17 minutes ago, motdaeng said:

... 22 years ago, i was looking into owning land through a paper company. even back then, it was already well known that this was a more than questionable grey area.

so, if some people were willing to take that risk and go ahead with such an illegal arrangement, i have little sympathy for them if they now have to face the legal consequences ...

But, but, but, everyone else is doing it, so it must be fine. 😂

21 minutes ago, ronnie50 said:

Ornaments and tattoos apparently. But my point was not about a nanny state warning everyone. My point was that, as usual, they blame/warn the foreigners rather than the Thai enablers (the Thai merchants who know the tourists are not supposed to take them out of Thailand).

To be honest I doubt the market traders selling this junk have any idea about the legalities of exporting it , Why would they,? They sell all sorts of dodgy stuff from zombie knives to taser devices its not really their responsibility what the idiots who buy this stuff do with it , Same goes for weed. If you want to buy a couple of kilos , no problem , but if you want to try taking it home ? well thats up to you.

Personally I have no issues with the Thai government putting the interests of Thai people before the interests of foreigners, and despite being on the wrong end of things I wholeheartedly support that ,,,,,, I only wish the government of my home country acted in a similar way but unfortunately they are the complete opposite

Anybody considering holidaying in a foreign country with which they are unfamiliar obviously should do just a little basic research beforehand, 99.9% already do and every tourist guidebook I have ever seen addresses matters like this in the first chapter and for those that don't there are signs everywhere and as mentioned before some of the signs are huge ,

Although if these little ornaments do indeed have such solemn religious significance it is rather strange that they can effectively be sold as junk,in tacky souvenir shops and flea markets Surely a shop in a temple would be more appropriate, but this is Thailand , and it is what it is

What's wrong with having a house in the wife's name?

13 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What's wrong with having a house in the wife's name?

You will find out in case of divorce. I thought the same until it finally happened.

3 minutes ago, msbkk said:

You will find out in case of divorce. I thought the same until it finally happened.

In case of divorce, she'll get the house, so?

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

You are absolutely correct and if you look at rentals versus a purchase it's totally stacked in the renter's favor. It rarely makes sense to buy here unless you're building a house up country where renting is not an option.

I agree.

I have posted the figures a few times, and they show that it is financially beneficial to rent, rather than buy.

Then, you have the elephant in the room, life expectancy. I recently posted the figures that buying a condo for say 3,400,000 baht, at age 67, I think it was, one must live to around 85 years of age to then be able to claim they are ahead. How many here live to that age?

If a foreigner is lead by the nose and basically forced to move to Issan, then you are correct, not much choice other than to buy, but what a place, and what a way, to see out the twilight years of one's life, but that's for another thread.

5 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Foreigners not being allowed to own property is exactly for that reason.

Foreign buyers can easily outbuy and prevent Thais from owning land in their own communities.

I agree, and that's why the day was always coming where these properties would be returned to Thai ownership.

Thai nominee companies were basically allowing foreigners to own a property and out price the Thai's.

It was allowed to continue for decades, but the Thai government has decided it's now reached a tipping point, and are taking action.

The practice should never have been allow to happen in the first place.

BTW, despite being single, I still thoroughly researched foreign ownership of property in Thailand. I learned very quickly it was not for me, not to mention, the numbers didn't even stack up.

Edited yesterday at 10:25 AM1 day by KhunHeineken

1 minute ago, KhunHeineken said:

I agree.

I have posted the figures a few times, and they show that it is financially beneficial to rent, rather than buy.

Then, you have the elephant in the room, life expectancy. I recently posted the figures that buying a condo for say 3,400,000 baht, at age 67, I think it was, one must live to around 85 years of age to then be able to claim they are ahead. How many here live to that age?

If a foreigner is lead by the nose and basically forced to move to Issan, then you are correct, not much choice other than to buy, but what a place, and what a way, to see out the twilight years of one's life, but that's for another thread.

If one is single and enjoys a hedonistic lifestyle, then it is absolutely better to rent.

If one does not really care about having a home and has no real interest in putting together a home they love, they should rent.

If one wants to move around a lot, they should rent.

If one lives pay-check to pay-check, one should rent.

If has the money, and one wants to put together a comfortable home they love, such that they can spend the rest of their days in with their family, then they should buy.

People that want to own homes, should buy homes, people that don't, should not.

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

If one is single and enjoys a hedonistic lifestyle, then it is absolutely better to rent.

If one does not really care about having a home and has no real interest in putting together a home they love, they should rent.

If one wants to move around a lot, they should rent.

If one lives pay-check to pay-check, one should rent.

I agree.

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

If has the money, and one wants to put together a comfortable home they love, such that they can spend the rest of their days in with their family, then they should buy.

What structure of foreig ownership are you recommending?

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

People that want to own homes, should buy homes, people that don't, should not.

Not that easy in Thailand.

As I said to another member, an American, I can buy and own in my name, a house in America. He can buy and own in his name a house in my country, Australia. We both can not buy and own in our name a house in Thailand.

Once again, for those who want to buy a house, what structure of foreign ownership do you recommend?

58 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What's wrong with having a house in the wife's name?

What's right with having a house in the wife's name? 😂

3 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

I agree.

What structure of foreig ownership are you recommending?

One can own a condo outright or can own a real property with a Thia wife, partner, family member, or friend.

You know that yes?

3 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Not that easy in Thailand.

As I said to another member, an American, I can buy and own in my name, a house in America. He can buy and own in his name a house in my country, Australia. We both can not buy and own in our name a house in Thailand.

Once again, for those who want to buy a house, what structure of foreign ownership do you recommend?

Anything that is legal.

33 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

One can own a condo outright or can own a real property with a Thia wife, partner, family member, or friend.

What about a house?

How can you "own" the property with a Thai wife, partner, family member, or friend?

Don't you mean that you buy it, and they own it, in their name?

34 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Anything that is legal.

When it comes to foreign ownership of land in Thailand, there are very few legal options, if any.

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

What's wrong with having a house in the wife's name?

It's not your house, and you have no right to live in it!

4 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

What about a house?

How can you "own" the property with a Thai wife, partner, family member, or friend?

Don't you mean that you buy it, and they own it, in their name?

When it comes to foreign ownership of land in Thailand, there are very few legal options, if any.

Do you believe in common property?

I am married, so my wife is entitled to half of what we have saved since the marriage. If she divorces me, she'll keep the house and the shop, and I will deduct half the value from the assets she is entitled to.

If you're skint, and the house represents the bulk of your savings, just get a usufruct to protect yourself.

I know living in a rental is cheaper, but I would rather live in a nice home that I can do with what I please.

10 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

It's not your house, and you have no right to live in it!

If I got divorced, why would I want to continue living in the house?

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Rent is cheap here. It's less hassle just to rent.

But good luck getting married and being a perpetual renter. Most women will not go for it. Owning a home = security for her.

We are able to establish a standard here. If she likes it ok. If she doesn't ok. Let her walk. Plenty of women to work with here. I understand the whole financial security thing but if it comes down to owning versus renting a house that will make or break a relationship, then perhaps there wasn't much there to begin with.

11 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

If I got divorced, why would I want to continue living in the house?

It's not really your choice.

Why would you buy a house in which you may not be allowed to live?

Just now, BritManToo said:

It's not really your choice.

Why would you buy a house in which you may not be allowed to live?

For the same reason I buy anything, because I want to.

If my wife divorced me, she can have the house.

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

I agree.

I have posted the figures a few times, and they show that it is financially beneficial to rent, rather than buy.

Then, you have the elephant in the room, life expectancy. I recently posted the figures that buying a condo for say 3,400,000 baht, at age 67, I think it was, one must live to around 85 years of age to then be able to claim they are ahead. How many here live to that age?

If a foreigner is lead by the nose and basically forced to move to Issan, then you are correct, not much choice other than to buy, but what a place, and what a way, to see out the twilight years of one's life, but that's for another thread.

I agree. I'm sure there have been many a thread about that very topic. We discussed it at one point and had I agreed to do that I would not have had much of a life. Almost every foreigner that I know that lives up there is a heavy drinker and there's likely multiple reasons for that. Boredom being chief among them, but that's just not the vision that I have for my remaining years.

The real question for a lot of us is who makes these decisions, and do we have a choice? Of course we do. We always have a choice.

2 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

I agree. I'm sure there have been many a thread about that very topic. We discussed it at one point and had I agreed to do that I would not have had much of a life. Almost every foreigner that I know that lives up there is a heavy drinker and there's likely multiple reasons for that. Boredom being chief among them, but that's just not the vision that I have for my remaining years.

The real question for a lot of us is who makes these decisions, and do we have a choice? Of course we do. We always have a choice.

They have homes in Bangkok too.

4 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

You are absolutely correct and if you look at rentals versus a purchase it's totally stacked in the renter's favor. It rarely makes sense to buy here unless you're building a house up country where renting is not an option.

It has made total sense for me, and saved me about 4.5M THB over 25 yrs living here. And it literally cost me nothing, as the wife is sitting on the same amount of equity as the money we spent during that time.

That equals about 15k extra pocket money every month, in our pocket, instead of a landlord, not to mention, the 3M equity she has.

Makes a lot of sense to me, along with living in custom made house, just for us. 2nd one was 400+m² under roof with a small pool.

Edited yesterday at 12:26 PM1 day by KhunLA

12 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

The real question for a lot of us is who makes these decisions, and do we have a choice? Of course we do. We always have a choice.

Yes. And my choice was that the house the family was going to buy for the wife and me (and for me to rent) had to have 6 AM access to a 25 meter swimming pool.

Edited 18 hours ago18 hr by JerryM

21 hours ago, JerryM said:

No one put a gun to the foreigners’ heads. They come to Thailand, and most of their common sense goes out the window,” he said.

Sadly many come with the idea that if they employ the services of a lawyer, said lawyer will protect their interests and ensure things are all above board. Would we do better to engage the guy who rubs your shoulders in the bathroom?

22 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

Any foreigner should know that fake shareholders isn't legal.

Agree but the sales pitch includes lawyers setting up the purchase to make it legal. Basically there is the Thai nominee and get covered by the lease agreement meaning it is technically mine and can’t get sold from underneath me for life. It’s the identical legal agreement when a bloke buys a property in his girlfriend’s name and gets an agreement drawn up to protect him from being kicked out. That’s what they’re selling and if that’s illegal, the lawyers need to be held to account. At the moment, who gets the ownership of the property? Probably the seller or should I say scammer!

For the comments on having a house in the Wife's name
If you are concerned of future issues
you simply rent it from the wife for 30 years (on paper)
all done at the land office
with rent paid up in advance (on paper)
so you are the legal tenant for the next 30 years

25 minutes ago, Brettoj said:

Agree but the sales pitch includes lawyers setting up the purchase to make it legal. Basically there is the Thai nominee and get covered by the lease agreement meaning it is technically mine and can’t get sold from underneath me for life. It’s the identical legal agreement when a bloke buys a property in his girlfriend’s name and gets an agreement drawn up to protect him from being kicked out. That’s what they’re selling and if that’s illegal, the lawyers need to be held to account. At the moment, who gets the ownership of the property? Probably the seller or should I say scammer!

I don't think that's entirely correct. Maybe mixing two things. If you buy a place for your wife it's entirely hers and you can get a usufruct (as you mentioned) - the instrument that lets you live in the house on her land forevever. What is happening here and the above discussions of nominees, involves a couple of Thais indicating they 'own' 51% of a company and you 'own' 49% of the company. The company is just a shell to buy the land and home. The two Thai nominees sign away their voting rights. So effectively the foreigner owns and controls all of the 'company' - the Thais are not leasing the land to the foreigner. The third option however is to indeed lease a house and land from a Thai owner (30 year lease) and some people do this. But it is the same as renting (IMO) but paying 30 years of rent up front. So that's the dilema many are in now - the company/fake nominee route was always illegal.

29 minutes ago, patman30 said:

For the comments on having a house in the Wife's name
If you are concerned of future issues

While you'd be legally covered in a usufruct to live there for 30 years or with a lease for 30 years, it's the 'future issues' I would be concerned with!! If the relationship breaks down and you're living in her family compound, I doubt I'd want to stay there. Renting has always been the best option (and cheapest option for most here). We've been renting for more than 25 years, had a family and still together - the inlaws are far away :)

3 minutes ago, ronnie50 said:

While you'd be legally covered in a usufruct to live there for 30 years or with a lease for 30 years, it's the 'future issues' I would be concerned with!! If the relationship breaks down and you're living in her family compound, I doubt I'd want to stay there. Renting has always been the best option (and cheapest option for most here). We've been renting for more than 25 years, had a family and still together - the inlaws are far away :)

I always found the 10% mortgage (in her name) option to be the best for me.

Costs a bit more at the start (in my case 300kbht), and repayments of 10kbht a month over 25 years.

But any marital problems and she can't make the repayments without me.

This way I can repeat a house loss 10x before I'm actually losing significant assets.

Edited 16 hours ago16 hr by BritManToo

18 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

You are absolutely correct and if you look at rentals versus a purchase it's totally stacked in the renter's favor. It rarely makes sense to buy here unless you're building a house up country where renting is not an option.

Well out here in the "desolate tambons" of south Surin renting is definitely an option Decent sized properties are available for circa 5000 bt per month I can't imagine many wanting to live more "up country" than here

20 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I always found the 10% mortgage (in her name) option to be the best for me.

Costs a bit more at the start (in my case 300kbht), and repayments of 10kbht a month over 25 years.

But any marital problems and she can't make the repayments without me.

This way I can repeat a house loss 10x before I'm actually losing significant assets.

But who guaranteed the mortgage? Did you sign (I guess not)?