Support sought for bill to curb foreign land grabbers throughout Thailand

[sawadee1947]

Hi, I'm new on this website. maybe you discussed my problem already many times: I got married to a Thai without any ties, no relatives, all died years before. How can I secure our land to my children? By heritage they have to sell within one year. What about a 99 year lease? Can they sell it after 98 years? (of course my grand children then)? Any ideas? And just in case she will die before me....shall I lease everything for 99 years? And if my children will inherite...can they proceed with the rest of lease time???

sawadee1947

[oyster]

Nationalism at it's highest. They're soooooo afraid of a farang actually buying land without the possibility of losing it to an exbargirl. This is BS.

Personally this notion of "owning" land has always amused me - it's not as if you can pick it up and take it with you, I would have thought a 30 year lease - with a prospect of an extension would suffice for most uses. The problem with "ownership" is in reality the object (land; business; etc. it winds up owning you.

[shakya]

Why do we keep going over this '' old subject''... the rule of thumb here is do not buy anything in Thailand with a view to holding on to it. If you care about what happens to your partner, or for the sake of sanity in one's relationship. Make a gift in your mind to your loved ones and do not hold on. After all most Thais will never have the advantages of a social housing and security network such as we enjoy in Europe. My partners house is a gift from me, i call it her pension after all she will get bugger all from her government.

[BigC]

This is terrible

All politically motivated

Some Thais have made allot of money selling to forangs

Then hey have lost it by gambling

And now they want their money back

This country is going down the toilet

With minimum wage to protect staff but nothing to protect the people that employ them even though there could not be 1 without the other

If 30 % of Lang is owned by foreigners then it does matter as the goverent get a hell of allot more tax out of foreigners owned land and house than a Thai

To have a legal loop while where people have bought house and land to now be made illegal is wrong . Seems like the day the forangs get the boot is getting closer

And people shall not buy here and when all the foreigners leave and thai people's land is worth nothing now as there is no Damian's to buy it I have no doubt they shall want us back

As for this new pm no matter what law they bring out the taksin family shall always be rich which is what trash care about

Protecting themselves

They do not care about forangs or Thais on themselves and manipulating the poor into voting for them

[BigC]

Only 1 reason why forangs owns land and house and that is because they payed for it

We did not take it by force unlike what this proposed bill is after

This has to be a breach of human rights

If one can be thrown in prison for buying land and house then the people that own 30 % of thailand. Shall full up thailands jails

I cannot imagine the UN would go in for this

[MitJJJ]

Not to spark the debate further, but does anybody know the origins or rationale for such laws? I would assume that it is to protect the Thai people from being taken advantage of by "comparatively more wealthy" foreigners. What I mean as an economist is that supply and demand are the basic drivers of price; since supply is finite in order to keep housing affordable the logical approach would be to limit demand.

The reason why a reciprocal law makes no sense in developed nations where so many posters are moaning that "Thais can own land" is that there are not significant numbers of Thai immigrants/visitors that are wealthier than the local population.

If anybody has a better way to keep pricing of land for Thais (yes, I said for Thais because this is Thailand after all), then I'm sure the gov't would love to hear it.

You're correct that from an economic point of view supply and demand are the basic drivers of price. But while land is finite, housing is not, hence the Thai government allowing foreigners to buy condominiums/apartments which increases the supply of housing and creates construction jobs. Theoretically, this helps to keep housing prices down. But, another option is to allow foreigners to buy a personal block of land (of limited size) provided they build a new residential dwelling on that land within a year and they live in that dwelling. This would also increase supply, whilst not placing increased demand on existing housing supplies and keep down prices. The second added benefit is it creates jobs for thais during the construction that would otherwise not have existed and this leads to rising incomes for Thais.

On top of this, it would have a further benefit of foreigners NOT buying existing dwellings in their spouses names, which is actually increasing demand for existing dwellings (pushing up prices and creating no new jobs) as most of these dwellings would not be purchased by the spouse on their own.

I think that's a sound idea but feel free to critique

[educateyourself]

These people. In home city me one of property big developers is thai family. These own 100s of millions of euros.

[nong38]

This looks like one of those legalised scams coming, we will find your "now dodgy deal" and give you a ridiculous time to get rid ot it, the only bidders will be rich Thais and they will make you a daft offer which you wont be able to refuse because there is no alternative. Even the UL PLC would not pull a stunt like this! You just dont know what is round the corner do you!

[rjcampbe]

If they are concerned about the laws on land usage they should look internally first at the corrupt misuse and misappropriation of national forest land, the complete disregard for even the concept of zoning across the entire country, and the utter contempt for the environment that Thai developers exhibit.

I would take any bet that on the whole foreign landowners are far better stewards of the property they own.

But thisis just more of the same nonsense from more of the same politicians... I bet they have this whole issue fixed in 3 weeks.

Nothing to see here... move along...

[Cnxforever]

The man is obviously obsessed with the issue - here is what he wrote when he studied in the US in 1974 -

Author Siracha Charoenpanij.

Title :Acquisition of ownership of land by prescription [microform] : comparative study between Thai law and American law / by Siracha Charoenpanij. Published[1974]

I think it is time to let him go - somebody should remove the man before he causes more damage to Thailand and it's property market - it seems that he tries to propose this law at least once a year - nobody will of course ever listen to him and that might just be the reason for a person of his character to get himselve into the limelight for a few days a year.

But what this man is doing is not a joke anymore he is playing with thousands if not tens of thousands of lives of mixed Thai / foreign relationships and foreign investors in this country who are already at a disadvantage having to sign over 51 % to "Thai partners" who often bring nothing but their citizenship into a business and the insecurity of a looming disaster if a relationship goes wrong or a Thai partner passes away.

This man is a disgusting xenophobe who should be replaced as soon as possible before he can spread his hatred of foreigners any further. He is an embarrassment for Thailand, unprofessional and seems to have lost face already so many times that he does not care anymore.

The Thai press with a relative objective view ripped him to pieces last time - I think it was June 2012 - when he propossed his stupid law but he does not seem to want to give up?

He either has a serious mental issue - or might just have a hidden agenda to come up with this garbage once a year!

Having studied in the US in 1974 when most Thais could not even dream about ever travelling abroad - I can only assume he comes from one of the wealthy families in Thailand - who own most of this countries land sitting idle for pure speculation while farmers have to rent to grow their crops and loose a considerable amount of their earnings to these already filthy rich Thais - who don't give a dam_n about their poor countryman - but try to blame foreigners whenever they get a chance!

Edited August 21, 2013 by Cnxforever

[chooka]

All this whilst they want to encourage foreign property development and investments. Come and develop our properties and invest millions/billions of your money but the catch is you will never own it and major profits will go to Thailand. Invest in something that guarantees little to zero return. Thailand the investment HUB for suckers.

Edited August 22, 2013 by chooka

[ABCer]

In more recent news:

"In a bid to clarify his stance on this proposed law to prevent foreigners owning land, we tried to contact Mr Siracha Charoenpanij who has conceptualised the bill. Unfortunately he was unavailable for comment as he is now on holiday. We tried both his house on Holland Park Rd London and the modest estate in Scotland that he owns, but he was reportedly somewhere in the NE of England buying a farm with 40 acres of greenbelt land attached. We have forwarded his latest article 'Don't let foreign scum own land in Thailand' to the Foreign Office in London."

GJ, any references to the above article? Please.

Instead of useless noises here on TV I think a copy of such article should be sent by every nationality foreigner to their respective Gov'ts and the Free Press overseas.

Edited August 22, 2013 by ABCer

[boomerangutang]

someone posted: "Consult Thaksin via Skype, on how to wire it and launder it to Singapore."

Boomerangutang adds: .....or ask his former wife, Pojaman, what she had in those 35 extra large suitcases she took out of the country right after the coup. I'm sure she'll tell you the truth. ha ha ha ha, chortle.

Hi, I'm new on this website. maybe you discussed my problem already many times: I got married to a Thai without any ties, no relatives, all died years before. How can I secure our land to my children? By heritage they have to sell within one year. What about a 99 year lease? Can they sell it after 98 years? (of course my grand children then)? Any ideas? And just in case she will die before me....shall I lease everything for 99 years? And if my children will inherite...can they proceed with the rest of lease time???

sawadee1947

My Thai attorney told me the other day, that the max legal lease term, for farang, is now 3 years. 99 years is more like Mexico-style, and of course it makes better sense, because if a farang can feel secure for many years, then he will more readily do improvements to the property. As for children inheriting, that becomes a subjective issue, as so many other legal issues are in Thailand. It depends on the proclivities of the judge, your lawyer, the other parties' lawyers, the neighbor, and probably most importantly; the pu yai ban, who can make and break deals with a phone call.

[jmccarty]

The most worrying piece of the article is the threat against foreigners that have leased land in Thailand. So, can't buy OK, can't lease either?? Thailand under the Shin dynasty is closing its doors.

Please reread OP. Leasing of agricultural land.

Not to be an apologist, but there are no SEA countries where foreigners can legally own land.

Can in Malaysia!

[jmccarty]

Would be funny to fight fire with fire and lobby to ban Thai nationals from owning land in the western world! Even if it could not be passed into law, just stirring up a hornets’ nest by creating a lobbying website and getting signatures in support in every country that currently allows foreign ownership just because of this ban and then getting press coverage.

Reverse discrimination is a b%#ch and so called nationalism like this in this day and age looks so last century!

[kerrysum]

Hello all,

In my humble opinion you can keep it all, but then, when you enter my country, the same rules will apply.... Yes you can live here and work, but you can never own property in my country....... Free Trade agreements, purposed that they would protect, the status quo..... really? Rule number two, you can never invest in my country, own a company, without first obtaining a permit, a payoff, or what??????

So maybe it says we need your money, but otherwise? Go home......

This story is a joke in my mind....

If I am wrong, you can tell me......

[gemini81]

The most worrying piece of the article is the threat against foreigners that have leased land in Thailand. So, can't buy OK, can't lease either?? Thailand under the Shin dynasty is closing its doors.

Please reread OP. Leasing of agricultural land.

Not to be an apologist, but there are no SEA countries where foreigners can legally own land.

Can in Malaysia!

I know; you'll be flabbergasted what you get in Malaysia in comparision: http://www.rap-japan.net/english/research_pdf/Malaysia/Malaysia_Guideline.pdf

If you scroll down you'll see there you get a 10 year visa pass, this, that & the other.

This place is gonna regress and lag far, far behind its neighbors in the future.

(used to be ahead of Korea 30/40 years ago, for example, & now look).

[boomerangutang]

More than a few times, a group of so-called leaders of a country have taken property and other assets from foreigners residing therein. It's usually called "nationalization." It happened in Cuba, Chile, Zimbabwe, and others. When it happens, if usually happens quickly, as was the case with Cuba. I don't want to sound like an alarmist, but it's not a stretch - to imagine it happening in Thailand. Governments change quickly here. Caveat emptor.

[wolf5370]

This is obviously a very important (And close to the heart) topic for many and I doubt that any answers or solutions from the Thai Government will be pleasing to the majority. The lease option although I hate leases is possibly an option whereby both parties may come to an agreement .

My biggest concern is that any lease between a Westerner and a Chinese/Thai owner is almost certain to become a nightmare. As has been said or mentioned in many forums, whenever improvements have been made to a property by the foreigner/lessee; the owner raises the rental/lease amount. Its all a bit arse about face but it is what happens and has resulted in a lot of foreigners/westerners just giving up on what in essense the built.

If there was a seperate body that dealt with long term leases then maybe just maybe we may see some fairness for the lessees, but as I imagine most TV members will be against raising yet another bureaucratic government organisation!

No easy fixes on this one and although I somewhat agree with applying the same rules to Thai nationals whom want to buy land in your home country, I dont think 'tit for tat' will really help anyone in the long term.

Another option is 100% taxed profit. That is, foreign owned land is taxed at 100% on profit - so if I buy 2 rai of land for a nice home in the sticks for 5m and ten years later the town now encroaches on my 2rai and is now worth a lot more. I sell the house and land and after usual costs, fees and taxes, I have 40m - 5m I keep, 35m goes to the state. This takes away speculators and buying for investment - it plays out well for the government too! A caveat that inheritance to a Thai gets around that - i.e. on death the land goes to Thai children, the land is no longer foreign owned and the full 40m can be kept. If the land price decreases, there is no problem - say I sold the land just a year later in desperation, maybe due to ill health, and only got 3m after costs, then no extra tax as no profit. As all sales have to go through land registry (as does land inheritance) not difficult to mark land as such.

Yes, there will be attempts to back hand (i.e. sell it for 6m officially and take a 20m back hander - but this can happen anyway - and is not difficult to investigate - very low prices will ring alarm bells anyway). This happens sometimes in the UK where there are taxes based on sale price - the government gets around this by enforcing minimum prices (so you can't sell it for a quid) and as most sales are via mortgage, by checking documents and banks require solicitors to do the conveyance thus to ensure above-boardedness.

[hawker9000]

This is obviously a very important (And close to the heart) topic for many and I doubt that any answers or solutions from the Thai Government will be pleasing to the majority. The lease option although I hate leases is possibly an option whereby both parties may come to an agreement .

My biggest concern is that any lease between a Westerner and a Chinese/Thai owner is almost certain to become a nightmare. As has been said or mentioned in many forums, whenever improvements have been made to a property by the foreigner/lessee; the owner raises the rental/lease amount. Its all a bit arse about face but it is what happens and has resulted in a lot of foreigners/westerners just giving up on what in essense the built.

If there was a seperate body that dealt with long term leases then maybe just maybe we may see some fairness for the lessees, but as I imagine most TV members will be against raising yet another bureaucratic government organisation!

No easy fixes on this one and although I somewhat agree with applying the same rules to Thai nationals whom want to buy land in your home country, I dont think 'tit for tat' will really help anyone in the long term.

Another option is 100% taxed profit. That is, foreign owned land is taxed at 100% on profit - so if I buy 2 rai of land for a nice home in the sticks for 5m and ten years later the town now encroaches on my 2rai and is now worth a lot more. I sell the house and land and after usual costs, fees and taxes, I have 40m - 5m I keep, 35m goes to the state. This takes away speculators and buying for investment - it plays out well for the government too! A caveat that inheritance to a Thai gets around that - i.e. on death the land goes to Thai children, the land is no longer foreign owned and the full 40m can be kept. If the land price decreases, there is no problem - say I sold the land just a year later in desperation, maybe due to ill health, and only got 3m after costs, then no extra tax as no profit. As all sales have to go through land registry (as does land inheritance) not difficult to mark land as such.

Yes, there will be attempts to back hand (i.e. sell it for 6m officially and take a 20m back hander - but this can happen anyway - and is not difficult to investigate - very low prices will ring alarm bells anyway). This happens sometimes in the UK where there are taxes based on sale price - the government gets around this by enforcing minimum prices (so you can't sell it for a quid) and as most sales are via mortgage, by checking documents and banks require solicitors to do the conveyance thus to ensure above-boardedness.

'Sounds like that might help keep some retirees coming, the ones that just have to retire in Thailand. 'Not going to do much for those that shop around and foreign investment overall though. There's also inflation to contend with - 'could put retirees in, again, a losing position if they get involved in long-term land ownership and the baht weakens.

Profit is a customary and expected return on investment and risk. If you pass a tax that wipes out that return, then you've still created a disincentive to invest, though it might be a baby step in the right direction if foreign land ownership itself were at least legalized. Moreover, it's just plain bad business, to treat foreigners and locals differently in the law. It drives foreigners away and puts the country in a bad position competitively.

But when it comes to Thailand, I'm a pessimist. If they legalized everything tomorrow, I still wouldn't invest here because they're as likely as not to turn right around and return to nationalization & prohibition the day after. No thanks.

[wolf5370]

This is obviously a very important (And close to the heart) topic for many and I doubt that any answers or solutions from the Thai Government will be pleasing to the majority. The lease option although I hate leases is possibly an option whereby both parties may come to an agreement .

My biggest concern is that any lease between a Westerner and a Chinese/Thai owner is almost certain to become a nightmare. As has been said or mentioned in many forums, whenever improvements have been made to a property by the foreigner/lessee; the owner raises the rental/lease amount. Its all a bit arse about face but it is what happens and has resulted in a lot of foreigners/westerners just giving up on what in essense the built.

If there was a seperate body that dealt with long term leases then maybe just maybe we may see some fairness for the lessees, but as I imagine most TV members will be against raising yet another bureaucratic government organisation!

No easy fixes on this one and although I somewhat agree with applying the same rules to Thai nationals whom want to buy land in your home country, I dont think 'tit for tat' will really help anyone in the long term.

Another option is 100% taxed profit. That is, foreign owned land is taxed at 100% on profit - so if I buy 2 rai of land for a nice home in the sticks for 5m and ten years later the town now encroaches on my 2rai and is now worth a lot more. I sell the house and land and after usual costs, fees and taxes, I have 40m - 5m I keep, 35m goes to the state. This takes away speculators and buying for investment - it plays out well for the government too! A caveat that inheritance to a Thai gets around that - i.e. on death the land goes to Thai children, the land is no longer foreign owned and the full 40m can be kept. If the land price decreases, there is no problem - say I sold the land just a year later in desperation, maybe due to ill health, and only got 3m after costs, then no extra tax as no profit. As all sales have to go through land registry (as does land inheritance) not difficult to mark land as such.

Yes, there will be attempts to back hand (i.e. sell it for 6m officially and take a 20m back hander - but this can happen anyway - and is not difficult to investigate - very low prices will ring alarm bells anyway). This happens sometimes in the UK where there are taxes based on sale price - the government gets around this by enforcing minimum prices (so you can't sell it for a quid) and as most sales are via mortgage, by checking documents and banks require solicitors to do the conveyance thus to ensure above-boardedness.

'Sounds like that might help keep some retirees coming, the ones that just have to retire in Thailand. 'Not going to do much for those that shop around and foreign investment overall though. There's also inflation to contend with - 'could put retirees in, again, a losing position if they get involved in long-term land ownership and the baht weakens.

Profit is a customary and expected return on investment and risk. If you pass a tax that wipes out that return, then you've still created a disincentive to invest, though it might be a baby step in the right direction if foreign land ownership itself were at least legalized. Moreover, it's just plain bad business, to treat foreigners and locals differently in the law. It drives foreigners away and puts the country in a bad position competitively.

But when it comes to Thailand, I'm a pessimist. If they legalized everything tomorrow, I still wouldn't invest here because they're as likely as not to turn right around and return to nationalization & prohibition the day after. No thanks.

Yes - that is the whole point. If there is no ROI then there is no speculation - no land grab - just land for use (housing or business) and at the end of the day, it comes back to Thai hands one way or another. It should not be considered an investment, just a unlimited lease if you like, with the money paid like a deposit. Inflation will mean it is worth less to you when you sell it, sure, but again that is the point - not ROI. What we need to realise is that in most cases buyers will be handing over to loved ones on their death (often Thais) - at least some point down the line. In which case ROI returns. Then idea is simply to stop buying land FOR THE PURPOSE OF investment - and driving up land prices / out pricing locals and causing land shortages.

If I buy a plot of land and build my house on it, 20 years later I leave it to my Thai kids - no problem. If a farang couple buy a house, one will die, then the other, then it will go to standard testate proceedings - if an oversees descendent inherits, odds are likely they will sell it - or at some point in time it will be sold - and the original price will be returned - so that couple may have decided to rent and put their 5m in a bank account at 3% instead and got ROI, but lost the benefits of ownership. If an old farang with a young Thai wife buy (in his name), he lasts ten years, and she inherits - she can sell it and get full money minus usual taxes and fees of course.

Foreigners should be discouraged from buying land as an investment (this is what Thailand desires), but the simplistic rule of law (a total ban) causes issues and makes loop holes desirable - and put foreigners in danger with putting titles in others hands (even legally - like spouses/GF and business partners). So, by taking away any perceived ROI (in fact a drain over time due to inflation) only people that want domicile land that they can live and die on - or that want a place for their business not at the whim of a landlord - will opt for it - thereby achieving both goals and rendering moot a lot of the need for the loop holes and crack downs thereof.

[hawker9000]

Yes, understood. What you need to understand is that for most people, their home, if they own one, is a major, if not the single biggest, asset they own. It's a home AND an investment. To ask them to forfeit (or at least risk forfeiting with NO chance of getting any return on their life's savings) instead of invest their life's savings is going to disincentivize them. Those that expect to gift their home to their Thai children are a special case. If that's the only market segment you're interested in, then the 100% tax might be a good thing. I really don't think that's going to do much for the Thai economy, or even the Thai real estate & homebuilding segment.

And one way the other these homebuyers WILL get an ROI. A negative ROI. That's the problem.

'All kind of academic though. The track record is not a good one. Own land legally one day; become a populist target and have it declared illegal the next. Too many potential votes involved in stirring up the country folk against foreigners.

[wolf5370]

Yes, understood. What you need to understand is that for most people, their home, if they own one, is a major, if not the single biggest, asset they own. It's a home AND an investment. To ask them to forfeit (or at least risk forfeiting with NO chance of getting any return on their life's savings) instead of invest their life's savings is going to disincentivize them. Those that expect to gift their home to their Thai children are a special case. If that's the only market segment you're interested in, then the 100% tax might be a good thing. I really don't think that's going to do much for the Thai economy, or even the Thai real estate & homebuilding segment.

And one way the other these homebuyers WILL get an ROI. A negative ROI. That's the problem.

'All kind of academic though. The track record is not a good one. Own land legally one day; become a populist target and have it declared illegal the next. Too many potential votes involved in stirring up the country folk against foreigners.

I do realise that - but they are never going to get that here - the fear is too great. So the question is, is the ability to buy land to live or work on without any chance of ROI - that is, not for an investment in regard. That's the best we are going to get (even that is doubtful of course). You could consider it negative ROI, but it is no less than renting or leasing. I agree that its academic though.

[hawker9000]

Yes, understood. What you need to understand is that for most people, their home, if they own one, is a major, if not the single biggest, asset they own. It's a home AND an investment. To ask them to forfeit (or at least risk forfeiting with NO chance of getting any return on their life's savings) instead of invest their life's savings is going to disincentivize them. Those that expect to gift their home to their Thai children are a special case. If that's the only market segment you're interested in, then the 100% tax might be a good thing. I really don't think that's going to do much for the Thai economy, or even the Thai real estate & homebuilding segment.

And one way the other these homebuyers WILL get an ROI. A negative ROI. That's the problem.

'All kind of academic though. The track record is not a good one. Own land legally one day; become a populist target and have it declared illegal the next. Too many potential votes involved in stirring up the country folk against foreigners.

I do realise that - but they are never going to get that here - the fear is too great. So the question is, is the ability to buy land to live or work on without any chance of ROI - that is, not for an investment in regard. That's the best we are going to get (even that is doubtful of course). You could consider it negative ROI, but it is no less than renting or leasing. I agree that its academic though.

Oh no, NOT the same as renting or leasing. 'Can't compare a monthly rent with the total sunk cost of a real estate purchase. Rent is someone ELSE'S return on investment. Purchase, and you're disposing of capital. If a scheme like this is the best we can get, I don't think you'll get many suckers takers... ...and would just heap more international scorn on the country for its business practices.

[nontabury]

One thing I cannot understand is HOW they manage to transfer such large amounts out of the country, when there are so many restrictions in place.

its not hard to transfer money out of the country if the money is legitimate (taxes paid or imported prior), fill in the forms at any bank and transfer, its difficult to transfer money with no clear (read: legal) paper trail

Ah! But that's the problem, many farangs here have property with their Thai wife,if they decide to sell up and move to another country, they have to prove the amount imported for that purchase, that in itself can be a nightmare, then if the amount to be repatriated is greater than the amount brought in,will the Thai authorities Tax them on this amount and if so, how much?.

How about all those rich Thai's who purchase a property in other countries, sometimes in many million of GBP, I cannot for one moment believe it is all legitimate with taxes paid. Likewise I cannot imagine these very rich and well connected Thai's going through official channels, and in doing so, maybe having to pay some sort of tax in order to take their money out.

[ray23]

I've often wondered when they grab this land where do they take it?

Edited August 25, 2013 by ray23