Deforestation And The New Property Tax

[BuckarooBanzai]

Has anyone noticed an increase in deforestation the last couple of years? I live in rural Surin and have watched the "woods", many hundreds of rai, behind our farm being cut down to be used for various other agricultural purposes. Having lived here for ten years the rate of deforestation recently is very apparent. Although this is private land with many owners the conversion of natural woodland to cultivated land appears to be accelerating.

It is my understanding that the new tax code will penalizes owners of undeveloped property which should intensify deforestation.

"The Draft Act contains a new tax of 0.5% of the appraised value for undeveloped land held for future commercial purposes or otherwise, doubling every three years, and increasing to as high as 2.0% if the land is not used over a period of years. This will be phased in. Unlike the taxes now on the books, mentioned below, it is anticipated that the new tax, starting at 0.5%, will be enforced, and may encourage holders of large blocks of land to subdivide and sell off."

"The yearly ceiling or maximum rates multiplied by the appraised value that will be phased in over five years under the Draft Act will be as follows:

0.5% of land and buildings used for commercial purposes.

0.1% of land and buildings used for residential purposes.

0.05% of land used for agricultural purposes."

"As mentioned above, for undeveloped land the Draft Act contains an additional ceiling rate of 0.5% of the appraised value, but this rate will double every three years as long as the property is not used until it reaches 2.0% of the appraised value."

If this is the case is this really what is in the best interest of Thailand? Personally, I think people who have natural woodland should be encouraged to keep it in its natural state. Obviously it is up to the land owner but penalizing woodland ownership is counterproductive to a tree hugger like me as well as to a country that is trying to preserve what little remains of its timber.

Perhaps the law should exclude the rural Thai farmer with a proportionately small tract of undeveloped land. As they use this land for selective cuttings to build their houses and such the land does play an important role to the rural folks. This land is arguably agricultural as it is used to provide a timber crop.

The bigwigs that own thousands of undeveloped investment rai are another matter and perhaps this is the actual intent for this tax but I do not see any exclusion for the relatively poor rural land owner. It does not appear that this legislation has been well thought out and bodes ill for Thailand's woodlands and the rural poor land owner.

[GuestHouse]

An excellent observation and a first rate post.

[dave111223]

Depends what their definition of "undeveloped" is...

You could probably bung a few broken down cars on the land and in the eyes of Thailand it would now be considered "Developed".

[Crossy]

Some very interesting points of view, I wonder how carefully this law was thought out.

I'll move this to Real Estate before it drops off page 1 of General, I'm sure others will want to have a say.

[robblok]

I hope the OP is wrong in what he is saying and that the definition of undeveloped does not include forest because if this is the case he is right and deforestation will go even quicker and more flooding and mudslides will happen.

[quiksilva]

The tax targets land bankers, who own thousands of rai of vacant land which sit dormant for generations. These may be wealthy families, or big agribusiness.

The motive is to encourage these landlords to make use of their vacant land or sell it, preferably to local people.

Undeveloped land typically means land without buildings, I don't think deforestation will be the issue, the problem is I dont see any decent definition of "undeveloped" in this act.

This means its likely to be open to interpretation (and thus abuse) by the land department.