Word Association (2024)

[oldsailor35]

Any nation which has nationals who live in and wish to buy residential land in Thailand but are banned from doing so, should reciprocate and not allow Thais to buy land in their country. I know of at least 4 Thai owned blocks of land on the Queensland coast, two owned by members of the last Thai government and family.

[tw25rw]

I have always thought we shouldn't allow anyone to buy our land if they weren't entitled to live on it.

I actually think the Thai law is a good one, but could be lossened under certain circumstances and with condition.

[NewlyMintedThai]

Any nation which has nationals who live in and wish to buy residential land in Thailand but are banned from doing so, should reciprocate and not allow Thais to buy land in their country. I know of at least 4 Thai owned blocks of land on the Queensland coast, two owned by members of the last Thai government and family.

I bet the Australians who sold those properties to the Thais would disagree with you.

[h90]

Well there is low risk that the Thais will buy houses in the European mountains till the Europeans can't finance to buy land themself.

But there is the risk that rich foreigner buy all nice places in Thailand till the Thais can't buy any land anymore.

So it is necessary.

[David48]

oldsailor35 is correct, maybe QLD (Australia) are about to be invaded by a mass of Thais, flush with their new wealth of the minimum wage boosted to 300 Baht ($8.50) a day snapping up our prized real estate.

We must act now before it's too late.

oldsailor35 ... be our leading light and shine from the highest peak and let us know how we can right this wrong!

Wait a minute ... bugger it ... I'm off for a beer ...

[samran]

Any nation which has nationals who live in and wish to buy residential land in Thailand but are banned from doing so, should reciprocate and not allow Thais to buy land in their country. I know of at least 4 Thai owned blocks of land on the Queensland coast, two owned by members of the last Thai government and family.

I bet the Australians who sold those properties to the Thais would disagree with you.

indeed.

If Thailand says "We will shoot ourselves in our feet" should Australia do the same thing?

Each country should determine what is in its best interests. If the Thai people feel uncomfortable with foreign land ownership, then you'd have to argue it is their democratic right.

Restrictions on foreign ownership for land are clearly not in Australia's national interests, so why should we play tit for tat?

[GuestHouse]

You need to be careful with this Tit for Tat thing, before you know it Thailand will be insisting that Farangland relax their visa laws and allow Thailand to export their misfits and malcontents to your own country to live there on extended vacation and/or education visas.

[submaniac]

This entire argument is silly. There are alot of countries that do not allow non-citizens to own real estate. For example, Mexico which has a whole lotta coastline and alot of American citizens who would love to buy there. If we want to reciprocate we can talk about Thailand making it just as hard for foreigners to enter the country as it is difficult for Thais to enter the United States and Britain.

[samran]

Indeed Subby.

I'm sure old sailor would appriciate the implementation of the Australian immigration system where EVERY foreigner needs a visa to enter the country.

I do of course wait now for the predictable replies from the anti-immigrant immigrants on refugee's etcm

[robblok]

This entire argument is silly. There are alot of countries that do not allow non-citizens to own real estate. For example, Mexico which has a whole lotta coastline and alot of American citizens who would love to buy there. If we want to reciprocate we can talk about Thailand making it just as hard for foreigners to enter the country as it is difficult for Thais to enter the United States and Britain.

Indeed Subby.

I'm sure old sailor would appriciate the implementation of the Australian immigration system where EVERY foreigner needs a visa to enter the country.

I do of course wait now for the predictable replies from the anti-immigrant immigrants on refugee's etcm

I am sure that I and many like me rather have a harder time getting in and then getting all the benefits then getting in easy and always being regarded as second class without full rights.

I have once gotten an (now ex) wife into the Netherlands and it was a slow procedure but once she was in she was in and got all rights normal people got. If anything she was getting more rights (noticed that during the divorce ).

I for one would love it if they would ban Thais for owning land abroad as a tit for tat. However i think it would never happen and it would not affect the Thais enough to change anything here. But for purely a revenge motive it is fun.

[slipperx]

Well there is low risk that the Thais will buy houses in the European mountains till the Europeans can't finance to buy land themself.

But there is the risk that rich foreigner buy all nice places in Thailand till the Thais can't buy any land anymore.

So it is necessary.

What utter codswallop. The wealthy Thais have more disposable income to buy all the best places first and also the contacts to do it. The law is there to protect the rich and wealthy here not to protect the poor and ensure they can buy property.

Edited March 29, 2012 by slipperx

[David48]

Can we please refer to the OP's question and not tangent off to discussing some holiday Alps in Europe please?

OK .. seriously now folks ...

I must admit that I would love that a foreign entity, you, me and the dog named blue could own, in our own names a little slice of heaven here.

Just the basic stuff ... a house, a small hobby farm, say, say no bigger then 10 Rai.

One property per related entity only.

I understand that oldsailor35 is angry ... in Australia it is a very non-stratified Culture and essentially everyone is treated equal and he is alluding to equal rights being reciprocated.

But, as we all know, that's life in Thailand ... oft repeated expression ... their country, their rules.

For me, the enjoyment of my time spent in the Kingdom, far outweigh the collective weight of the negatives here.

Edited March 29, 2012 by David48

[bendix]

What an idiotic proposition.

As samran rightly points out it is every nation's sovereign right to decide what is in its best interests, and land rights are a quintessential part of that. It is obvious why there are limitations on foreigners owning Thai land. Thailand is a relatively poor country and freeing up land acquisition rights for cash rich foreigners would push up prices and would potentially leave relatively poor Thai people at a huge disadvantage.

I am fully supportive of the Thailand's land ownership for foreigners law. It is fair and equitable to everyone, because it IS, infact, possible for foreigners to acquire land here. Not easy for sure and it involves demonstrating significant personal and financial commitment to Thailand plus it's limited to one rai for use as a home, but it is possible.

If other countries - usually much richer - make it possible for Thais to own land there, than that is their sovereign right too.

[bendix]

I must admit that I would love that a foreign entity, you, me and the dog named blue could own, in our own names a little slice of heaven here.

Just the basic stuff ... a house, a small hobby farm, say, say no bigger then 10 Rai.

One property per related entity only.

.

You can. One rai for residential use, subject to you investing 40m baht in government bonds or a related investment, and subject to the relevant minister's approval.

That most foreigners don't want to make that investment - or can't - is not the Thai government's fault.

[GreenSnapper]

You need to be careful with this Tit for Tat thing, before you know it Thailand will be insisting that Farangland relax their visa laws and allow Thailand to export their misfits and malcontents to your own country to live there on extended vacation and/or education visas.

Farangland has already a much bigger number of misfits and malcontents from all over the world.

Often the same people who rage about the "misfits" in Thailand are the strongest pro-immigration activists back home.

PC bigotry at its best.

[1bbcd5]

Thanks for this post guys I was going through the same thing.

[h90]

Well there is low risk that the Thais will buy houses in the European mountains till the Europeans can't finance to buy land themself.

But there is the risk that rich foreigner buy all nice places in Thailand till the Thais can't buy any land anymore.

So it is necessary.

What utter codswallop. The wealthy Thais have more disposable income to buy all the best places first and also the contacts to do it. The law is there to protect the rich and wealthy here not to protect the poor and ensure they can buy property.

A wealthy Thai does not build 20 villas on the beach.

But 20 foreigners do it.....Look at the nicer places full with villas from Foreigner and not from wealthy Thais.

[robblok]

What an idiotic proposition.

As samran rightly points out it is every nation's sovereign right to decide what is in its best interests, and land rights are a quintessential part of that. It is obvious why there are limitations on foreigners owning Thai land. Thailand is a relatively poor country and freeing up land acquisition rights for cash rich foreigners would push up prices and would potentially leave relatively poor Thai people at a huge disadvantage.

I am fully supportive of the Thailand's land ownership for foreigners law. It is fair and equitable to everyone, because it IS, infact, possible for foreigners to acquire land here. Not easy for sure and it involves demonstrating significant personal and financial commitment to Thailand plus it's limited to one rai for use as a home, but it is possible.

If other countries - usually much richer - make it possible for Thais to own land there, than that is their sovereign right too.

I dont agree at all, the wealthy Thais can buy it all already, the foreigners would not make much of an impact if it was limited to one rai. And 40 million baht is a lot of money for a lot of people including me. I know for someone like you its probably nothing.

So if our respective governments would block Thai landownership so that it helps their own in Thailand it would be good. Fat chance that it will ever happen but following your reasoning it could happen if they decide its in the best interest of their subjects in other countries to be able to own land.

Already a lot of land is owned by foreigners by proxy so i doubt it would have a big impact if it was limited to a rai. It would however make it a lot safer for foreigners to own land then. And make a lot of bar girls sad.

I doubt it will ever happen but i can hope for it. I know i would feel a lot better if i could build a house on a rai of land and not have to worry what will happen if my partner ever dies or if we break up.

[bendix]

.

I know i would feel a lot better if i could build a house on a rai of land and not have to worry what will happen if my partner ever dies or if we break up.

A usufruct is your friend.

[PattayaParent]

Any nation which has nationals who live in and wish to buy residential land in Thailand but are banned from doing so, should reciprocate and not allow Thais to buy land in their country. I know of at least 4 Thai owned blocks of land on the Queensland coast, two owned by members of the last Thai government and family.

I bet the Australians who sold those properties to the Thais would disagree with you.

If it was on the Queensland coast it was probably owned by Japanese, not Australians.

[NanLaew]

I must admit that I would love that a foreign entity, you, me and the dog named blue could own, in our own names a little slice of heaven here.

Just the basic stuff ... a house, a small hobby farm, say, say no bigger then 10 Rai.

One property per related entity only.

.

You can. One rai for residential use, subject to you investing 40m baht in government bonds or a related investment, and subject to the relevant minister's approval.

That most foreigners don't want to make that investment - or can't - is not the Thai government's fault.

Ah yes... the all-important 'relevant minister's approval'.

I think this has been done to death already in that there's not a lot of evidence out there that any foreigner who chose this path and invested the 40 million has ever, EVER managed to get the deal signed off by the Thai government.

But back on topic; I agree with preventing foreigners buying land in ANY country where they have no direct ties of nationality. That way the cave next door to my clan cave in Alba can never have undesirable foreigners living in it. As for Thailand, making sure that only Thai's can own the land doesn't guarantee bugger all. Think of it, the moobahn karaoke bar or casino or short-time hotel or 24-hour motorbike repair shop (panel beating between 6am and 6pm ONLY) has to be located SOMEWHERE, no?

Edited March 29, 2012 by NanLaew

[robblok]

.

I know i would feel a lot better if i could build a house on a rai of land and not have to worry what will happen if my partner ever dies or if we break up.

A usufruct is your friend.

Will look into it, thanks.

[submaniac]

1. Foreigners CAN own condominiums and as Bendix has said foreigners CAN own land under certain circumstances so it's not like the Thai government has said it is impossible for foreigners to make roots in Thailand

2. If you want to buy land become a citizen, as others (such as NewlymintedThai) have done;

3. No doubt one of the reasons for desiring purchasing land is because it is so cheap that even a lower to middle class person from Falangland could be able to afford large chunks of land;

4. If foreign ownership was allowed, what makes any of you think you could afford to buy land anymore? If the doors were open on foreign ownership, then the Saudis, the Chinese or the Russians would be buying up the land, not necessarily English speaking Falang.

[robblok]

1. Foreigners CAN own condominiums and as Bendix has said foreigners CAN own land under certain circumstances so it's not like the Thai government has said it is impossible for foreigners to make roots in Thailand

2. If you want to buy land become a citizen, as others (such as NewlymintedThai) have done;

3. No doubt one of the reasons for desiring purchasing land is because it is so cheap that even a lower to middle class person from Falangland could be able to afford large chunks of land;

4. If foreign ownership was allowed, what makes any of you think you could afford to buy land anymore? If the doors were open on foreign ownership, then the Saudis, the Chinese or the Russians would be buying up the land, not necessarily English speaking Falang.

I think most people here are talking about a rai of land to live on. Not buying up all the land around here. To be fair i think its mostly about building a house somewhere.

[bendix]

I think most people here are talking about a rai of land to live on. Not buying up all the land around here. To be fair i think its mostly about building a house somewhere.

But it's a good point he rises. If there was universal right to buy Thai land, it would be seized by foreigners and the price would soar excluding the locals and - frankly - the ne'erdowell farangs who complain so bitterly they can't own land.

The Thai government has it perfectly balanced. We can own condos. We can enjoy land for the rest of our lives without owning it directly - usufruct - and if we are deadly serious about owning Thai land we can become citizens or prove our commitment by owning a land on the 40m investment rule.

I can't see that we have anything to complain about.

[bunta71]

Well there is low risk that the Thais will buy houses in the European mountains till the Europeans can't finance to buy land themself.

But there is the risk that rich foreigner buy all nice places in Thailand till the Thais can't buy any land anymore.

So it is necessary.

The recent propaganda about Falangs owning literally one third of thailand is absurd and only feeds this paranoia. If a falang was allowed to own a small plot and house after maybe 5 years of continual living in and contributing to the Thai economy it would also improve the local economy...jobs. No one here is asking to own all of Thailand, just simply my own home. And yes I would if I could not allow people to own property in my country if the rights are not reciprocal. I think your argument is absurd zenophobia....

[h90]

Well there is low risk that the Thais will buy houses in the European mountains till the Europeans can't finance to buy land themself.

But there is the risk that rich foreigner buy all nice places in Thailand till the Thais can't buy any land anymore.

So it is necessary.

The recent propaganda about Falangs owning literally one third of thailand is absurd and only feeds this paranoia. If a falang was allowed to own a small plot and house after maybe 5 years of continual living in and contributing to the Thai economy it would also improve the local economy...jobs. No one here is asking to own all of Thailand, just simply my own home. And yes I would if I could not allow people to own property in my country if the rights are not reciprocal. I think your argument is absurd zenophobia....

Recently I drove around in Chumphon-Ranong area....all the lovely spots have already a Farang house and a couple even put their flag (Germans) on the house.

1/3...if in sqm than it is absurd. If in value than I believe it. All the resorts, industrial estates on the best spots. But it includes Singapore-Chinese, Japanese etc etc.

I think there is already the possibility to lease land for long time. That should be enough.

[David48]

I think most people here are talking about a rai of land to live on. Not buying up all the land around here. To be fair i think its mostly about building a house somewhere.

But it's a good point he rises. If there was universal right to buy Thai land, it would be seized by foreigners and the price would soar excluding the locals and - frankly - the ne'erdowell farangs who complain so bitterly they can't own land.

The Thai government has it perfectly balanced. We can own condos. We can enjoy land for the rest of our lives without owning it directly - usufruct - and if we are deadly serious about owning Thai land we can become citizens or prove our commitment by owning a land on the 40m investment rule.

I can't see that we have anything to complain about.

Curious to know what your plan is?

Do you plan to eventually buy a property in Thailand?

What is the plan to do so?

[robblok]

I think most people here are talking about a rai of land to live on. Not buying up all the land around here. To be fair i think its mostly about building a house somewhere.

But it's a good point he rises. If there was universal right to buy Thai land, it would be seized by foreigners and the price would soar excluding the locals and - frankly - the ne'erdowell farangs who complain so bitterly they can't own land.

The Thai government has it perfectly balanced. We can own condos. We can enjoy land for the rest of our lives without owning it directly - usufruct - and if we are deadly serious about owning Thai land we can become citizens or prove our commitment by owning a land on the 40m investment rule.

I can't see that we have anything to complain about.

Bendix lets agree to disagree. I do agree however that opening the land restrictions 100% would not be a good idea. However a rai of land for a house would not impact the whole thing that much.

A condo isnt for everyone you know, i have been born and raised in a village and perfer a house over a condo. The usurfrruct sounds like a good idea that i will look into a bit more. Though i did hear its impossible to do between husband and wife.

[bendix]

I think most people here are talking about a rai of land to live on. Not buying up all the land around here. To be fair i think its mostly about building a house somewhere.

But it's a good point he rises. If there was universal right to buy Thai land, it would be seized by foreigners and the price would soar excluding the locals and - frankly - the ne'erdowell farangs who complain so bitterly they can't own land.

The Thai government has it perfectly balanced. We can own condos. We can enjoy land for the rest of our lives without owning it directly - usufruct - and if we are deadly serious about owning Thai land we can become citizens or prove our commitment by owning a land on the 40m investment rule.

I can't see that we have anything to complain about.

Bendix lets agree to disagree. I do agree however that opening the land restrictions 100% would not be a good idea. However a rai of land for a house would not impact the whole thing that much.

A condo isnt for everyone you know, i have been born and raised in a village and perfer a house over a condo. The usurfrruct sounds like a good idea that i will look into a bit more. Though i did hear its impossible to do between husband and wife.

Always happy to agree to disagree with a poster who obviously thinks about the issues carefully, rob, as you obviously do.

Your last point is wrong - it's perfectly possible and very common between husband and wife.