business, you gain a reputation, costs go up when you find someone who will supply, to get an account the supplier will want a signed legal personal guarantee or its cash prior to delivery, as for the cost of housing, its world wide and due to the shrinking fortunes of the middle class, who drive the market, throw in stagnant wage growth, seen a very good doco some years ago on the subject...

 

Its only sensible and certainly not desperation to find a way to bring in money from outside of the country, there hardly going to be relying on Chinese and US wealthy to throw in a million or two $ on a few condos or pool villas with 99 year leases to grease the economic wheels its just part of a wider scoped policy to attract foraging investment, my home country government came out with some joy with Trump winning, one of his polices is to slash funding on renewables they think and will gear up to try and attract some of that money to come in to AU.....thats how they think...

[Dogmatix]

On 11/16/2024 at 11:46 AM, J Branche said:

Regarding Leasing Land. Who is the land owner?  They can put terms in the lease like no architectural changes, changes require Owner approval.  The owner could also put terms like upon the death of the owner the lease is voided 1 year after death.  What are the terms for any changes or structures on the land?  I build a 10 million Baht house.  30 years later lease expires do I lose my 10 million Baht investment?

 

Been in Real Estate long enough.  Make very sure you fully understand the Land Lease terms, if it is transferable upon your death (Remaining years can be used by a benefactor)  What happens with the Investment into the land (business, farming, house) at lease termination.

 

Make sure your plans for use upon the land are detailed and clearly, legally written to hold up in court. 

 

Thailand should understand if experienced Real Estate Investors are few it can be the value, effort, uncertainty, or area does not meet their Profit Goals.

 

Yes; Your 30 million baht investment is all gone once your 30 year expires.  It's not really an investment, it is paying rent for 30 years up front.  In addition, if the land owner dies or sells the land, the new owner is not bound by the lease because it is a contract between two parties and not automatically binding on new owners.  It might say that it is in the agreement and it might also say you have an option to renew but the Land Department is not empowered to enforce anything but the basic Land Code provisions and what is registered at the Land Dept and written on the title deed.  The Land Dept is not allowed to register the lease agreement or any details over and above the provisions of the Land Code. 

 

This all means that you cannot go to court and get the Land Dept to enforce provisions like registering a new lease for you, based on an option to renew or bind a new owner to the terms of the lease agreement.  What you can do, is sue in the civil court for financial damage caused by the other party reneging on the lease agreement.  So you have to present evidence of the financial damage, e.g. the cost of new lease. However, if the land owner is dead or is a company that is bankrupt or dissolved, it will be difficult to sue. 

 

Basically lease law needs to evolve a lot more before it is an attractive alternative to freehold, not just extend the time period allowed.  However, their are loads of farangs who have chucked away their money signing 30 year leases.  I know someone who bought the family home, a nice condo right in the CBD with about 25 years to run on a 30 year lease on the basis that the owner, a prominent institution in Thailand, had given verbal assurances that the leases could be renewed for another 30 years.  The units were sold at auction and the sellers came up with that tall story . Friends advised not to buy or accept that it would not be renewable.  Anyway the long and the short is that the lease expires next year he is now looking for a new family home.