SURVEY: Should Foreigners be Allowed to own Property?

[Dukeleto]

I think it is all just a storm in tea cup! Land in already popular tourist destinations where a majority of foreigners want to be is rediculously expensive and beyond the reach of anyone regardless of if you can have it in your own name or not. Add to this the banks complete disinterest in supplying a foreigner who wants a holiday home with a loan. If they opened up residential property tomorrow to unrestricted foreign ownership the biggest shift would be the rush of current owners transferring the land titles to their own names with a massive closure of Thai Companies holding such entities and half the Law/accounting offices would close doors overnight. The amount of foreigners who want to live on cheap land in the middle of the boondocks will remain a tiny minority. The market, as always will dictate. Just because you can own the land in your name will not create a boom in holiday homes or raise in already rediculous prices. Of course, initially the already inflated asking prices will increase but when nobody buys they will return to what they were with still nobody buying. Being able to own the land in your own name is not a major determining factor as there are hundreds of thousands of homes held by Thai companies through the nominee system. The deterring factor is foreigners wanting to have a home here and who can afford it. These two factors won't change much with the advent of Thailand allowing foreigners to own the entity in their own names. The fantasy that land prices will increase dramatically is exactly that, a fantasy. Mortgages to foreigners the same as those given to Thai's...now that would change the property landscape a bit. Land in your own name...meh not so much.

[ThaiPauly]

If Thai's are allowed to own real estate in any foreign country then foreigners from that country should be allowed to own property here in Thailand.

This will never happen because Thai's fear that foreigners want to own & control their Country.

I think its more likely that land prices will sky rocket out of the reach of ordinary Thais. That's a valid concern. What would minimise purchases would be limits on the amount and usage of land purchased. Also, said owner should live in the house and have adequate income/pay taxes, etc. This would eliminate many investors who buy land / house, but don't live in them.

Agree with you. I know that many people who were born in London can't afford to own property there when they are adults.

It splits families up, sends the youngsters out to places like Milton Keynes. Most of the property in central London is owned by either Arabs or Russians. The country has sold itself out and I can understand why Thailand is against doing the same.

At least here children can afford to buy property close to their parents, that's not really possible in major English cities now which is a great shame.

[bheard]

My wife owns 3 investment properties in Australia 100% and not 49% (land and buildings) but I am forbidden from investing in Thailand. There should be laws that if a farang is banned in Thailand then Thais should be banned overseas. Won't happen tho as other countries welcome foreign investment no matter how small.

Suck it up. That's just an indication of the stupidity of the Australian governments. (I'm an Aussie).

The ideal situation may be that foreigners can lease land (say for 50 years).

Not necessary for a foreigner to own property in any country.

In Australia, foreign ownership pushes prices up so that locals miss out - think first home buyers.

Nowadays it you go to an auction in Aus and your agent sees Chinese people present, he tells you - don't bother even bidding, you cannot outbid them! This is TRUE.

[brewsterbudgen]

Shouldn't the title refer to land rather than property?

[jaaaason]

Having lived in China and owning a home there I can agree with the right to buy a"residential" home here in Thailand . It could be tied to marriage and or retirement visa. In China you buy the home and can use the land for 75 years. All people,even the Chinese are subject to the same rules. After the 75 years you will pay(supposedly) a small fee and get another 75 years. You may sell the house at any time , but the new owner then assumes the remaining years left on the agreement with the government , Even with this rule there is a very nice appreciation in value over a period of time.

[RasiMike]

Special zones could be arranged where 1 rai plots could be purchased. Economically there would be some benefit to the country.

This may work for some and I agree that the country could benefit financially, but I really didn't set up in Thailand to live in a little zone where all my neighbours are farang. I came to Thailand because I enjoyed (for the most part) the Thai experience.

[jaaaason]

One further comment. Here if you lease the land for 50 years you must re-register your lease every three years , or the Thai owner you leased it from can sell it. Also if the Thai owner dies the relatives here are not bound by the lease . Recently a friend of mine......who did not know about the having to re-register his lease agreement every three years found out that the Thai individual whom he had the agreement sold the house out from under him.....he is now involved in a very messy legal action.

[robertthebruce]

If Thai's are allowed to own real estate in any foreign country then foreigners from that country should be allowed to own property here in Thailand.

This will never happen because Thai's fear that foreigners want to own & control their Country.

I think its more likely that land prices will sky rocket out of the reach of ordinary Thais. That's a valid concern. What would minimise purchases would be limits on the amount and usage of land purchased. Also, said owner should live in the house and have adequate income/pay taxes, etc. This would eliminate many investors who buy land / house, but don't live in them.

Agree with you. I know that many people who were born in London can't afford to own property there when they are adults.

It splits families up, sends the youngsters out to places like Milton Keynes. Most of the property in central London is owned by either Arabs or Russians. The country has sold itself out and I can understand why Thailand is against doing the same.

At least here children can afford to buy property close to their parents, that's not really possible in major English cities now which is a great shame.

Totally agree with your comment, I have a couple of Properties in Central London and I would say 99 percent of the other owners are Foreign, Arabs mainly....

I do feel for young people in London trying to start out, they have little hope of getting on the Property Ladder, unless it's in some run down area like Brixton or Elephant and Castle.....

Sought after areas command there own price....and it rises monthly...

[stoli]

My wife owns 3 investment properties in Australia 100% and not 49% (land and buildings) but I am forbidden from investing in Thailand. There should be laws that if a farang is banned in Thailand then Thais should be banned overseas. Won't happen tho as other countries welcome foreign investment no matter how small.

Different countries are in different stages of economic growth & stability. Just because Australia has more land than they know what to do with, does not mean much smaller Thailand needs to do the same. This is an agriculture country, providing jobs for so many of their citizens. It would not be wise to allow the foreigners to buy the farmlands and convert them to something else. Why sacrifice their own people for foreigners. Your wife invests in Australia for her own benefit, certainly not for the benefit of Australians, would you not agree?

Foreigner investment should be looked at later, not sooner. Let the country develop itself first to become more, without reducing their agriculture lands. Yes, the displaced farmers could find a job with your new ping pong table factory, instead of farming themselves, but I am not sure that is what is good for them as a whole. They would then need to start importing more food, at a higher cost to all the Thai people.

Edited May 18, 2015 by stoli

[Suffinator]

The Thais really don't understand foreign investment via property ownership. They honestly think they are losing land and property to foreigners or that foreigners will somehow take over Thailand.

The amount of money they lose annually is vast and as property changes hands the amount of money being invested in the country grows.

I doubt Thailand will ever allow foreigners to own property as the are ignorant to the real benefits and see it as merely losing something to a foreigner. I know a few Thais in the UK who own property and none are subjected to the 49% rule and why should they be ... their money is as good as anyone else's and it adds funds to the treasury.

[micmichd]

If Thai's are allowed to own real estate in any foreign country then foreigners from that country should be allowed to own property here in Thailand.

This will never happen because Thai's fear that foreigners want to own & control their Country.

This fear is justified by historical experience.

[maidee]

will never happen

the rich elite in this country, does not like sharing

end of story

[4u2mad]

If Thai's are allowed to own real estate in any foreign country then foreigners from that country should be allowed to own property here in Thailand.

This will never happen because Thai's fear that foreigners want to own & control their Country.

Already do. They are called Chinese Thais!

Surprised they are not called Thai Chinese. Bit like American Africans. If you want the citizenship so badly, should you not recognize the fact?

[zeichen]

Since there aren't property tax in every province, what benefit does the government or the local people get from foreigners owning land?

Many countries don't let foreigners own land. Western countries that allow foreigner to invest in property benefit from it. Here there is no advantage and only disadvantages.

property values already are insane. In the past 20 years properties in Thailand have nearly doubled in cost. In some rural areas a rai of rice paddies is 1 million baht. Farmers would make more money using their land as a parking lot than growing rice.

A part of me would love foreigners to get the right to own property, then have this massive influx of over valuated properties sold off to foreign investors, then wait 6 months for major crash in the housing market and have every house devalued by 50%. That would be funny.

Don't invest in a place that doesn't want you in the first place.

The survey and discussion is like interrupted masturbation. There is no point in it at all. Our opinions, points of view don't even matter.

Thai people don't even know social issues regarding foreigners. Most Thais wonder why I am not a Thai citizen. They think that we all get citizenship when we are married. The average person here thinks that abortion is wrong but should be legal, but it will never be. Even the people don't have a say in what happens here.

[SoilSpoil]

Land prices in Thailand are not much lower than that in Western countries anyway. Like some others have already said, the wealthy and mostly corrupt upper classes are buying up the land in this country and don't want any competition.

http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Asia/Thailand/square-meter-prices

http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/germany/square-meter-prices

[JHenry]

It is very clear why Thailand does not allow foreigners to buy land. It should stay this way. If your Thai wife wants a house and does not agree for the condominium which can belong to you, let her have it, the house and the women are both your choice. However, the condominium regulations should be changed. If a foreigner works long time in Thailand why on Earth should he/she still transfer the money for this purchase from abroad? Unnecessary inconvenience.

Edited May 18, 2015 by JHenry

[winstonc]

The Thais really don't understand foreign investment via property ownership. They honestly think they are losing land and property to foreigners or that foreigners will somehow take over Thailand.

The amount of money they lose annually is vast and as property changes hands the amount of money being invested in the country grows.

I doubt Thailand will ever allow foreigners to own property as the are ignorant to the real benefits and see it as merely losing something to a foreigner. I know a few Thais in the UK who own property and none are subjected to the 49% rule and why should they be ... their money is as good as anyone else's and it adds funds to the treasury.

yes they do take over look at london you go back to where you come from and your a stranger in your own town,make foreigners rent,they should be happy just to live there/here...you cant take it with you...i never understood the craze of owning your own property..listening to people talking in the pubs saying my house is worth blah..blah blah...yeah mate only on paper and not in your account oh to have a 25 year mortgage

[MartinL]

... Thailand is a small and over populated country ...

Thailand is not that small or overpopulated when compared to many other countries. For example, population density Thailand 132/km2, England 413/km2, Netherlands 403/km2 (all ref. Wikipedia) and there are a number of countries more densely populated than England. The two countries mentioned still (foolishly, IMO) allow unrestricted foreign ownership of land though.

Edited May 18, 2015 by MartinL

[Wadan]

Almost everyone here is taking this topic and talking about in a sentimental way. This is all about economics and nation building. There are many countries that allow wealthy persons to purchase real estate and gain citizenship . The thinking is the more wealth that is brought into a country, the better off the economy will be. Moneys invested in an economy have a multiplier effect. It generate jobs, increase demand, improve infrastructure and raise the quality of life for everyone. I do believe that owning property brings responsibilities. The property owner must pay taxes, improve the holdings and have some attachment to the community. It is a win win situation for all.

[johnburger]

The same law as for Thai who buy an apartment a house or land in Europe England or USA etc .....
Just reciprocity no more not less.

[Guest]

This a a great question, and the four choices were well thought out.

I finally chose "Yes, foreigners should be able to own real estate, but the type and amound should be limited." (May want to fix that typo)

I understand the thinking that goes behind limited ownership of assets in Thailand, and also understand that Foreigners want to buy land here. As we know, you can build on the land and own the structure, but not the land under it.

I hope we can all agree that it does not serve the interests of the citizen's of Thailand to have speculators create a bubble / inflated property scenario. So, that eliminates "Let Foreigners buy as much as they want, wherever they want."

Where a lot of the replies do resonate with me, are those Foreigners who love the kingdom, and want to own property here for the peace of mind it provides, and/or to hand it down to heirs.

Sadly, there does not seem to be a way to prevent special interests, speculators, etc .. from gaming any system we devise. They will find the way around it, create "Russian Doll" models of Shell Companies within Shell Companies within Shell Companies within Shell Companies ... Ad infinitum.

They will create Hong Kong Holding Companies to avoid direct ownership liabilities and create tax shelters.

Some might say, and rightly so ... well .. "speculator / investors already DO many of those things." True, but it is difficult, and at the end of the day, and here is the rub .. because NO Foreigner can own LAND, they can skate around the system, but never actually own the asset.

So, as always, give them a hand, and they take the whole arm .. so it comes down to "Why we can not have nice things."

Nothing new under the sun, it has been this way since the first caveman found a "cave with a waterfront view."

I do wish the silent majority of Foreigners in the Kingdom, the quiet army of stand up guys working hard to do the right thing, build good lives, solid families, respect the Kingdom and like Thai people .. I wish they could own a nice plot of land and the house on it .. but the second it is allowed ... the wheels will be set in motion, and back room players will build empires of holdings .. and the loser is the average Thai .. and government and laws are best employed when the middle class gets a fair shake.

Frankly, anywhere in this world, it is hard to point to a law that really benefits the working class, Thailand ... "Thai" "Land" ... for Thai People, is a rare case .. where this works.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Guest

[newnative]

I think it would be a win-win all around. If there is a concern about foreigners buying too much or taking too much control, it would be easy to put in safeguards regarding the amount of land you could buy and the number of parcels. I think many foreigners living here long-term would be happy to be allowed to purchase one plot of land to use as their personal home. The program could start very limited with restrictions and see how it went.

[micmichd]

... Thailand is a small and over populated country ...

Thailand is not that small or overpopulated when compared to many other countries. For example, population density Thailand 132/km2, England 413/km2, Netherlands 403/km2 (all ref. Wikipedia) and there are a number of countries more densely populated than England. The two countries mentioned still (foolishly, IMO) allow unrestricted foreign ownership of land though.

Yes, and look at the results of unlimited private property of land.

A pparking lot might render more profit than a house, so tge house is teared down and the inhabitants are driven away. More and more people end up homeless in England, and there's all kinds of conflicts within the remaining neighbourhoods.

Good for Thailand if they don't repeat mistakes like that.

[Surasak]

The leasing of land to foriegners should be increased to 99 years be this thru government or private individual. The lease can be sold to any buyer, Thai or foreigner for the remaining years only. The lease cannot be transferred or gifted to another foreigner beyond the lease date.

[FlorC]

And throw in a limited work permit , for working/building your own house.

If I can buy a couple of rai , I want to build a quality house on it , not the Thai crappy 7 cm concrete brick shack. Finding a contractor who does it MY way , is near impossible and over expensive.

Global house , Home pro , Home mart ,...will be happy. Finally some works for their over staffed outlets.

[Guest]

In the USA as well as many other nations anyone can buy property...anyone.

You don't really own land in the USA, though they'd like you to think you do.

Anyone can buy the right to lease the land from the government by paying real estate taxes. They like you to think you own the land, but you're really just leasing it. Think you own it? Stop paying the lease fee (real estate taxes) and see what happens. Or if they need the land back for a highway, or a pipeline.

And to add insult to injury, they then tax you on the improvements you made to the property, with your own (after tax) money. So, effectively, first you pay for the house, then you lease it from the government. What a deal. And even worse, you can only use the land for approved purposes, under zoning laws, building codes and other restrictions.

I suspect when Thailand implements real estate taxes and zoning laws, they'll allow foreigners to buy the right to lease the land by paying real estate taxes. But that's going to have all kinds of unintended consequences for Thais across the income and wealth spectrum. And "owning" the land will probably not look as attractive if it means another tax to pay.

I do think foreigners who reside in Thailand should be allowed to purchase enough land for their residence- perhaps an acre. But no huge plots, and no absentee ownership (or you'd have an absentee Chinese town of 2,000,000, each buying an acre of farmland)

But personally, given how often they governments change here, I'd be afraid to buy land, with the fear that the next government will change the rules and I'll have 6 months to sell (at fire sale price). Or, like Zimbabwe... But then, I have no long term or family ties to Thailand. I'd feel differently if I did.

And a tip of the hat to you Sir.

Well written, well thought out, and I learned from reading this.

A rare treat on Thai Visa ...

As to the absentee ownership, you already know the answer .. even if small plot sales / ownership were allowed, in short order, Shell Companies etc would spring up like mushrooms, and these plots would be consumed "under the rules" ... but not in the spirit of the game.

Since you pointed to America. Remember when the Japanese went on their spending spree? The rich got richer, and the American taxpayers are still cleaning up the mess … they just do not know it. And since Thailand is a relatively small country, perhaps just looking at the Hawaiian train wreck would be a good working model. The Japanese swarmed the islands, and now look at it.

Anyway, thanks for a great posting, really a pleasure to read.

[ThaiUser]

Foreigners should be allowed to own property in Thailand. It would ensure that the uncertainty and as I know ill feelings held by many of them that are married and live in Thailand would change.

It would bring investment into the country and certainly not lower the living standard of the majority of Thai people as suggested by some of the commentators.

Looking to Europe I see that Germany has in her constitution (Artikel 14) a law enshrined that deals with property. The second sub paragraph to Paragraph 14 states: Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good.

What it means is that people or companies cannot buy up large chunks of the countryside and leave it unused only waiting for market fluctuations and sell it off for a higher price. They have to do something with that property which serves the public good and the public good in Germany means, serves the German people.

Why can’t we have similar laws?

Naturally such laws would also apply to Thai land owners and force them to do something with the property they own ensuring that the rest of Thailand would benefit from it as well.

Edited May 18, 2015 by ThaiUser

[DLang]

There are no problems with foreigners owning their own house in Thailand.

It just has to be a separate legal entity to the land.

This is quicker and easier to do when building and not buying.

If someone is concerned, and clever, they have a modular prefab house built that they own 100%. This can be dismantled and moved without too much cost or effort.

Absolutely.

There are no restrictions stopping a foreigner from owning their own house in Thailand.

If one invests 40m baht, they can also own one rai of land.

But I wouldn't recommend that.

The simple truth is, there is nothing stopping a foreigner from owning their own house in Thailand 100%.

[DLang]

Foreigners should be allowed to own property in Thailand.

What property do you think foreigners cannot own?

House, no problem.

Condo, no problem (not more than 49% foreign ownership in the building allowing)

When somebody builds a house, they can own it themselves 100%.

[jvs]

I think in the end Thailand will do what the countries around us are doing and that will dictate the direction.

I believe there is nothing wrong with a foreigner owning land if they want to use it as a residence.

You can already own land if you are willing and able to invest a lot of money here?

The place i live has transformed from a piece of land growing weeds to a nice park like setting and no garbage flying around,if i would own it it would still be a part of Thailand.

A small rich minority of the people own the majority of the land,and not only here.