katabeachbum Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 the first lessee is entitled to 30 years max, or to swap to freehold within the 30 years if law changes/allows another lessee is entitlled to 30 years max which is acceptable by law. In fact 30 years lease can be registered on me today, and another 30 year lease can be registered on my son tomorrow, starting when my 30 years expires. Have to pay taxes for both today and tomorrow tho You are very sure about this. Good for you. I on the other hand am not so sure. Let's see when you put it to the test, and please report back. Best of luck. I am very sure what is doable, and sure what land office accepts and rejects, but since its not been tryed by supreme court, who knows how it works in 20-30 years a loan registered on land deed is IMHO safer and easier in court, and less taxes/fees, so a solution for an existing house. But does not give you a buildingeprmit in your name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katabeachbum Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 the first lessee is entitled to 30 years max, or to swap to freehold within the 30 years if law changes/allowsanother lessee is entitlled to 30 years max which is acceptable by law. In fact 30 years lease can be registered on me today, and another 30 year lease can be registered on my son tomorrow, starting when my 30 years expires. Have to pay taxes for both today and tomorrow tho So that would mean it depends on the conditions of the contract (lease) whether the lessor is allowed ask for more money to extend the lease yes or no or even refuse extension. Have I interpreted this correctly? yes, I have read some leases very favorable for land lord, and terrible for lessee. By law you are not even allowed to rent out your leased home during the 30 years, unless its agreed on in lease agreement as for owneship, there are several good threads and knowledgable posters here on TV in Property section Sorry OP we are far off topic, should we move back to "Cost of Housing" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivinginKata Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 I am very sure what is doable, and sure what land office accepts and rejects, but since its not been tryed by supreme court, who knows how it works in 20-30 years Quite correct. The problem is that the land owner might not co-operate signing the documants at the land office. Then you have to start a court case, win (after many years), and have the court order the land office to make the changes. I admit that I am somewaht sceptical as I have seen first hand how all the theory can go very very wrong. Your lawyer will gloss over all this and make it sound easy ... No skin off his nose, he will make plenty more fees when you have to go to court. Like everything else in Thailand ... buyer beware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katabeachbum Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 I am very sure what is doable, and sure what land office accepts and rejects, but since its not been tryed by supreme court, who knows how it works in 20-30 years Quite correct. The problem is that the land owner might not co-operate signing the documants at the land office. Then you have to start a court case, win (after many years), and have the court order the land office to make the changes. I admit that I am somewaht sceptical as I have seen first hand how all the theory can go very very wrong. Your lawyer will gloss over all this and make it sound easy ... No skin off his nose, he will make plenty more fees when you have to go to court. Like everything else in Thailand ... buyer beware. The "best" lawyers draw up the worst leases making you feel very safe, to make the most money in court. :lol: Not only in Thailand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petercallen Posted January 3, 2011 Author Share Posted January 3, 2011 Actually there are house and land packages that are good value in Phuket They are near the heroines monument and around half the price of the Chalong area. They also use better quality windows etc There is proper town planing there, the main road has been widened to 6 lanes, 4 car and 2 bike. The estates there have scheme water, power, phone lines, Internet and cable TV. They also have decent width roads and are clean. Its only 10 minutes drive from Tesco Lotus, there are good restaurants in the area and as the population grows all other services will be there and not to far in the future. The one problem is as far as we are concerned is the only estate where you can buy larger blocks of land is about 4 years old and the houses are dated and not very well built. OK its not in a tourist area but some of us do not want to live in a tourist area. But its only15/20 minutes drive from very nice clean beaches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katabeachbum Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Actually there are house and land packages that are good value in Phuket They are near the heroines monument and around half the price of the Chalong area. They also use better quality windows etc There is proper town planing there, the main road has been widened to 6 lanes, 4 car and 2 bike. The estates there have scheme water, power, phone lines, Internet and cable TV. They also have decent width roads and are clean. Its only 10 minutes drive from Tesco Lotus, there are good restaurants in the area and as the population grows all other services will be there and not to far in the future. The one problem is as far as we are concerned is the only estate where you can buy larger blocks of land is about 4 years old and the houses are dated and not very well built. OK its not in a tourist area but some of us do not want to live in a tourist area. But its only15/20 minutes drive from very nice clean beaches yepp low land prices have attracted several developers, but sales are slow up there. If you continue towards Mission Hill (east of heroins Monument), prices are low on +one rai plots, from 1-2 million baht/rai depending on infrastucture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDRIDER Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Is nobody just seeing a 30 year lease as long term rent?? i am. Well i got a leased house, bought it a few years ago, will put it in my name shortley if i dont sell the lease, been thinking about it, i will get 30 years when i get it in my name, even i bought it a few years back. BTW i know one who have a house coming up for rent in Kata, very quiet area but close to everything,its on Patag RD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivinLOS Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 When you sell a lease, IOW new lessee, law permits new 30 year to be registered, and if this is agreed on in first lease, should work. The 30 year legal lease limit is on one lessee, if I had such lease I would transfer it to new lessse within the initial 30 years, and it should be a new 30 years lease. Or if presently being half way in a 30 year lease, and an agreement to issue another one on expire, I would start this process now issuing the next lease on another name. Trying to get another 30 years in same name is not likely to be supported by court. and yes 1991 must have been one of the first 30 years, as it was previous max 10 years The problem is.. You cant put the 30 year new lease on the back of the land title without the compliance of the current owner.. It simply doesnt matter what the contract says as thats civil law, its not a 'real right' so go sue them. Plus if the owners changed, its passed to thier hiers, or any one of many things and you have zero leverage on the new current owner who didnt sign the lease. I saw the same suggestions when talking about usufruct (which by law the usufruct holder should be allowed to put a 30y lease on the land even if it survives beyond the life of that holder) but quite simply, if the Thai with the land title wont go to the land office your SOL on what you can do.. And no piece of paper changes that (unless its lots of grey ones with the kings head on). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivinLOS Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 I can't believe that any land owner would agree to sign the lease over to a second buyer for a new full 30 year lease without any sort of financial compensation. And the land owner's signature is usually required to support the transfer papers. Recently heard of this exact thing happening at 'the club' in Kamala.. They were sold on the basis of leasehold as a substitute for freehold.. So 30+30+30 and assured it was just a legal sidestep. In the contracts there was an additional that if anyone resold the landholder would institute a new 30 year lease at time of sale. Recently I know someone who bought one.. And while they didnt like it, and stalled a bit, ultimately they did go an give a new 30 year lease to the buyer.. That in turn woke up a bunch of other owners who had bought and then I heard a few of them wanted new leases registered. The management didnt like it even more but didnt break any of the contract part of the leasehold I heard. I am sure a great many +30+30's will be honored.. But one being honored doesnt mean that its enforceable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivinLOS Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Thats to simple If you enter a lease agreement stating you at any point can sell the lease, and new lessor shall be issued and have registered a new 30 year lease(or longer if law allows) or freehold (sold to thai or law changes allowing foreign freehold), and the land lord denies, you do have a simple win in civil court. Since appeal is likely, schedule 5 years to have a court order you can use at land office, and make sure transfer happens before initial lease expires. You dont have a simple win.. As all he has to do is give the land to his kids, or sell it to a 3rd party, and you have a contract with someone who now doesnt own the land.. Go whistle !! Take him to court if you like, but he aint got the land anymore and the new owner is not bound by the previous owners commitment other than that registered at the land office. I was also told by a lawyer once that any one of these 30 year clauses were also weak as the Thai simply had to demonstrate a material change, the lawyers example was as simple as 'my child / grandchild wants to go to uni and I didnt expect that' and any of these future obligations were not enforceable. The way he said it made it sound like anything in the future as very hard to enforce contractually due to this law. Tho my western mindset is what is a contract other than an agreement to perform something in the future ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barka Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 I did this once with my first lease hold property i bought ..sold it 3 years later on... with my lawyer making a new 30 year lease... wether it would stand up in THAI COURT I DONT KNOW....Only time will tell 'BARKA', What is it with the RANDOM BLOCK capitals? thats me ,,,is it annoying you..NO OFFENCE.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katabeachbum Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 You dont have a simple win.. As all he has to do is give the land to his kids, or sell it to a 3rd party, and you have a contract with someone who now doesnt own the land.. Go whistle !! Take him to court if you like, but he aint got the land anymore and the new owner is not bound by the previous owners commitment other than that registered at the land office. I was also told by a lawyer once that any one of these 30 year clauses were also weak as the Thai simply had to demonstrate a material change, the lawyers example was as simple as 'my child / grandchild wants to go to uni and I didnt expect that' and any of these future obligations were not enforceable. The way he said it made it sound like anything in the future as very hard to enforce contractually due to this law. Tho my western mindset is what is a contract other than an agreement to perform something in the future ?? I would not enter a leaseagreement allowing "land lord" to keep land title. If you keep it according to lease agreement, owner can not do transfer without your co op. He must go to court to achive control over land title, and as its agreed lessee keeps it until lease agreement (all parts) is fullfilled, thats a long shot I am not a defender or huge fan of lease, but there are bad lease agreements and better lease agreements Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivinLOS Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 I would not enter a leaseagreement allowing "land lord" to keep land title. If you keep it according to lease agreement, owner can not do transfer without your co op. He must go to court to achive control over land title, and as its agreed lessee keeps it until lease agreement (all parts) is fullfilled, thats a long shot I am not a defender or huge fan of lease, but there are bad lease agreements and better lease agreements OK so break it down for me.. I am slow.. Hes the landowner.. How can he not retain title ?? If you mean the piece of paper all he has to do is go ask for a replacement.. They will give him one.. The only control I could think of is to double up with a high value mortgage / lien on the property.. But then whose to say that todays high value wont be well worth covering in 25 years time, a case of 'heres your 10m back' the titles now free and clear and now I sell it to this speculator for 100m'.. BTW he doesnt need to honor any +30 etc. How do you deprive a landowner of the legal title to the property ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NamKangMan Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Is nobody just seeing a 30 year lease as long term rent?? i am. Well i got a leased house, bought it a few years ago, will put it in my name shortley if i dont sell the lease, been thinking about it, i will get 30 years when i get it in my name, even i bought it a few years back. BTW i know one who have a house coming up for rent in Kata, very quiet area but close to everything,its on Patag RD THAT'S THE POINT. You are paying top dollar for "ownership" but all you do own is the bricks and mortar with nothing to sell 30 years from now but an old house, hence, no real investment. A Thai national "owns" the land that your house sits on for the next 30 years. The Thai land owner makes the capital gain on the land, not you, despite you paying big dollars for the house and land as a package or your build. This is not really off topic for the OP because in a few years time, when the first wave of 30 year leases start to come up for renewal, there could be a real shake up in the property sector on Phuket. Questions like, is the +30 enforcable at Thai law, how much money will the Thai land owners ask for to make a new 30 year lease, will the Thai Government change any laws, how much can you sell your house for when the Thai land owner will not sign a new lease for a new owner and you have 15 years left on the original 30 year lease, what if the Thai land owner just wants his land back and will not sign a new lease etc etc etc etc. All of this, plus much more, will have a big effect on the price of housing on Phuket in the next few years. I see a 30 year lease as just long term rent but, in many cases, at a full ownership (which doesn't exist for farang) price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barka Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 the first lessee is entitled to 30 years max, or to swap to freehold within the 30 years if law changes/allows another lessee is entitlled to 30 years max which is acceptable by law. In fact 30 years lease can be registered on me today, and another 30 year lease can be registered on my son tomorrow, starting when my 30 years expires. Have to pay taxes for both today and tomorrow tho This is good to know. It maybe something I would consider. I have never heard of this before. Wouldn't the Thai land owner ask for a lot of money on the second lease to your son, for example? I think a lot of this issue ,depends who the landowner is .and what sort of relationship you have with him /her and also what you build into yur lease agreement...i have something built in mine wich i hope would cover me if it ever went to court.. but i am not 100% certain it would.. but having spoken to some lawers who are conversant with this type of agreement they all said its probably as good as i can get...but its neer been proven yet.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katabeachbum Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 OK so break it down for me.. I am slow.. Hes the landowner.. How can he not retain title ?? If you mean the piece of paper all he has to do is go ask for a replacement.. They will give him one.. The only control I could think of is to double up with a high value mortgage / lien on the property.. But then whose to say that todays high value wont be well worth covering in 25 years time, a case of 'heres your 10m back' the titles now free and clear and now I sell it to this speculator for 100m'.. BTW he doesnt need to honor any +30 etc. How do you deprive a landowner of the legal title to the property ?? you agree on it in lease agreement. "Lessee keeps Chanote and Tabien Baan until"..................... agreeing on this, it would be criminal claiming its lost and apply for a new one the insecurity with registered loan is, whats happend with the baht and the value in 20-30 years. you can register 100mill on 10 mill baht property, but how many zeroes have BOT deleted in the meanwhile.? and waht does it take to make "landlord" accept new value of registered loan In Europe some countries have dropped their currency in favor of Euro Nothing is safe in this world So we seek the safer of several solutions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NamKangMan Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Thats to simple If you enter a lease agreement stating you at any point can sell the lease, and new lessor shall be issued and have registered a new 30 year lease(or longer if law allows) or freehold (sold to thai or law changes allowing foreign freehold), and the land lord denies, you do have a simple win in civil court. Since appeal is likely, schedule 5 years to have a court order you can use at land office, and make sure transfer happens before initial lease expires. You dont have a simple win.. As all he has to do is give the land to his kids, or sell it to a 3rd party, and you have a contract with someone who now doesnt own the land.. Go whistle !! Take him to court if you like, but he aint got the land anymore and the new owner is not bound by the previous owners commitment other than that registered at the land office. I was also told by a lawyer once that any one of these 30 year clauses were also weak as the Thai simply had to demonstrate a material change, the lawyers example was as simple as 'my child / grandchild wants to go to uni and I didnt expect that' and any of these future obligations were not enforceable. The way he said it made it sound like anything in the future as very hard to enforce contractually due to this law. Tho my western mindset is what is a contract other than an agreement to perform something in the future ?? If a Thai land holder sold the land, died and left the land to his kids, gifted the land to his kids or family etc etc does the new title owner have to allow you to reside in your house until the 30 year lease is up or can they "reclaim" their land which means you are out because they don't have a contract with you, the previous owner did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivinLOS Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 I was unaware that the leasee could damand and retain the title paper and stop the landowner getting a new one.. I personally suspect that its not much use, considering I have heard of Thais getting other peoples papers out of the land office for small sums, and given the 'hes Thai' your not situation I really dont see much security from that.. All this said tho, my position is I will probably just gift it to my wife.. Sure we might have a acrimonious split, but quite simply she would be very foolish to be confrontational on it as I would be willing to support her anyway to a very healthy degree. Of course, no knowing life but I am sorta in the 'dont care' side now. That would change if it was 100 rai of phuket, but not on 2 or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivinLOS Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 If a Thai land holder sold the land, died and left the land to his kids, gifted the land to his kids or family etc etc does the new title owner have to allow you to reside in your house until the 30 year lease is up or can they "reclaim" their land which means you are out because they don't have a contract with you, the previous owner did? No the lease once recorded on the land title is secure for the period of the lease (max 30) its a real right not a contract / civil right. The new owner cannot break the basic terms of the timescale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaiwanderer Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 No the lease once recorded on the land title is secure for the period of the lease (max 30) its a real right not a contract / civil right. The new owner cannot break the basic terms of the timescale. ........but of course renewals (and other various lease terms) aren't protected (just to re-inforce the point). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaiwanderer Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Buying a property, agree on a price, and the lease is a formality to enable you and your next to control it for an agreed time, or until you can become freehold owner or until you establish a co ltd, or until someone want to lease it for 30 years I dont know how many Phuket lawyers register 30 and 30 years, but at least Sam in International Law office has done it. Dowroong, Phuket town office Absolutely false. The 2nd 30 years is not at all registered even if the lease within which it is mentioned is registered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaiwanderer Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 the first lessee is entitled to 30 years max, or to swap to freehold within the 30 years if law changes/allows another lessee is entitlled to 30 years max which is acceptable by law. In fact 30 years lease can be registered on me today, and another 30 year lease can be registered on my son tomorrow, starting when my 30 years expires. Have to pay taxes for both today and tomorrow tho Acceptable? Probably not. Viably protected when Lessor decides otherwise? Certainly not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjie Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Buying a property, agree on a price, and the lease is a formality to enable you and your next to control it for an agreed time, or until you can become freehold owner or until you establish a co ltd, or until someone want to lease it for 30 years I dont know how many Phuket lawyers register 30 and 30 years, but at least Sam in International Law office has done it. Dowroong, Phuket town office If this were true and allowed by the law, why wouldn't a simple 60 year lease be given? The letter of the law says 30 year leases are the longest available, then I'd assume that to be the case. I'm sure you can make a contract with someone that says they have to give you another 30 years but I don't think you can construe and design lawful contracts whose main goal is to circumnavigate the law and hope it will hold up in court 30 years later. The land officer I'm sure can write whatever he pleases on the back of the Chanote but it doesn't make it law even if he makes a note that a 2nd 30 year lease will be requested at the end of the first 30 years there is just no framework to turn a maximum lease period by law which is of 30 years into 60 years or 90 years etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivinginKata Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 <snip>The 2nd 30 years is not at all registered even if the lease within which it is mentioned is registered. That's the way I understand the registration at the land office. Only a 30 year lease can be legally registered. The 2nd 30 years is only part of a civil agreement between the 2 parties and needs a new registration 30 years later signed by whoever owns the land at that date. This subject has been discussed before of Thaivisa ... And this is one of the best answers I have read from a Thai law firm about 30 year lease .. http://www.bangkoklawonline.com/index.php/article-base-thai-law/2010-most-read/lease-options This says it all A right of renewal of a 30 year lease agreement is not supported by Thai law, other than that it is a private agreement between the parties to the lease agreement. Most good Thai law firms will point out to a potential property investor that there is no guarantee that even one renewal will granted, and if, on what terms, while other lawyers don't point this out as they argue that renewal options are enforceable contractual obligation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivinLOS Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 I totally agree with LiK's interpretation.. The whole thing is slightly odd to western mindsets, as what is a lease if its not simply a contract between 2 parties ?? But my understand of 'why' this is the way it is.. Is that Thai civil / contract law is very weak, and hence to protect beyond the weak system the 'real right' of a lease was designed over and above the contract part. So the 30 years is the solid 'cant break it' part, and anything and everything else, the +30+30, first purchase clauses, insistence of new 30 years, etc are merely civil agreements, and VERY hard to enforce. Secondly if the land owner sells or gives the land to a 3rd party, that 3rd part is not bound by the civil agreement at all, only the 'real right' of the lease. When attempting to 'resell' a lease and instigate a new 30 year part.. All the landowner has to do is vanish for a bit, and there goes your sale.. So surely with you over a barrel like that, he would want a little recompense no ?? I would consider leasing only if with a family member. Otherwise I would take my chances with company ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barka Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 i think these are the 2 options that most buyers should probably take if they decide to BUY... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valentine Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 <snip>The 2nd 30 years is not at all registered even if the lease within which it is mentioned is registered. That's the way I understand the registration at the land office. Only a 30 year lease can be legally registered. The 2nd 30 years is only part of a civil agreement between the 2 parties and needs a new registration 30 years later signed by whoever owns the land at that date. This subject has been discussed before of Thaivisa ... And this is one of the best answers I have read from a Thai law firm about 30 year lease .. http://www.bangkoklawonline.com/index.php/article-base-thai-law/2010-most-read/lease-options This says it all A right of renewal of a 30 year lease agreement is not supported by Thai law, other than that it is a private agreement between the parties to the lease agreement. Most good Thai law firms will point out to a potential property investor that there is no guarantee that even one renewal will granted, and if, on what terms, while other lawyers don't point this out as they argue that renewal options are enforceable contractual obligation. Also interesting is that if the lessee dies "should the lessee die the lease contract will be terminated and the lease rights WILL NOT transfer to the heirs of the lessee’. Either way: if owner dies or has transferred ownership without the new owner specifically accepting the renewal option the renewal option is lost, or if the lessee dies the lease is terminated including the renewal option according to written laws and Supreme Court judgments." With this & the other comments it just reinforces the fact that leases are tenuous at best & as LOS says best to only lease from a family member or as HD said just consider it as a long term rental option which would also be the way to value the property e.g a 20 million Baht home equates to 55,555 per month over 30 years which could be considered expensive now but considered quite cheap in 5 or 10 years. Using this "rental" option means you don't have to move at the whim of the owner & you will have the house you really like but it should never be considered as an investment due to all the lease complexities mentioned on this thread. The other thing about 30 years leases is that no one can predict what your life & financial situation will be in the future & so if you need to sell what return can you expect, not much if any at all. You can't beat freehold property as it will always increase in value over time yet at present it is denied to foreigners in Thailand & so you are left with the other tenuous option of trusting your Thai spouse or family member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barka Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 i agree.. but most freehold are usually condos... and condos are suspect to many changes.. so if you want to buy land and house i think the other 2 options would probably more suitable.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NamKangMan Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 (edited) i think these are the 2 options that most buyers should probably take if they decide to BUY... You mean RENT, don't you? BUYING infers that you OWN, which, as a farang, you CAN'T, so that only leaves what you are doing is RENTING for 30 years. Reading through this thread, it's quite clear to me, as I suspected, that in no way shape or form can a farang ever own any land in Thailand, even using the best loop holes available at the time. For me, the main points are: 1) The best you can get, at Thai law, is a 30 year lease on land which is reasonably strong and enforceable at Thai law (as much as it can be in Thailand). 2) The "+30+30" is not registered, officially, with the Land Office, nor can it be. 3) After 30 years the Thai land owner has to sign another 30 year lease for registration at the Land Office but there is a very high probability he will want more money. 4) If the Thai land owner sells the land or gifts the land, any civil agreement you had attanched to your lease is void because there is a new Thai land owner. 5) The Thai land owner is not obliged to sign a new 30 year lease if you want to sell your property within your 30 year lease. Does that about sum it up? To be honest, I'm still looking for the positives to getting into property here. Possibly, it could shield you from rent rising up over the next 30 years, but with the oversupply of accommodation coming to the island, I can only see rents going down. There may be the usual argument "but rent is dead money." In general, this can be true, but in Thailand you do not get to keep the capital gain your house AND LAND has made over the long term investment because the land is not yours, so, you will not see the profits from it's growth. Remember - THE HOUSE DEPRECIATES - THE LAND APPRECIATES (in general). That really only leaves you a 30 year old house to sell and, if you want to still remain in your house after 30 years, you have to go and pay the Thai land owner again. This is where I see this part of the thread being directly related to the OP. Prices on Phuket are high, and IMO will get higher, HOWEVER, I don't see the farang making any profit unless he has a very agreable Thai land owner and I can only imagine they are few and far between. Would you not be better off renting and putting your 4,5,6,7,8 etc million baht equivilant in your bank back home and having the interest pay your rent each month? A simple calculation: 8 million baht = $266,666AUD (Australian dollars at 30 baht to $1AUD) $266,666 x 5.5% (interest per annum - you can get more, but I am being conservative) = $14,666AUD $14,666AUD x 30 (to get baht equivilat) = 439,998 baht (per year in interest) 439,998 baht / 12 months = 36,666 baht a month Now, you may have to pay some tax and fees so let's say you get 30,000 baht a month in interest. 30,000 baht rents quite a nice place - not a mansion, but a nice place in a good area. Also, as you are renting, you have the freedom to move areas, downsize etc etc. I understand your $266,666 is depreciating due to inflation, but so is your house because it's only the land that is appreciating, not your bricks and motar, which is depreciating and most likely in need of repair or renovation (not withstanding it was built with poor workmanship). This basically leaves you both in the same position after 30 years but renting offers more freedom, zero chance of being dispossesed, being killed, going to Court etc. With so many farang coming here and getting into property, can some of you tell me why you made the decision that you did because I'm just not seeing "the math" to it and I do not say this to offend anyone. I am sure there are many good reasons to purchase. Eg: I can imagine a lot of the property has been bought with "black money." Not necessarily the proceeds of crime, but maybe tax evasion etc. No probs, in that case, I understand your reasons for purchase. Am I missing something???? (Yes, I know, I am not a rocket scientist) :) Edited January 4, 2011 by NamKangMan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macahoom Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 With so many farang coming here and getting into property, can some of you tell me why you made the decision that you did because I'm just not seeing "the math" to it and I do not say this to offend anyone. I am sure there are many good reasons to purchase. Eg: I can imagine a lot of the property has been bought with "black money." Not necessarily the proceeds of crime, but maybe tax evasion etc. No probs, in that case, I understand your reasons for purchase. Am I missing something???? (Yes, I know, I am not a rocket scientist) :) To answer your question, NamKangMan: “The math” doesn't come into it for me. Whatever house I live in is, and always has been, for as long as I can remember, a very, very important part of my life. I would be very unhappy and uncomfortable living in a house that was owned and/or designed by someone else. I like a house to be designed to suit me, and I like to know I can modify it in any way I choose. So, renting is not for me – not interested. Of course I realise I am lucky to be financially able to build a house that suits me, and that is what I have done. I, and no one else, knows if it will turn out to be a good investment, but that is not why I built it. I built it to live in and enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now