domomc Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Does this mean it will be tit for tat globally and Thai foreign investment will cease, even be terminated? No Thai companies buying up steel mills in the UK, sky scrapers in HK, farm land in NZ...wake up please, this is 2012. Roll on 2015 and reality when Thailand embraces (or not?) the ASEAN community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post notime Posted March 12, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted March 12, 2012 Yeah right, foreigners own 100 milion of rais that is 1/3 of Thailand. Considering that 1/3 of Thailand or more are mountains, jungles, national parks, rivers, lakes, roads and other land hold by the government (King?) that would mean that about half of Thailand's arable/settle-able land is owned by foreigners. And in fact you can see this phenomenon when you travel across the country. These pesky, slimy, alien foreigners sitting on their land everywhere and the poor Thais have nowhere to live, or even stand on. Some of them are already standing on one foot only with another one in the air. We all know that these foreigners buy on average 1 rai of land for the needs of their house (and wife). And we all know that there are 100 million foreigners in Thailand so all the calculations are spot on. Actually there are more since a big number actually bought condos. 300 million? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nisa Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 OMG Time to move to Myanmar, Vietnam, Malaysia, or Cambodia, who all encourage foreign devils to invest in land. Foreigners are not allowed to own land in Vietnam ... not to mention it is a communist country where people don't hold the title to land and are simply afforded the right to use. Cambodia is not much different than Thailand and land ownership of foreigners is restricted. As well, Laos, Philippines, Indonesia and Singapore all restrict land ownership of foreigners. As for Burma / Myanmar ... not sure of the laws there. You can however buy land in Malaysia but not in all areas and it has to be worth more than 250,000 Ringgit (approx. $85,000) and you still need government approval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mayday49 Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 CRACK ,smoke in the Man I mean CRACK down on the Land. I came here to grow Turnips and show my Thai brother that rice is nice, if you want to stay Broke on the land...I am trying to grow 2 rai of saffron .....you will never see success with a closed mind such Mr.Ch.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Time Traveller Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Thaksin is a foreigner. Montenegrin I believe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goober Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 'Sriracha called for a limit on land owned by foreign residents and said the land tax should be hiked to promote the use of land, although doing this might be difficult, as the rich would object.' The rich would object? This is the most terrifying part of the story and shows what controls this place, money. Guess that proves again that the rich benefit whilst the poor get poorer in Thailand. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Time Traveller Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I'm sure the Auditor General is referring to land which we - non Thais - call the nations of Laos and Cambodia. Then yes, foreigners do own 30% of Thailand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddy3943 Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Land owned by a Thai spouse is still a Thai owned land and the children of that couple are also "future generation". So what is this apparently far underdeveloped general talking about? It is really a non-issue. After the registration the land is still not owned by a foreigner and is also still available for Thai citizens. The "brilliant" speaker couldn't mention other deficits than these untrue facts. So, I think that the real reason is the envy that in many cases poor, sometimes bar girls, get instantly "rich" by marrying a foreigner. And this is something that the "non-smilers" in the LOS absolutely try to prevent. Their upper class has to stay clean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reasonableman Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 (edited) Nisa, many westerners legally married (registered their marriage) the Thai woman they love and now have children. The husbands are permanent residents of Thailand, and have been for more than a decade. Because they married a westerner, their Thai wives can no longer buy land. The children, all Thai citizens, cannot live in a normal home on land owned by their parents, and which can be passed to them. If the parents never married, the "wife" (de facto) can still buy land, but the legal status of the kids is unclear. So, foreign husband with Thai wife, and their Thai children, are deprived of their right to own land and a home on that land, and are forced to live a second-class life in a condo with no garden for kids to play in and have a normal childhood. This is grossly unfair and discriminatory towards Thais. It should be unconstitutional, and probably is, to discriminate in this way against citizens of one's own country, IMO. Second class Citizens again.... Again??? Dont you mean still!!!! Who are second class citizen .. non-citizens? Edited March 12, 2012 by Reasonableman 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Bosse137 Posted March 12, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted March 12, 2012 How about a crack down on stupid officials?! 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayman Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Nisa, many westerners legally married (registered their marriage) the Thai woman they love and now have children. The husbands are permanent residents of Thailand, and have been for more than a decade. Because they married a westerner, their Thai wives can no longer buy land. The children, all Thai citizens, cannot live in a normal home on land owned by their parents, and which can be passed to them. If the parents never married, the "wife" (de facto) can still buy land, but the legal status of the kids is unclear. So, foreign husband with Thai wife, and their Thai children, are deprived of their right to own land and a home on that land, and are forced to live a second-class life in a condo with no garden for kids to play in and have a normal childhood. This is grossly unfair and discriminatory towards Thais. It should be unconstitutional to discriminate in this way against citizens of one's own country, IMO. I don't know if this is 100% correct. I'm married and when we bought this house I had to sign papers that were submitted to the land office when the land deed was changed over to my wife's name stating that all the money used to purchase the land was hers and I have no claim to it. Her name is listed as the owner of the land. At the same time we also registered a 30 year lease that I have on the land (small taxes paid) so my name as well is listed on the land dead and the lease holder. She clearly owns the land but cannot go selling it while I hold a lease on the land. From what I've been told, no lease in Thailand is valid for more than 1 year UNLESS it's registered at the land office. When you register the lease you also pay the taxes on the lease payments for the entire lease term (in this case 30 years). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reasonableman Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 So its not in your name. If she decides to divorce you, what rights do you have? And i was of the impression that the 30-year lease loophole was a shaky one legally, being seen as a backdoor way to control land via a proxy. Nisa, many westerners legally married (registered their marriage) the Thai woman they love and now have children. The husbands are permanent residents of Thailand, and have been for more than a decade. Because they married a westerner, their Thai wives can no longer buy land. The children, all Thai citizens, cannot live in a normal home on land owned by their parents, and which can be passed to them. If the parents never married, the "wife" (de facto) can still buy land, but the legal status of the kids is unclear. So, foreign husband with Thai wife, and their Thai children, are deprived of their right to own land and a home on that land, and are forced to live a second-class life in a condo with no garden for kids to play in and have a normal childhood. This is grossly unfair and discriminatory towards Thais. It should be unconstitutional to discriminate in this way against citizens of one's own country, IMO. I don't know if this is 100% correct. I'm married and when we bought this house I had to sign papers that were submitted to the land office when the land deed was changed over to my wife's name stating that all the money used to purchase the land was hers and I have no claim to it. Her name is listed as the owner of the land. At the same time we also registered a 30 year lease that I have on the land (small taxes paid) so my name as well is listed on the land dead and the lease holder. She clearly owns the land but cannot go selling it while I hold a lease on the land. From what I've been told, no lease in Thailand is valid for more than 1 year UNLESS it's registered at the land office. When you register the lease you also pay the taxes on the lease payments for the entire lease term (in this case 30 years). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darhut Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Not sure what people are complaining about, this is great it keeps Thailand a cheap place to visit and live. The more it is run like a Three Stoogers movie the longer it will take for them to be taken seriously on the world stage and will remain behind those smart nations like those dam_n Singaporeans (smart little buggers). We don't want smart people investing in Thailand now do we. Disclaimer: I own a house here but no land ( my wife owns the land and as per law had to sign legal document to say it was her money to purchase land). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayman Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 So its not in your name. If she decides to divorce you, what rights do you have? And i was of the impression that the 30-year lease loophole was a shaky one legally, being seen as a backdoor way to control land via a proxy. Nisa, many westerners legally married (registered their marriage) the Thai woman they love and now have children. The husbands are permanent residents of Thailand, and have been for more than a decade. Because they married a westerner, their Thai wives can no longer buy land. The children, all Thai citizens, cannot live in a normal home on land owned by their parents, and which can be passed to them. If the parents never married, the "wife" (de facto) can still buy land, but the legal status of the kids is unclear. So, foreign husband with Thai wife, and their Thai children, are deprived of their right to own land and a home on that land, and are forced to live a second-class life in a condo with no garden for kids to play in and have a normal childhood. This is grossly unfair and discriminatory towards Thais. It should be unconstitutional to discriminate in this way against citizens of one's own country, IMO. I don't know if this is 100% correct. I'm married and when we bought this house I had to sign papers that were submitted to the land office when the land deed was changed over to my wife's name stating that all the money used to purchase the land was hers and I have no claim to it. Her name is listed as the owner of the land. At the same time we also registered a 30 year lease that I have on the land (small taxes paid) so my name as well is listed on the land dead and the lease holder. She clearly owns the land but cannot go selling it while I hold a lease on the land. From what I've been told, no lease in Thailand is valid for more than 1 year UNLESS it's registered at the land office. When you register the lease you also pay the taxes on the lease payments for the entire lease term (in this case 30 years). Of course it's not in my name. I'm a foreigner and we can't own land. My point is that you stated that she couldn't either as she is married to a foreigner and that our kids would have to live in a condo without a yard which I believe to be a grossly incorrect statement. As for what happens if she divorces me? I have a 30 year lease on the land which gives me rights to stay here for 30 years. She can't sell the land and I have said my name is on the land dead as the lien holder. The lease is registered and the taxes paid at the land office. Not sure how this is a loophole as it's totally legal. Before the 30 years are up both my kids will be of legal age to take over legal ownership of the land and house. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayman Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Not sure what people are complaining about, this is great it keeps Thailand a cheap place to visit and live. The more it is run like a Three Stoogers movie the longer it will take for them to be taken seriously on the world stage and will remain behind those smart nations like those dam_n Singaporeans (smart little buggers). We don't want smart people investing in Thailand now do we. Disclaimer: I own a house here but no land ( my wife owns the land and as per law had to sign legal document to say it was her money to purchase land). Yes.. I did the same thing as you. OT- That avatar you are using is one I used to use here and received a stern warning from mods and it was forcefully removed for being too racy. Just fyi... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Gary Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 My wife and I have been together for 27 years. When we first met she had an old house on 1 Rai of land that was left to her when her mother died. Over the years we have now 3 houses on the block paid for by her and me. We have been officially married for 24 years(in Australia) but she has maintained her maiden name here in Thailand so as she can still own and buy land. This is legal and will do this forever. She worked in Aussie with me for 15 years and invested her money she made as well as mine in our houses etc. I have no legal claim to our properties and nowhere on any title is my name so they cant take away her land by saying its owned by a Falang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai at Heart Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Wouldn't it better to stop this nominee horse shit and know who actually owned the land? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airconsult Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 *Yawn* He's early this year.... last year as "Land Inspector" he claimed Foreigners owned 90% of Phuket (July 2nd). Though some obscure twist in reality he has moved on to being auditor-general and he's still on with his nationalistic, xenophobic rant The thing is, the educated people realise that direct land ownership by foreigners would actually bring much more wealth into the Kingdom - and the land doesn't disappear, it's used to create jobs for Thai people, ask the Swiss, ask the Australians - it worked out pretty well for them. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reasonableman Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Thanks for that. I sincerely hope the arrangement is secure and works out as described. I must be more cynical about the likely enforcement of foreigners' legal rights than you are. ;-) I also feel very strongly that the law as it now stands is racist and xenophobic, and discriminates against foreigners who married out of love, who have a Thai family, and whose primary motivation to marry was not merely access to Thai land. It seems that Thais want the money, but not the husband that comes with it. Good luck! So its not in your name. If she decides to divorce you, what rights do you have? And i was of the impression that the 30-year lease loophole was a shaky one legally, being seen as a backdoor way to control land via a proxy. Nisa, many westerners legally married (registered their marriage) the Thai woman they love and now have children. The husbands are permanent residents of Thailand, and have been for more than a decade. Because they married a westerner, their Thai wives can no longer buy land. The children, all Thai citizens, cannot live in a normal home on land owned by their parents, and which can be passed to them. If the parents never married, the "wife" (de facto) can still buy land, but the legal status of the kids is unclear. So, foreign husband with Thai wife, and their Thai children, are deprived of their right to own land and a home on that land, and are forced to live a second-class life in a condo with no garden for kids to play in and have a normal childhood. This is grossly unfair and discriminatory towards Thais. It should be unconstitutional to discriminate in this way against citizens of one's own country, IMO. I don't know if this is 100% correct. I'm married and when we bought this house I had to sign papers that were submitted to the land office when the land deed was changed over to my wife's name stating that all the money used to purchase the land was hers and I have no claim to it. Her name is listed as the owner of the land. At the same time we also registered a 30 year lease that I have on the land (small taxes paid) so my name as well is listed on the land dead and the lease holder. She clearly owns the land but cannot go selling it while I hold a lease on the land. From what I've been told, no lease in Thailand is valid for more than 1 year UNLESS it's registered at the land office. When you register the lease you also pay the taxes on the lease payments for the entire lease term (in this case 30 years). Of course it's not in my name. I'm a foreigner and we can't own land. My point is that you stated that she couldn't either as she is married to a foreigner and that our kids would have to live in a condo without a yard which I believe to be a grossly incorrect statement. As for what happens if she divorces me? I have a 30 year lease on the land which gives me rights to stay here for 30 years. She can't sell the land and I have said my name is on the land dead as the lien holder. The lease is registered and the taxes paid at the land office. Not sure how this is a loophole as it's totally legal. Before the 30 years are up both my kids will be of legal age to take over legal ownership of the land and house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehaigh Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 'Thai land is owned by foreigners, mostly through their Thai spouses' doesn't that mean the Thai spose owns the land? i, like all farangs, had to sign a note at the land office to say i had no claim on my wife's land so why is the government complaining? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chooka Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 How interesting. Are they afraid they going to take Pattaya or Phuket to other countries, leaving a big whole in the country with just black matter? Maybe it is about time hat Thais will lose their right on landownership abroad too. It will teach them a lesson. Never mind, nothing will happen. Lay down for a few weeks, and the boys in charge have filled their pockets and go back to sleep. My wife owns 3 properties, house and land in Melbourne, Australia and she can buy as much as she wants (funds permitting) these are used for rental income and all the money is seeping out of Australia and straight into the Thai economy (aprox 40K AUD per annum) via Australian bank accounts and yes she doe's pay Aussie taxes, as a foreign investor which are lower. The only restrictions Australia has on foriegn land ownership is that you must develop the property within a given time frame. This regulation came about because when new areas were being opened up and zoned residential foriegners (mostly chinese) were buying up vast amounts of land and sitting on it for up to 20+ years for investments which subsequently stalled the the suburbs from going ahead as planned. Australia encourages foreign land a property development because it is a boost to the economy and provides jobs. I do not know what Thailand is so afraid of when it comes to foriegn property investment or the husband and father paying for the little piece of land the family home sits on, the land which will remain in Thai hands. Maybe they know that the land will eventually end up in the hands of the 1,000's of educated luk krueung kids. What is going to happen in 10 to 20 yrs is there going to be a crackdown on these kids owning land in Thailand. (excluding the thai/chinese sect) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post sirchai Posted March 12, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted March 12, 2012 i personally belief a crackdown on Thai ignorance would be a better decision. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airconsult Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Thanks for that. I sincerely hope the arrangement is secure and works out as described. I must be more cynical about the likely enforcement of foreigners' legal rights than you are. ;-) I also feel very strongly that the law as it now stands is racist and xenophobic, and discriminates against foreigners who married out of love, who have a Thai family, and whose primary motivation to marry was not merely access to Thai land. It seems that Thais want the money, but not the husband that comes with it. Good luck! Well picked - it is much easier for a foreign wife married to a thai man to become a permanent resident and citizen. They are only afraid of foreign men........ Though the land ownership laws apply to both genders of the species..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FOODLOVER Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Round eyes coming to get you, muahahaha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markaew Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 rrrggghhh It was just an hour ago that I decided to sell my house here in the US and move to Saraburi. Brother in law can find a little place and move Grandma in with a couple kids who need a life. Now I wonder where this leaves me...... Big mistake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nisa Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) Second class Citizens again.... Again??? Dont you mean still!!!! Who are second class citizen .. non-citizens? Nisa, many westerners legally married (registered their marriage) the Thai woman they love and now have children. The husbands are permanent residents of Thailand, and have been for more than a decade. Because they married a westerner, their Thai wives can no longer buy land. The children, all Thai citizens, cannot live in a normal home on land owned by their parents, and which can be passed to them. If the parents never married, the "wife" (de facto) can still buy land, but the legal status of the kids is unclear. So, foreign husband with Thai wife, and their Thai children, are deprived of their right to own land and a home on that land, and are forced to live a second-class life in a condo with no garden for kids to play in and have a normal childhood. This is grossly unfair and discriminatory towards Thais. It should be unconstitutional, and probably is, to discriminate in this way against citizens of one's own country, IMO. What you are saying is 100% false from your implying being married makes you a permanent residency (which isn't a citizenship let even provide you the right to work. It is also expensive and only available to a limited number of people a year) as well as your claims that a Thai women marrying a Farang in any way shape or form limits (let alone denies) her the right to buy property or own a house .... in fact the opposite is often true and without her marriage to a farang she might not be able to own a house and raise her family in that house with a yard. Edited March 13, 2012 by Nisa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markaew Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Second class Citizens again.... Second class citizen implys that we are within the culture which is untrue. We are merely bystanders or onlookers. Thais have no concern over foreigners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reasonableman Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 You're not serious. Not another one... rrrggghhh It was just an hour ago that I decided to sell my house here in the US and move to Saraburi. Brother in law can find a little place and move Grandma in with a couple kids who need a life. Now I wonder where this leaves me...... Big mistake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MILT Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 It's the foreigners that are screwing this country up! Sitting in their humble abode devising ways to conquer and pillage. Paranoia will destroy ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markaew Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 As a rule, I try to keep out of politics in my host country of 20 years, but here is an issue that requires action. I believe it is time for us Thaivisa readers/contributors to lobby political representatives in our various homelands for a cause about which many of us feel passionate. The cause is reciprocal rights for property ownership. If a Thai may own property, to a reasonable extent, in our homeland, then we expect the same right in Thailand. Write to your political representatives in your various homelands to address this huge injustice. Ambassadors, Bundestag delegates, MP's, etc, but really.... this is quite unacceptable. I am not talking about the right to buy 1000 rai of prime farmland, but at least the right to own a personal residential property in one's own name, especially if a Thai family is involved I am quite certain that this cause will gain traction if enough TV readers spend 20 minutes doing what NEEDS to be done. This is a great idea but you need an automatic system for people to use. Click-and-fax or click-and-mail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.bc523c85a8d558dbc282dca7a2e602c9.jpg)
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