Lobby Group Foreigners In Thailand

[Tarragona]

And Tarragona; you know well full what I meant. But if you want to play the hear no evil, see no evil role, I will explain it. Those who voted yes are willing to work together to make a new home more enjoyable to live in. Those who voted no, basically want the same thing,but they want others to do, and pay for it, for them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As has been shown by a number of 'no' posters already, there are people who are quite happy with a situation in which their other half has the legal rights to ownership. Yes, there is a risk and you don't know how things will be 10 years down the road but if you go open-eyed into your relationship then I don't see the problem. I do sympathize with those who are not married and would feel happy if the day comes when they are able to own their own home here - but I don't feel it's a major issue that I need to actively participate in.

The old niggle of Thai women married to foreigners having difficulty owning land was always a bigger injustice than foreigners not having this right. With that resolved, I feel good progress has been made and even if others worked together and paid for me to have these rights would I feel the need to use it?

To be honest, I feel that over the years I have made, and continue to make, a decent contribution to Thai society and am doing a fairly good job of raising my family. It would be interesting to ask around and find out from people who know me and what I do here whether or not they feel I'm a "true lover of Thailand" and "only here for what I can get out of it".

I may not be needed or wanted by you Lampard but that does not distress me too much.

[chownah]

20 posters have voted yes...

i bet you couldnt even get them to post there user names let alone their real names..

pls be realistic when you vote ppl

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I did...............If you're that interested I'll tell you what I had for breakfast as well. I hide nothing on this forum.

And Tarragona; you know well full what I meant. But if you want to play the hear no evil, see no evil role, I will explain it. Those who voted yes are willing to work together to make a new home more enjoyable to live in. Those who voted no, basically want the same thing,but they want others to do, and pay for it, for them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lampard10,

I voted 'no'. I definitely don't want the Thai land ownership laws to be changed so that foreigners can buy land. Today you want just a little piece for a house...maybe half a rai.....tomorrow its going to be 1 rai....next week 10 rai....and next year 100rai. Foreign ownership of land will bring about the downfall of Thai culture AND it will destroy the livelyhood and homes of a huge percentage of Thai people who presently live comfortably on very small incomes because they own land so they have a home and food to eat every year. Thai culture comes from the land....from the culture of growing rice.

Of course you will say that you only want a small plot for building a house.....which may be true. But others will then find ways to extend this. Once the door is cracked open it is more easily thrown wide. For instance....if I bought a rai and my foreign wife bought a rai and my brother bought a rai and his wife and his kids each one and...and...cousins by the dozens.... Then some industrialist says...look....here a big chinese family owns 200 rai and so does that norwegian family....why not just let me buy 200 rai without the pretense of the family connection....and the right palms get greased and a new precident is set.....and millions of people are displaced.

I definitely voted no because I like Thailand and Thai people.

[gburns57au]

I voted NO......

The stronger buying power of farangs makes it unworkable.....before long farangs would own the country....

The guys who voted yes I suspect are likely to want to develop large property interests to give them more power over the local population....After all, why be the big farang of a village when you can be the big farang of a province.

The current laws are in place to protect the Thai people, the Nation and its heritage and culture....This should not change and anyone who has the interests of the Thai people at heart would agree.

Any Aussies remember when the Japs started buying up in Oz..???....It started a huge outcry.

[lampard10]

And Tarragona; you know well full what I meant. But if you want to play the hear no evil, see no evil role, I will explain it. Those who voted yes are willing to work together to make a new home more enjoyable to live in. Those who voted no, basically want the same thing,but they want others to do, and pay for it, for them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As has been shown by a number of 'no' posters already, there are people who are quite happy with a situation in which their other half has the legal rights to ownership. Yes, there is a risk and you don't know how things will be 10 years down the road but if you go open-eyed into your relationship then I don't see the problem. I do sympathize with those who are not married and would feel happy if the day comes when they are able to own their own home here - but I don't feel it's a major issue that I need to actively participate in.

The old niggle of Thai women married to foreigners having difficulty owning land was always a bigger injustice than foreigners not having this right. With that resolved, I feel good progress has been made and even if others worked together and paid for me to have these rights would I feel the need to use it?

To be honest, I feel that over the years I have made, and continue to make, a decent contribution to Thai society and am doing a fairly good job of raising my family. It would be interesting to ask around and find out from people who know me and what I do here whether or not they feel I'm a "true lover of Thailand" and "only here for what I can get out of it".

I may not be needed or wanted by you Lampard but that does not distress me too much.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually I do tend to agree up to a point with you there. I for one would quite happily endow all my worldly goods on to my better half. We are as near to a perfect couple as couples can get. OK sometimes we fight like cats and dogs,but that is nearly always due to the fact that we both think identically. What worries me more,in the event of her untimely demise,I could well ,as Anne Robinson so aptly puts it' Leave with nothing' Everybody is so concerned with knocking or praising their spouses,that nobody seems to give a thought to circumstances which are above and beyond their control. I also fully agree with the poster who said if we had similar rules back in UK it would now be a better place to live in. It is a pity that most people go into these debates blind and have not bothered to follow up on previous topics,for surely you would have seen I have wrote extesively on the subject,giving it my support. Now a new idea has surfaced, I think even the die-hardest sceptics amoungst us should give it a go. After all it is now your country as well as theirs.

Mr Burns & Mr Chownah: you both put over excellent arguments against,maybe I was a wee bit hasty in my condemnation.

Edited May 15, 2005 by lampard10

[chownah]

...... What worries me more,in the event of her untimely demise,I could well ,as Anne Robinson so aptly puts it' Leave with nothing' Everybody is so concerned with knocking or praising their spouses,that nobody seems to give a thought to circumstances which are above and beyond their control. ..............

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a legitimate concern....what would happen if the Thai half of the marriage should die. I'm lucky because my wife's family would just inherit the land and I would continue to live here and do my usual stuff.....but Iam aware that some people are not on similar terms with their spouse's family. One suggestion came to mind: Perhaps your wife could give you a 30 year lease and every year as an anniversary ritual you could re-write the lease by just advancing the date of expiry by one year. Certainly not a perfect solution. There is another thread going about some clause that can be added to a title deed that can give a foreigner use for life. To me this seems like a good solution...IF this can actually be done and is not just another rumor.

[Zarkow]

I would think anyone voting no is not a true lover of Thailand and it's people and are only here to see what they can get out of it. Goodbye no voters. We don't want or need you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sorry, but I get upset when I read crap like this.

So by not wanting people that doesn't reside here (persons or legal persons = companys!) to be able to buy up the beatyfull land here, I'm not a true lover of Thailand??? Most ignorant post sofar.

What is next, anyone who opposes the damping of toxic waste here for $50/ton isn't a lover of the land?!

Jeez...

[lampard10]

I would think anyone voting no is not a true lover of Thailand and it's people and are only here to see what they can get out of it. Goodbye no voters. We don't want or need you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sorry, but I get upset when I read crap like this.

So by not wanting people that doesn't reside here (persons or legal persons = companys!) to be able to buy up the beatyfull land here, I'm not a true lover of Thailand??? Most ignorant post sofar.

What is next, anyone who opposes the damping of toxic waste here for $50/ton isn't a lover of the land?!

Jeez...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who said anything about,as you put it 'people that doesn't reside here'. We are talking about residents buying their own house,not a Nigerian Oil baron purchasing Koh Chang and turning it into a massive oil field. Anyway,if you had bothered to read further you would have seen I apologised for being hasty without listening to the noes

[Erwin1011]

Just for general consideration:

I've tried to formulate the question as carefull as possible to avoid situations of corporate ownership etc.. but than again i'm not a lawyer and not a native english speaker.

Bino, gburns57au, LaoPo

We're talking about limited individual ownership both in size and quantity. we may have to incorporate something that puts other limitations to it, that is something that needs to come out of further discussions.

The purpose of this poll was to see if there is sufficient support from this community to start up the proces of creating that specific interest group. Lao Po came up with the idea

in another thread, and I just picked up the ball to to go for a trial run.

In that same thread someone did a rough calculation:

2000 subscribers @ $50 per annum=$100,000. @40 to $ = 4,000,000 THB. That would be sufficient to operate the lobby group.

Peder,

In the light of this, thanks for the offer. we will certainly come back to it, when we somehow can get this thing on the rails.

[The_Moog]

Maybe 70% (conservatively) of Thai people don't want foreigners owning property, and any Government that allowed it would get voted out in the next election.

So why should any politician take the risk - (unless they are given a few shares to approve the Elite Card mechanism!)

Being constructive though - if you said ...

'10 years residency plus Thai spouse, with income taxes being paid throughout that time, gives you the right to buy one rai, with capital gains tax liability on resale profits'

.... that might be dilute enough to work ! There's no way that some football hooligan from Newcastle is just going to be allowed to turn up and buy his plot without having contributed anything to the country beforehand.

Still, what in it for the Politicians ?- we don't have a vote, THB4m isn't going to buy many favours.

[roscoe]

sorry.not interested.i already own land (by proxy), and everything is kosha , given the proposition, i see no benefit for my personal situation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

owning by proxy is to own nothing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well, my wife actually bought all the thai land.being married, we share the passive income the land/buildings produce.its a moot point really.there is more than 1 way to get yourself into a position to benefit from having land.for me, owning the land in my name would advance my cause no further.and i dont give a rats ass if joe bloggs farang down the road cant own land.maybe he should invest his time in acting on alternate ways to get land, rather than winging,moaning and hitting voting buttons.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Once again you miss the point You still Own Nothing.

I am intriged,what is your "cause"(aka ulterior motive) anyway?

Edited May 15, 2005 by roscoe

[penelope]

sorry.not interested.i already own land (by proxy), and everything is kosha , given the proposition, i see no benefit for my personal situation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

owning by proxy is to own nothing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well, my wife actually bought all the thai land.being married, we share the passive income the land/buildings produce.its a moot point really.there is more than 1 way to get yourself into a position to benefit from having land.for me, owning the land in my name would advance my cause no further.and i dont give a rats ass if joe bloggs farang down the road cant own land.maybe he should invest his time in acting on alternate ways to get land, rather than winging,moaning and hitting voting buttons.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Once again you miss the point You still Own Nothing.

I am intriged,what is your "cause"(aka ulterior motive) anyway?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yes, as an individual, i own nothing. but i am married, so am in a partnership.

aside from our personal homes, "the cause" is to buy and sell and/or buy and draw passive income.collectively my wife and I own/control land and buildings in thailand, aussie and nzl.income and profits ie: the cause, is shared.the ownership structure has no bearing on the end goal.in nzl and aussie we have a family trust. in thailand we simply put it in her name.works perfectly.i dont need to have my name on the deed.and changing the law to allow me to put my name on the deed would not affect us in anyway whatsoever.

Edited May 15, 2005 by penelope

[roscoe]

sorry.not interested.i already own land (by proxy), and everything is kosha , given the proposition, i see no benefit for my personal situation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

owning by proxy is to own nothing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well, my wife actually bought all the thai land.being married, we share the passive income the land/buildings produce.its a moot point really.there is more than 1 way to get yourself into a position to benefit from having land.for me, owning the land in my name would advance my cause no further.and i dont give a rats ass if joe bloggs farang down the road cant own land.maybe he should invest his time in acting on alternate ways to get land, rather than winging,moaning and hitting voting buttons.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Once again you miss the point You still Own Nothing.

I am intriged,what is your "cause"(aka ulterior motive) anyway?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yes, as an individual, i own nothing. but i am married, so am in a partnership.

aside from our personal homes, "the cause" is to buy and sell and/or buy and draw passive income.collectively my wife and I own/control land and buildings in thailand, aussie and nzl.income and profits ie: the cause, is shared.the ownership structure has no bearing on the end goal.in nzl and aussie we have a family trust. in thailand we simply put it in her name.works perfectly.i dont need to have my name on the deed.and changing the law to allow me to put my name on the deed would not affect us in anyway whatsoever.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you don't trust her enough to put your Aussie and New Zealand income and property in her name. Interesting thought process .

[qwertyuiop]

I voted No.

This issue has no great significance for myself. The right to buy land or not is not something I fret over. If I want to own a home here then I can quite easily buy a condo.

The suggestion that only a yes vote shows ones affection for Thailand and Thais is so way off the mark.

There are numerous other measures that would in my opinion make Thailand a better place and by that I mean for the Thais to live in. An overhaul of the education system for one (which has recently been announced) Why not put our efforts behind this initiative as it would help us all no?

However I am a guest in this country. It is for the Thais to elect their politicians and persuade them to enact laws which they think will improve their lives. If they ask my opinion i will certainly give it but I do not think that land ownership for froeigners is high on theie list nor would i have any desire to march on governmanethouse demanding hland ownership for foreigners

[penelope]

sorry.not interested.i already own land (by proxy), and everything is kosha , given the proposition, i see no benefit for my personal situation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

owning by proxy is to own nothing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well, my wife actually bought all the thai land.being married, we share the passive income the land/buildings produce.its a moot point really.there is more than 1 way to get yourself into a position to benefit from having land.for me, owning the land in my name would advance my cause no further.and i dont give a rats ass if joe bloggs farang down the road cant own land.maybe he should invest his time in acting on alternate ways to get land, rather than winging,moaning and hitting voting buttons.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Once again you miss the point You still Own Nothing.

I am intriged,what is your "cause"(aka ulterior motive) anyway?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yes, as an individual, i own nothing. but i am married, so am in a partnership.

aside from our personal homes, "the cause" is to buy and sell and/or buy and draw passive income.collectively my wife and I own/control land and buildings in thailand, aussie and nzl.income and profits ie: the cause, is shared.the ownership structure has no bearing on the end goal.in nzl and aussie we have a family trust. in thailand we simply put it in her name.works perfectly.i dont need to have my name on the deed.and changing the law to allow me to put my name on the deed would not affect us in anyway whatsoever.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you don't trust her enough to put your Aussie and New Zealand income and property in her name. Interesting thought process .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

that is a pathetic thing to say.

we choose the best and most viable ownership structures for the place of purchase. that is the "thought process".

[ozzydom]

The main concern of the yes lobby seems to be the fear of ending up out in the cold in the unfortunate event of losing their spouse through death or divorce. An acquantance here in c/m was recently bereaved ,the home and business were the typical 51/49% ownership,but he told me the other day that everything is now in his name solely for his lifetime.Then reverts to his two children who are thai citizens. Evidentally it revolved around the property being less than one rai and the children agreeing to the transfer. I will visit him this week and sus out the mechanics of it all and post findings.That said,I am dead against foreign ownership ,the reasons will be in another posting.

[taxexile]

too much foriegn ownership will just raise prices and put most land out of the reach of ordinary thais.

this has already happened in place like samui and phuket and i've no doubt other places too , and thats with all the ownership restrictions.

the average thai just cant compete.

remove some or all restrictions on foriegn ownership and sooner or later there will be a backlash.

i've heard plenty of "murmurings" already from samui people about how the island has been taken over by falangs and that they cant even afford a small piece of land to put up a modest house anymore. thats how racism starts.

if restrictions are removed then prices will shoot through the roof as thais will sell to foriegners preferentially.

joint ownership for couples with lifetime rights for the man in the event of the death of the wife and reversion back to the wifes family or the kids upon the mans death is the way to go , and i think that this can already be legally arranged.

single men will just have to buy condos or rent or go the company leasehold route.

as for an organised lobby to badger the government ?

do you really think that they will take it seriously.

this is not a western style democracy with pressure groups and freedom of speech as we know it.

Edited May 15, 2005 by taxexile

[chownah]

If you could get 2000 individuals who want to own land in Thailand what about the possibilityof creating one big property managment business with all of them and all of their wives as the owners. 49% owned by husbands and 51% owned by wives. It is unlikely that over 50% of the wives would cooperate in selling you out so as long as the husbands stick together then it is virtually guaranteed to be stable. (I'm assuming that all the husbands are foreigners and all the wives are Thais for simplicity's sake.) Then if one wife died it would have no impact on the ownership. Couples could bring their land into the partnership and would be assigned the task of administering this land with full control and decision making for their assigned property. I haven't thought this through but is this a good idea?

[ozzydom]

A few years ago Ford Motor Coy and a couple of major hotel developers tried the old "give us freehold title or we wont invest line" got them nowhere.

[SEAtramp]

You can always invest 40,000,000 baht (yes thats 40 million) which will enable you to buy 1 Rai of land.

That i'm afraid will be the answer to your request when you go cap in hand to Thai politicians.

[gburns57au]

The answer is very simple really...

You are living in Thailand

You agreed to abide by their rules and laws when you moved there

You chose to do that under the current laws..

Would you go to the UK, USA, Europe and expect the country to change its laws to suit you....I dont think so...So why talk about it in Thailand???...

If you dont like it........leave.

[The_Moog]

joint ownership for couples with lifetime rights for the man in the event of the death of the wife and reversion back to the wifes family or the kids upon the mans death is the way to go , and i think that this can already be legally arranged.

Yes, this is thinking on the right lines. Some sort of legitimate way to protect a foreigner's interests in clearly needed. Its mad that a Thai wife can merely use his cash on the supposition that it is her unencumbered funds.

With this sort of brainstorming, your organization has already begun, via debates like this.

[Steve2UK]

Farangs can buy a condo - up to the point where a maximum 49% in the building are owned by farangs. Any reason why the same principle couldn't be applied to land ownership - e.g. only x% (presumably a very low figure) of a given land area can be owned by farangs?

Similarly (as was mentioned in an earlier post), land purchase could be limited to farangs of x years good status living in Thailand.

Generally, where there's a will there's a way. Main problem seems to be that there is next to no Thai will for this..............

Edited May 15, 2005 by Steve2UK

[sabaijai]

Farangs can buy a condo - up to the point where a maximum 49% in the building are owned by farangs. Any reason why the same principle couldn't be applied to land ownership - e.g. only x% (presumably a very low figure) of a given land area can be owned by farangs?

Similarly (as was mentioned in an earlier post), land purchase could be limited to farangs of x years good status living in Thailand.

Generally, where there's a will there's a way. Main problem seems to be that there is next to no Thai will for this..............

Makes sense to me. The Thai will might come if the idea is represented as a way to bring increased foreign revenue to Thailand. As long as the percentage is kept at a figure the Thais at large can tolerate, it's a win-win deal.

[thai_norman]

erm, i think you are all forgetting something....

this is the thai loves thai government, nothing about poor farangs buying a few hundred farang wah, they aint interested in that and toxin will be in power for a good few more years...

[abdulrahman]

I voted yes but, after reading the post on this topic,now have doubts.

In a civilized country as a member of the community,I expect to have some duties(pay the taxes,serve in the military if compulsory,respect the institutions and abide by the laws),similarly the right to work, to have a family,to provide for my family food,clothing and shelter.

I will not depart Thailand,nor think I should,but my love for the country and for the Thai people will have to be reconsidered,if I'll never have the chance to feel myself part of society.

Will have a hard time trying to explain this to my wife!

[ArtfulD]

The way Id like things to go is the Malaysian My Second Home program http://www.homemalaysia.com/eng/faqs.php ...I think its a pretty good system (shame Malaysia isnt the place I want to go...but perhaps).

I can understand a country wishing to limit outsiders in certain areas...even though it conflicts with my ideal situation. While looking at Aus I was a bit miffed that the only properties I was allowed to buy were new builds.

Although I dont think the argument that outsiders will just come in and buy up everything is valid (or rather, will increase), as even now its already being done (after all how many of the new homes on Phuket, Koh Somui etc are being sold/marketed to Thais as it stands now?). Its more the level of percived protection of your asset and hoop jumping/red tape I think is the biggest issue. One way to limit outsiders buying up everything for investment purposes could be to propose a 100% capital gains tax on properties other than your main residence, like Guernsey (has been succesful stopping insane house price inflation there).

The issue id like resolved first is the anoying 90 day visa runs etc. Also might not be such a suicidal subject for a government person to suggest unlike property ownership.

[samran]

Maybe 70% (conservatively) of Thai people don't want foreigners owning property, and any Government that allowed it would get voted out in the next election.

So why should any politician take the risk - (unless they are given a few shares to approve the Elite Card mechanism!)

Being constructive though - if you said ...

'10 years residency plus Thai spouse, with income taxes being paid throughout that time, gives you the right to buy one rai....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very sensible. One point though, if you have been in Thailand that long and under those circumstances you would have already qualified for residency and should be well on the way to get Thai nationality, at which point a rule like this might be redundant.

[Erwin1011]

The way Id like things to go is the Malaysian My Second Home program http://www.homemalaysia.com/eng/faqs.php ...I think its a pretty good system (shame Malaysia isnt the place I want to go...but perhaps).

I can understand a country wishing to limit outsiders in certain areas...even though it conflicts with my ideal situation.  While looking at Aus I was a bit miffed that the only properties I was allowed to buy were new builds.

  Although I dont think the argument that outsiders will just come in and buy up everything is valid (or rather, will increase), as even now its already being done (after all how many of the new homes on Phuket, Koh Somui etc are being sold/marketed to Thais as it stands now?).  Its more the level of percived protection of your asset and hoop jumping/red tape I think is the biggest issue.  One way to limit outsiders buying up everything for investment purposes could be to propose a 100% capital gains tax on properties other than your main residence, like Guernsey (has been succesful stopping insane house price inflation there).

The issue id like resolved first is the anoying 90 day visa runs etc. Also might not be such a suicidal subject for a government person to suggest unlike property ownership.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for the link. It appears that the Malaysian government seems to understand better what expats are looking for ( to some extend ) I only glanced over it, but it seems well structured. Maybe we can use this as a starter and adjust it to the local needs. Very much appreciated.

[chownah]

Maybe 70% (conservatively) of Thai people don't want foreigners owning property, and any Government that allowed it would get voted out in the next election.

So why should any politician take the risk - (unless they are given a few shares to approve the Elite Card mechanism!)

Being constructive though - if you said ...

'10 years residency plus Thai spouse, with income taxes being paid throughout that time, gives you the right to buy one rai....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very sensible. One point though, if you have been in Thailand that long and under those circumstances you would have already qualified for residency and should be well on the way to get Thai nationality, at which point a rule like this might be redundant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have never heard of westerner actually getting Thai citizenship. I know it is theoretically possible. Has this ever happened? Has this happened to anyone who has less than totally rich? or famous? Anyone on TV got Thai citizenship?

[penelope]

Maybe 70% (conservatively) of Thai people don't want foreigners owning property, and any Government that allowed it would get voted out in the next election.

So why should any politician take the risk - (unless they are given a few shares to approve the Elite Card mechanism!)

Being constructive though - if you said ...

'10 years residency plus Thai spouse, with income taxes being paid throughout that time, gives you the right to buy one rai....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very sensible. One point though, if you have been in Thailand that long and under those circumstances you would have already qualified for residency and should be well on the way to get Thai nationality, at which point a rule like this might be redundant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have never heard of westerner actually getting Thai citizenship. I know it is theoretically possible. Has this ever happened? Has this happened to anyone who has less than totally rich? or famous? Anyone on TV got Thai citizenship?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

to answer the "Has this ever happened?" question :

Example :

BILL E. HEINECKE

Minor Food Group

lots of westerners have acquired thai citizenship over the years.

Edited May 16, 2005 by penelope