44 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

How do you know this? Her ATM has just died.

I know it's small, but my point still stands, she is left a liability.

This is hardly indicative of the masses, is it?

Once again, you want to paint this picture of guys that retired decades ago still having a mountain of cash. It's simply not true.

😂 😂

I never said it was. I simply said they are not selling, so what is exactly being left to a widower who either needs or wants the cash? The answer is, a useless condo to her, because they are not selling.

Everything in your post is an assumption, of which you have zero knowledge. You're always boasting that you, an Australian citizen, own property in OZ and consider it an asset to own. Why shouldn't a Thai citizen own property in Thailand, and it be an asset? You keep portraying inheriting a condo as something awful. It's not--at the very least it's a roof over the survivor's head,owned free and clear. But, it's also options, good to have. Anybody wanting to will me their foreign quota condo, here I am.

9 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

For the many in different circumstance, if they leave a condo to the Thai missus, under the belief that she can sell it when they pass away and that's her inheritance, if she can't sell it, or eventually sells it at a fire sale, what is actually being left to her, beside a headache, or a distressed sale price?

If some people have wrong beliefs (in this case thinking that real estate is fairly liquid be it here or there) and are pretty unprepared legacy-wise, it's no news nor a Thailand specific issue.

12 minutes ago, TimBKK said:

I will simply say that you’ve made sizable assumptions that may or not be fair. I lean towards the latter. Remember, I was speaking in terms of probabilities, not absolutes.

Curious what my 'sizable assumptions' were. I really made just two points--keeping an inherited condo for a year would likely not be too costly, and those inheriting property would likely also inherit some cash.

With regard to the first, I stated an annual condo fee of 30,000 baht when I was figuring yearly condo costs. That was actually too high--Google pegs it at 14,000 to 25,000 baht. So, nothing untoward there--I erred on the side of making the amount too much, not too little.

You posted that the condo could take up to a year to sell so I went with that time period when I stated that, with the condo fee and taxes so low, the surviving spouse would likely not be financially stressed while the condo was for sale. Any 'sizable assumptions' there? I'm not seeing any. The one assumption was the condo could take a year to sell--and that was your assumption that I used.

My second point was that it would be likely that the surviving spouse would inherit some cash to go along with the condo. As I said in my post, my first inclination was to just assume this was likely but I decided to back it up--and Google does. Not seeing any 'sizable assumptions in my second point, either.

2 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

I appreciate you honest assessment. It's completely different to that of our resident illegally working real estate agent.

So, even if less that what you paid, still a pay day, if / when it sells.

What Newnative would like readers to believe is it has appreciated. You have said she'll get back what you paid, so where's the investment? Why bother buying it in the first place? You money invested elsewhere would have paid for the rent on the exact same property, and more, and you can leave her cash, no headaches.

I could post a lot more links, but they are all on the first page of Google.

So, are the below credible sources? Is it fake news? Are they lying?

https://www.nationthailand.com/business/property/40067231

https://oceanwwp.com/thailand-housing-market-fourth-year-decline/

https://www.thaienquirer.com/70100/thailands-condo-market-hits-decade-low-as-transfers-lending-and-new-launches-slump/

You are misquoting me.

The proposed changes to Australia's 90 year old tax residency laws have not been passed into legislation yet, however, in my opinion, it's only a matter of time before they will be.

Currently, I, and aged pensioners, slip through the net.

When Australia moves to a physical presence and time based tax residency model, similar to Thailand, things will change.

BTW, that tax is not 32%. It's 30% from $0 to $135,000.

Where do you get the idea a condo is an investment? It's a lifestyle choice, and economic arbitrage.

Here's the facts, in USD. Condo with pool.

Melbourne, 35 sqm condo - Buy $330,000, Rent $1945, Fees $8050. Yield 4.6%

Chiang Mai 47 sqm condo - Buy $77000, Rent $425, Fees $851 . Yield 5.5%

Chiang Rai 35 sqm condo - Buy $43000, Rent $319, Fees $510 . Yield 7.7%

You have been banging the "proposed changes" drum for years. You don't seem to comprehend when the Australian age pension is paid into a Thai bank account, it is no longer Australian income. Under the DTA, it is Thai.

I bet it burns your butt age pensioners don't have to worry about residency, whereas self-funded retirees have to handle their status like nitroglycerine.

15 hours ago, newnative said:

Basically, if a foreigner has property, he is also likely to have cash, too.

Not necessarily. No guarantee of this.

15 hours ago, newnative said:

So, the spouse is likely to inherit cash, as well as a property.

Wrong.

15 hours ago, newnative said:

However, what we keep hearing from you is there is only one size, and that size is only renting.

No. What you keep hearing from me is buying represents a lousy investment, and the figures show this. Also, I'm not the only one to post figures. Buying property in Thailand is a waste of money.

BTW, you can hang a painting on the wall of a rented property. 😂

15 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Where do you get the idea a condo is an investment?

Buying property in Thailand is often referred to as an "investment" but it's far from that. It's a waste of money.

15 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Here's the facts, in USD. Condo with pool.

Melbourne, 35 sqm condo - Buy $330,000, Rent $1945, Fees $8050. Yield 4.6%

Chiang Mai 47 sqm condo - Buy $77000, Rent $425, Fees $851 . Yield 5.5%

Chiang Rai 35 sqm condo - Buy $43000, Rent $319, Fees $510 . Yield 7.7%

You do not mention what the yield is if the money is invested in something other than property. How convenient. 😂

15 hours ago, Lacessit said:

You have been banging the "proposed changes" drum for years. You don't seem to comprehend when the Australian age pension is paid into a Thai bank account, it is no longer Australian income. Under the DTA, it is Thai.

Wrong.

Been debate in the other thread. The Australian aged pension is deemed to be an income, at law, and is taxable.

The DTA covers "service pensions" as in, government service. Eg. military. The Australian aged pension is not a service pension.

15 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I bet it burns your butt age pensioners don't have to worry about residency, whereas self-funded retirees have to handle their status like nitroglycerine.

No butt burning here. I'm prepared to do the 6 weeks in Australia.

When Australia moves to the 183 days rule, it will concern EVERYONE who derives an income from Australia, including pensioners, as they will all be non residents of Australia for tax purposes.

Did you notice there are no exemptions for pensions / pensioners in the proposed legislation?

Get the popcorn. It's going to be entertaining. 😂

15 hours ago, Lacessit said:

15 hours ago, Lacessit said:

15 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Duplicate post deleted.

Edited August 19Aug 19 by KhunHeineken

16 hours ago, Yumthai said:

If some people have wrong beliefs (in this case thinking that real estate is fairly liquid be it here or there) and are pretty unprepared legacy-wise, it's no news nor a Thailand specific issue.

But, but but, "When I die the missus gets the condo." 😂

They actually believe they are leaving a windfall behind. 😂

16 hours ago, newnative said:

I really made just two points--keeping an inherited condo for a year would likely not be too costly, and those inheriting property would likely also inherit some cash.

Those are big assumptions.

One, it still might not sell in a year's time.

Two, there's no guarantee there's any cash left behind.

People do have children / grandchildren back in their home country.

2 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Buying property in Thailand is often referred to as an "investment" but it's far from that. It's a waste of money.

You do not mention what the yield is if the money is invested in something other than property. How convenient. 😂

Wrong.

Been debate in the other thread. The Australian aged pension is deemed to be an income, at law, and is taxable.

The DTA covers "service pensions" as in, government service. Eg. military. The Australian aged pension is not a service pension.

No butt burning here. I'm prepared to do the 6 weeks in Australia.

When Australia moves to the 183 days rule, it will concern EVERYONE who derives an income from Australia, including pensioners, as they will all be non residents of Australia for tax purposes.

Did you notice there are no exemptions for pensions / pensioners in the proposed legislation?

Get the popcorn. It's going to be entertaining. 😂

Best bank interest rates in Australia for a 1-2 year term deposit is 5.4%. Happy now?

The DTA covers all income - age pension, service pension - anything. Post something official which contradicts that assertion.

Still waiting for you to produce a single Australian age pensioner living permanently in Thailand who pays 30% tax on their pension.

7 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Best bank interest rates in Australia for a 1-2 year term deposit is 5.4%. Happy now?

Not a bad rate, and rock solid.

The purchase price of a property in Thailand, left in an account like that, would more than pay the rent on the exact same property.

9 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The DTA covers all income - age pension, service pension - anything.

Yes, it does, however, in relation to pensions, Articles 18 and 19 of the Australia - Thailand DTA sets out that only service pensions are covered.

An aged pension is not a service pension.

10 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Still waiting for you to produce a single Australian age pensioner living permanently in Thailand who pays 30% tax on their pension.

I don't even pay the 30%, which I should be. The current 90 year old laws have more holes in them than Swiss cheese.

It's all set to change when Australia moves to a physical presence and time based tax residency model, the same as Thailand. For Australia, it will be 183 days.

The changes were drafted by the Liberals, and moved to the consultation stage by Labor, so it's only a matter of time.

Get the popcorn. It's going to be entertaining. Do you have somewhere in Australia to stay for 6 weeks? 😂

2 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Not a bad rate, and rock solid.

The purchase price of a property in Thailand, left in an account like that, would more than pay the rent on the exact same property.

Yes, it does, however, in relation to pensions, Articles 18 and 19 of the Australia - Thailand DTA sets out that only service pensions are covered.

An aged pension is not a service pension.

I don't even pay the 30%, which I should be. The current 90 year old laws have more holes in them than Swiss cheese.

It's all set to change when Australia moves to a physical presence and time based tax residency model, the same as Thailand. For Australia, it will be 183 days.

The changes were drafted by the Liberals, and moved to the consultation stage by Labor, so it's only a matter of time.

Get the popcorn. It's going to be entertaining. Do you have somewhere in Australia to stay for 6 weeks? 😂

I think I'll get a skip instead, to shovel all the BS you are peddling. For how many years now?

I think you need to read Article 4 of the DTA.

21 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I think you need to read Article 4 of the DTA.

Here's Article 4.

Australia will have primary taxing rights, because the income is generated in Australia.

Article 4

Residence

1. For the purposes of this Agreement, a person is a resident of one of the Contracting States:

(a) in the case of Australia, if the person is a resident of Australia for the purposes of Australian tax; and

(b) in the case of Thailand, if the person is a resident of Thailand for the purposes of Thai tax.

2. A person is not a resident of a Contracting State for the purposes of this Agreement if the person is liable to tax in that State in respect only of income from a source in that State.

3. Where by reason of the preceding provisions, an individual is a resident of both Contracting States, the status of the person shall be determined in accordance with the following rules, applied in the order in which they are set out :

(a) the person shall be deemed to be a resident solely of the Contracting State in which a permanent home is available to the person;

(b) if a permanent home is available to the person in both Contracting States, or in neither of them, the person shall be deemed to be a resident solely of the Contracting State in which the person has an habitual abode;

(c) if the person has an habitual abode in both Contracting States, or in neither of them, the person shall be deemed to be a resident solely of the Contracting State with which the person's personal and economic relations are the closer.

4. For the purposes of the last preceding paragraph, an individual's citizenship or nationality of a Contracting State shall be a factor in determining the degree of the person's personal and economic relations with that Contracting State.

5. Where by reason of the provisions of paragraph 1, a person other than an individual is a resident of both Contracting States, it shall be deemed to be a resident solely of the Contracting State in which it is incorporated, created or organized.

This lady explains it very well, with some examples.

There are over 1200 comments, many of them disagreeing with members on this forum, who prefer to practice The Ostrich Method. 😂

Now, is it an AI video? Is it fake news? Is she lying? Is she inaccurate?

3 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Not necessarily. No guarantee of this.

Wrong.

No. What you keep hearing from me is buying represents a lousy investment, and the figures show this. Also, I'm not the only one to post figures. Buying property in Thailand is a waste of money.

BTW, you can hang a painting on the wall of a rented property. 😂

Once again, I'll go with Google's take, not your take--with zero experience as an owner here. Yes, you can hang a painting--we buy for a lot more than that--as you well know. Yes, you keep saying it is a lousy investment. Hasn't been for me or the people I know who own. So, yours is not the only answer, though you want us all to believe it is.

It really all comes down to which shirt fits. For us, the rental shirt is way too tight and confining, leaving us very uncomfortable. We can't make major changes to the shirt, like cutting off the sleeves. For you, the owning shirt makes you uncomfortable. You don't want to spend that much for a shirt--and if a button falls off you don't want to be the one to sew it back on. The renting shirt fits to a 'T'. So, once again, what fits best is what we do, and it's been working great.

2 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Those are big assumptions.

One, it still might not sell in a year's time.

Two, there's no guarantee there's any cash left behind.

People do have children / grandchildren back in their home country.

I used the sale period that the poster I responded to suggested--that was his 'assumption', not mine. Yes, it might not sell in a year's time. But, it also might not take a year's time. The recent house we sold was on the market less than 2 weeks. Nobody can say how long it would take. Meanwhile, the spouse has a roof over their head. I continue to maintain that the running costs of a condo in Thlaiand would not be very much for a year--also supported by Google. You don't have the huge condo fees and the huge monthly real estate taxes, as well as sometimes HOA fees, that you have in the US.

Yes, there's no guarantee of cash, there is also no guarantee of no cash. Google says it's more likely there will be cash--and I agree, with all the people I know who own property also having cash assets, as well.

The discussion was leaving property to a Thai spouse, not children or grandchildren. I have neither and have only been discussing what I know, and what I am planning to do, regarding leaving property and cash to a Thai spouse.

2 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Here's Article 4.

Australia will have primary taxing rights, because the income is generated in Australia.

Article 4

Residence

1. For the purposes of this Agreement, a person is a resident of one of the Contracting States:

(a) in the case of Australia, if the person is a resident of Australia for the purposes of Australian tax; and

(b) in the case of Thailand, if the person is a resident of Thailand for the purposes of Thai tax.

2. A person is not a resident of a Contracting State for the purposes of this Agreement if the person is liable to tax in that State in respect only of income from a source in that State.

3. Where by reason of the preceding provisions, an individual is a resident of both Contracting States, the status of the person shall be determined in accordance with the following rules, applied in the order in which they are set out :

(a) the person shall be deemed to be a resident solely of the Contracting State in which a permanent home is available to the person;

(b) if a permanent home is available to the person in both Contracting States, or in neither of them, the person shall be deemed to be a resident solely of the Contracting State in which the person has an habitual abode;

(c) if the person has an habitual abode in both Contracting States, or in neither of them, the person shall be deemed to be a resident solely of the Contracting State with which the person's personal and economic relations are the closer.

4. For the purposes of the last preceding paragraph, an individual's citizenship or nationality of a Contracting State shall be a factor in determining the degree of the person's personal and economic relations with that Contracting State.

5. Where by reason of the provisions of paragraph 1, a person other than an individual is a resident of both Contracting States, it shall be deemed to be a resident solely of the Contracting State in which it is incorporated, created or organized.

This lady explains it very well, with some examples.

There are over 1200 comments, many of them disagreeing with members on this forum, who prefer to practice The Ostrich Method. 😂

Now, is it an AI video? Is it fake news? Is she lying? Is she inaccurate?

I have learned to distrust AI almost as much as your posts.

Either I am an Australian resident for tax purposes, or I am deemed to be resident in Thailand. There is no in-between limbo.

If I am resident in Australia, I get the pension, and SAPTO. I only start being taxed if my income exceeds $35,812.

If I am resident in Thailand, my income is taxed by the Thai authorities under the DTA.

End of discussion.

2 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

But, but but, "When I die the missus gets the condo." 😂

They actually believe they are leaving a windfall behind. 😂

Once again, anybody who doesn't want to leave their poor, helpless Thai spouse their 'worthless' foreign quota condo, here I am. Since you don't own, you don't know what 'they actually believe'--but that doesn't stop you from posting your sarcastic nonsense.

From a spouse who does own, me, what I actually believe--which is true--is that I am leaving my Thai spouse good options. First, a paid for roof over his head. That's worth a lot, right there. He can continue to live in it, he can rent it out for income, or he can sell it and either rent something or buy something else. True for other Thai spouses, as well.

By the way, you hit the trifecta in your two sentences above--they are condescending, sexist, and racist. You assume that 'the missus' would be floundering around, helpless, not knowing what in the world to do with an inherited, paid-for, condo. A 'windfall'? Certainly not, in your sarcastic opinion. Goodness, a Thai is not equipped to own a property, for heaven's sake! Give them only cash, you say--that's all they could possibly handle.

That is certainly not the case with any Thai spouses I know. I wonder if you would be posting the same thing to, say, a foreigner living in Australia leaving a paid-for condo to an Australian spouse. Would an Australian spouse be happy to receive a paid-for condo in OZ from a foreigner spouse? My thinking is 'yes' but, once again, to avoid being accused of making 'assumptions', I asked Google:

Yes. An Australian living in Australia with a foreign spouse would likely be very happy to inherit a paid-for Australian property. It provides secure, rent-free housing and builds long-term wealth without any mortgage debt.

16 hours ago, newnative said:

Once again, anybody who doesn't want to leave their poor, helpless Thai spouse their 'worthless' foreign quota condo, here I am.

There's over 1000 properties for sale in Pattaya, just on one website alone. There's plenty for you to buy here already. 😂

16 hours ago, newnative said:

Goodness, a Thai is not equipped to own a property, for heaven's sake!

Never suggested this.

It's the location that is undesirable for them. They would rather return to family, and who could blame them? They have most likely missed out of seeing their kids grow up, so at least would like to spend time with them, and see the grand kids grow up.

You paint this picture of Thai widows living happily in an inherited condo by the beach, in a southern tourist area. It's simply BS.

16 hours ago, newnative said:

I asked Google:

Well, since you like asking Google, I asked Google: "Is it a good idea for a foreigner to buy a house in Thailand?"

Can you see "generally not a good idea?" 🤣 🤣

Here is the answer:

Buying a house in Thailand as a foreigner is generally not a good idea if you are looking for a straightforward financial investment or secure asset ownership. Thai law prohibits foreigners from owning land directly, meaning you can own a building structure, but the underlying land must be leased (usually capped at 30 years) or held through complex structures. [1, 2, 3]

Ownership Rules and Limits

• No Land Ownership: Foreigners cannot buy or own land in their own name except under very rare, high-investment exemptions.

• House vs. Land: You can legally own the physical house or villa structure, but you must secure the land via a registered lease (max 30 years) or buy a freehold condominium (up to a 49% foreign building quota).

• Condos Are Easier: Buying a freehold condominium is much safer and easier because you get a direct title deed in your name. [1, 2, 3]

Major Risks

• Depreciation: Buildings lose value over time, while land gains value. Because you do not own the land, you miss out on the main driver of real estate appreciation. [1]

• Lease Limits: Courts in Thailand strictly enforce the 30-year maximum lease limit, meaning "30+30+30" renewal guarantees on paper are legally risky. [1]

• No Automatic Residency: Buying a house does not grant you a permanent visa or citizenship. [1, 2]

• Resale Difficulty: Finding a buyer for a leasehold house can take a long time compared to selling a condo. [1]

Community Insights

Opinions are mixed among expats on platforms like Reddit, where some users note that long-term leasing can match the cost of renting over decades. However, the general consensus is that you should treat it strictly as a lifestyle choice rather than an investment, accepting that you may walk away with little or nothing when the land lease expires. [1, 2]

17 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Either I am an Australian resident for tax purposes, or I am deemed to be resident in Thailand. There is no in-between limbo.

Wrong, it's possible to be a double non tax resident, if you want to be. You do not live in Australia, and you do not spend more than 180 days in Thailand a year. This would make you a double non tax resident.

17 hours ago, Lacessit said:

If I am resident in Australia, I get the pension, and SAPTO. I only start being taxed if my income exceeds $35,812.

If I am resident in Thailand, my income is taxed by the Thai authorities under the DTA.

End of discussion.

Wrong again.

Under the DTA, Australia has primary taxing rights, so Australia gets to tax you first, and Thailand will give you credits towards what tax you have already paid, so the same money isn't taxed twice, hence the term "Double Tax Agreement."

In the near future, Australia will pass laws to move from the current 90 year old laws to physical presence and time based tax residency laws, similar to Thailand.

183 days outside Australia means non resident for tax purposes, regardless if one has an intention to return. The aged pension is deemed an income at law. Non resident tax rates start from 30% from $0 to $135,000.

Did you watch the last youtube video I posted. The lady says, even as a pensioner, you should already be paying non resident tax. The Australia Tax Office has difficulty with enforcement at the moment, that will change when the new laws are passed.

This guy explains DTA's quite well.

18 hours ago, newnative said:

Yes, it might not sell in a year's time.

Many properties have been on the market for years, yes, years.

18 hours ago, newnative said:

also supported by Google.

Google has supported that it's not a good idea for a foreigner to buy a house in Thailand. Will you now say Google is wrong?

18 hours ago, newnative said:

The discussion was leaving property to a Thai spouse, not children or grandchildren.

The discussion is, if the Thai widow can't sell the property, then all the deceased foreigner leaves behind is bills to be paid.

19 hours ago, newnative said:

Once again, I'll go with Google's take,

Yawn.

Google has confirmed it is not a good idea for a foreigner to buy a house in Thailand.

You put Google forward, so I asked Google also and I have posted Google reply.

19 hours ago, newnative said:

It really all comes down to which shirt fits.

It really comes down to Thai law, and a foreigner can not own land here.

Getting back to the OP, what structure do you suggest for a foreigner who want to buy a house in Thailand?

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

The discussion is, if the Thai widow can't sell the property, then all the deceased foreigner leaves behind is bills to be paid.

So as a property held in Australia and pretty much any other country.

Usually people who want to let something to dependant heirs who are not able to sustain their own living expenses just leave cash or highly liquid assets.

4 minutes ago, Yumthai said:

So as a property held in Australia and pretty much any other country.

Usually people who want to let something to dependant heirs who are not able to sustain their own living expenses just leave cash or highly liquid assets.

Highly liquid assets aren't all that good for women to handle.

I home to live in, and a montly pension is much better for women with a history of bad decisions.

5 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

There's over 1000 properties for sale in Pattaya, just on one website alone. There's plenty for you to buy here already. 😂

Never suggested this.

It's the location that is undesirable for them. They would rather return to family, and who could blame them? They have most likely missed out of seeing their kids grow up, so at least would like to spend time with them, and see the grand kids grow up.

You paint this picture of Thai widows living happily in an inherited condo by the beach, in a southern tourist area. It's simply BS.

Well, since you like asking Google, I asked Google: "Is it a good idea for a foreigner to buy a house in Thailand?"

Can you see "generally not a good idea?" 🤣 🤣

Here is the answer:

Buying a house in Thailand as a foreigner is generally not a good idea if you are looking for a straightforward financial investment or secure asset ownership. Thai law prohibits foreigners from owning land directly, meaning you can own a building structure, but the underlying land must be leased (usually capped at 30 years) or held through complex structures. [1, 2, 3]

Ownership Rules and Limits

• No Land Ownership: Foreigners cannot buy or own land in their own name except under very rare, high-investment exemptions.

• House vs. Land: You can legally own the physical house or villa structure, but you must secure the land via a registered lease (max 30 years) or buy a freehold condominium (up to a 49% foreign building quota).

• Condos Are Easier: Buying a freehold condominium is much safer and easier because you get a direct title deed in your name. [1, 2, 3]

Major Risks

• Depreciation: Buildings lose value over time, while land gains value. Because you do not own the land, you miss out on the main driver of real estate appreciation. [1]

• Lease Limits: Courts in Thailand strictly enforce the 30-year maximum lease limit, meaning "30+30+30" renewal guarantees on paper are legally risky. [1]

• No Automatic Residency: Buying a house does not grant you a permanent visa or citizenship. [1, 2]

• Resale Difficulty: Finding a buyer for a leasehold house can take a long time compared to selling a condo. [1]

Community Insights

Opinions are mixed among expats on platforms like Reddit, where some users note that long-term leasing can match the cost of renting over decades. However, the general consensus is that you should treat it strictly as a lifestyle choice rather than an investment, accepting that you may walk away with little or nothing when the land lease expires. [1, 2]

5 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

There's over 1000 properties for sale in Pattaya, just on one website alone. There's plenty for you to buy here already. 😂

Never suggested this.

It's the location that is undesirable for them. They would rather return to family, and who could blame them? They have most likely missed out of seeing their kids grow up, so at least would like to spend time with them, and see the grand kids grow up.

You paint this picture of Thai widows living happily in an inherited condo by the beach, in a southern tourist area. It's simply BS.

Well, since you like asking Google, I asked Google: "Is it a good idea for a foreigner to buy a house in Thailand?"

Can you see "generally not a good idea?" 🤣 🤣

Here is the answer:

Buying a house in Thailand as a foreigner is generally not a good idea if you are looking for a straightforward financial investment or secure asset ownership. Thai law prohibits foreigners from owning land directly, meaning you can own a building structure, but the underlying land must be leased (usually capped at 30 years) or held through complex structures. [1, 2, 3]

Ownership Rules and Limits

• No Land Ownership: Foreigners cannot buy or own land in their own name except under very rare, high-investment exemptions.

• House vs. Land: You can legally own the physical house or villa structure, but you must secure the land via a registered lease (max 30 years) or buy a freehold condominium (up to a 49% foreign building quota).

• Condos Are Easier: Buying a freehold condominium is much safer and easier because you get a direct title deed in your name. [1, 2, 3]

Major Risks

• Depreciation: Buildings lose value over time, while land gains value. Because you do not own the land, you miss out on the main driver of real estate appreciation. [1]

• Lease Limits: Courts in Thailand strictly enforce the 30-year maximum lease limit, meaning "30+30+30" renewal guarantees on paper are legally risky. [1]

• No Automatic Residency: Buying a house does not grant you a permanent visa or citizenship. [1, 2]

• Resale Difficulty: Finding a buyer for a leasehold house can take a long time compared to selling a condo. [1]

Community Insights

Opinions are mixed among expats on platforms like Reddit, where some users note that long-term leasing can match the cost of renting over decades. However, the general consensus is that you should treat it strictly as a lifestyle choice rather than an investment, accepting that you may walk away with little or nothing when the land lease expires. [1,

5 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

There's over 1000 properties for sale in Pattaya, just on one website alone. There's plenty for you to buy here already. 😂

Never suggested this.

It's the location that is undesirable for them. They would rather return to family, and who could blame them? They have most likely missed out of seeing their kids grow up, so at least would like to spend time with them, and see the grand kids grow up.

You paint this picture of Thai widows living happily in an inherited condo by the beach, in a southern tourist area. It's simply BS.

Well, since you like asking Google, I asked Google: "Is it a good idea for a foreigner to buy a house in Thailand?"

Can you see "generally not a good idea?" 🤣 🤣

Here is the answer:

Buying a house in Thailand as a foreigner is generally not a good idea if you are looking for a straightforward financial investment or secure asset ownership. Thai law prohibits foreigners from owning land directly, meaning you can own a building structure, but the underlying land must be leased (usually capped at 30 years) or held through complex structures. [1, 2, 3]

Ownership Rules and Limits

• No Land Ownership: Foreigners cannot buy or own land in their own name except under very rare, high-investment exemptions.

• House vs. Land: You can legally own the physical house or villa structure, but you must secure the land via a registered lease (max 30 years) or buy a freehold condominium (up to a 49% foreign building quota).

• Condos Are Easier: Buying a freehold condominium is much safer and easier because you get a direct title deed in your name. [1, 2, 3]

Major Risks

• Depreciation: Buildings lose value over time, while land gains value. Because you do not own the land, you miss out on the main driver of real estate appreciation. [1]

• Lease Limits: Courts in Thailand strictly enforce the 30-year maximum lease limit, meaning "30+30+30" renewal guarantees on paper are legally risky. [1]

• No Automatic Residency: Buying a house does not grant you a permanent visa or citizenship. [1, 2]

• Resale Difficulty: Finding a buyer for a leasehold house can take a long time compared to selling a condo. [1]

Community Insights

Opinions are mixed among expats on platforms like Reddit, where some users note that long-term leasing can match the cost of renting over decades. However, the general consensus is that you should treat it strictly as a lifestyle choice rather than an investment, accepting that you may walk away with little or nothing when the land lease expires. [1, 2]

I've never suggested a foreigner buy a house on his own so most of your above post is meaningless, as is the number of properties on the market. However, he can certainly buy or build a house, as I have done 6 times now, and put it in his spouse's name. I know a number of foreigners who have also done this.

As I've said several times, you own property in OZ as an Australian citizen, it's no different for a Thai to own property in Thailand as a Thai citizen. Whether the property increases in value--as all 6 of ours easily did--is beside the point.

You have no earthly idea what a Thai will want to do when a spouse passes away. Absolutely none. Each individual will do what they want, based on their circumstances. You're just speculating--and it has no bearing anyway. And, what is the nonsense on missing out on kids growing up--more speculation, this one even more ludicrous.

You've said several times that a foreigner should only leave cash to a Thai spouse, not his foreign quota condo. How exactly is he supposed to do that when he is still alive and living in the condo with his spouse? And, will likely be living in it until he passes away? In order to give cash ratner than the condo, he would have to sell the condo while he is still alive and then pick up and rent somewhere, likely not knowing for how long. Ludicrous--especially as many buy, as I do, specifically to live in their own space, not a rental.

I think giving the spouse both the condo and cash, or a house already in his or her name and cash, is still the best way. That gives the spouse the most options and allows the foreigner to remain in the property without having to uproot--simply to just give cash.

5 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Yawn.

Google has confirmed it is not a good idea for a foreigner to buy a house in Thailand.

You put Google forward, so I asked Google also and I have posted Google reply.

It really comes down to Thai law, and a foreigner can not own land here.

Getting back to the OP, what structure do you suggest for a foreigner who want to buy a house in Thailand?

I would agree with Google--and I have never bought a house as a foreigner in Thailand. What I have done is buy--six times now--houses in my Thai spouse's name. That makes sense. The houses we have bought have all increased in value and the last one we put on the marker sold at a profit in less than 2 weeks. They've all been profitable, earning more than all but maybe one or two of the many condos.

You own property in OZ as an Australian. He owns property in Thailand as a Thai. Absolutely no difference. You can pass on your property to whomever you want, so can he. No difference. When you are in OZ, you have a paid-for roof over your head. It's the same for when he is in Thailand, he has a paid-for roof over his head. The only difference is his house will likely be a lot cheaper to maintain each year, with much lower real estate taxes, HOA fees, utilities, etc.

To answer your question, if I was single in Thailand I would only buy a condo in my name in foreign quota. Period. Since I am married to a Thai, I have a number of choices. I can still buy a condo in foreign quota, which I have, the Bangkok condo. With regard to a house, I would only buy or build in my Thai spouse's name--which, as I said above, we have done 6 times now.

5 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Many properties have been on the market for years, yes, years.

Google has supported that it's not a good idea for a foreigner to buy a house in Thailand. Will you now say Google is wrong?

The discussion is, if the Thai widow can't sell the property, then all the deceased foreigner leaves behind is bills to be paid.

Most of this already just answered, including the Google, which I agree with. As stated in my other posts, I have only ever bought houses in my Thai spouse's name. Properties on the market for years--not relevant. Properties can also sell quickly--also not relevant.

What the foreigner is leaving behind is a paid-for roof over the spouse's head. And, as Google has said, which I also agree with, likely cash, as well. As already discussed, maintaining a condo for a year, or longer, is inexpensive in Thailand--and roof over the head. Renting something comparable would likely cost the spouse more, sice the condo is paid-for.

And, the spouse has options--which you always ignore. Can continue to live in the condo, likely cheaper than rent, can rent the condo for income and live elsewhere, can sell the condo and buy or rent something else, and also move somewhere else, or stay in the same area. Good to have options. And, as I said in the other post, how does the spouse leave just cash if he is still alive and living in the condo he plans to will to his spouse, and does not want to move to a rental?