SURVEY: Should Foreigners be Allowed to own Property?

[lostoday]

I feel if foreigners were allowed to own land there should be many stiplulations.

Here are some examples.

Must live at the residence.

If foreigner sells must sell for same as purchase price no speculation.

Cannot rent it out.

If foreigners were allowed to just come here and purchase at will Thais would be priced out of the market. Soon you would have farms owned by foreigners and leased to thais. There would be foreign land barons and Thai surfs. I am sure there are may Asian and Caucasian rich people that would gladly do just that.

How do you figure that? Foreigners can come here and buy gold are Thais priced out of the market? Foreigners can come here and buy rice are Thais priced out of the market? Foreigners can come here and buy a wife are Thais priced out of the market? Foreigners can come here and buy mama noodles are Thais priced out of the market?

A rich Thai has a billion dollars to invest in real estate. He can buy land in the US, UK or Thailand. He buys where he gets the best return. Thailand is part of the world international land market.

[steelepulse]

These threads where people moan about "rich foreigners owning all the land" crack me up. There's not an international conspiracy to buy all the good land here. One question that is never answered is "who is selling the land"? The answer is the Thais that want to cash out and do SFA with their windfall.

[kiwikeith]

Thailand should not allow foreigners to own property. In the USA as well as many other nations anyone can buy property...anyone. Doesn't matter if your an illegal alien or who you are. No, as much as I'd like to own land in Thailand under my name, I understand why it's not allowed.

I understand where you are coming from. New Zealand is selling itself off to foreign ownership it is a joke, farmers becoming surfs on their own land. Forestry, farms, land going, going gone .

However if you wanted to reside in Thailand you should be able to own one property only and only for personal use. I say that because it would stop a lot of sob stories after homes get ripped off expats in broken relationships. Other than that- a new type of joint ownership rule needs to be put in place so that you cant loose your whole lot after a argument. The 49% don't get a say!.

[micmichd]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_violence

This is a model for the description of disparities within countries (or continents) and between countries (or continents)
Occupying land in a foreign country is usually referred to as Imperialism. Same with taking away human bodies (women) to another continent for your personal pleasure.

[MobileContent]

I think foreigners should be allowed to own a house and the land as freehold, however they should follow the similar laws as in Malaysia. Officially housing estates and no farm land and if I remember correctly its one million RM or about 10 million Baht.

[dominique355]

If the word and the values of "family" has any meaning here then a family, that is the father and/or the mother should be able to own a house and a piece of land.

It doesn't make sense that a foreigner can own a condominium, with chanote and all, but he cannot own a house and a garden to raise his family and is constantly under the threat of losing everything if the house is legally owned by his Thai wife or a company.

I am not in favor of restrictions, but if restrictions are to be made, then perhaps in size (3 rai max). Certainly not a quota restriction which will again cause corruption and unfair results.

[Berkshire]

Is it really that hard to understand?

You can increase the amount of money invested, but you can't increase the amount of land in a country.

The size of the cake remains the same, only the slices for each one get smaller if you allow more people access to the cake. And as being a Farang, of course you expect to take best pieces of the cake, and eventually push everybody else away from the table.

Your economic model is an economy without a society of living bodies, and therefore will never work.

Yes, spot on. The basic law of supply and demand applies. If the supply stays the same and the demand goes up, then the price must go up. And from the comments here, it's clear that the demand will go up. Not just from the farang buyers, but the Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Arabs, etc.

The irony here is if the Thai gov ever opened up land ownership to foreigners, most of the farangs living in Thailand would be priced out of the market as well. Nevermind the local Thais, but the retired farangs living on a fixed pension would be done. The strongest argument that many farangs have is that they simply want to own a home for their families. But farangs married to Thais can already purchase a home right now. These same farangs wouldn't be able to if the price of homes skyrocketed due to Asians buying up everything in sight. Be careful what you ask for.

[lostoday]

Is it really that hard to understand?

You can increase the amount of money invested, but you can't increase the amount of land in a country.

The size of the cake remains the same, only the slices for each one get smaller if you allow more people access to the cake. And as being a Farang, of course you expect to take best pieces of the cake, and eventually push everybody else away from the table.

Your economic model is an economy without a society of living bodies, and therefore will never work.

Yes, spot on. The basic law of supply and demand applies. If the supply stays the same and the demand goes up, then the price must go up. And from the comments here, it's clear that the demand will go up. Not just from the farang buyers, but the Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Arabs, etc.

The irony here is if the Thai gov ever opened up land ownership to foreigners, most of the farangs living in Thailand would be priced out of the market as well. Nevermind the local Thais, but the retired farangs living on a fixed pension would be done. The strongest argument that many farangs have is that they simply want to own a home for their families. But farangs married to Thais can already purchase a home right now. These same farangs wouldn't be able to if the price of homes skyrocketed due to Asians buying up everything in sight. Be careful what you ask for.

The market is open to foreigners now. Because money is money an knows no nationality. If a Thai has real estate money available as part of a portfolio he can buy land in Thailand or the USA or UK. He buys where he gets the best return. A Chinese person with real estate money available (and Thai family) buys in the USA or UK or Thailand where ever he gets the best return. There are many ways to invest in Thai real estate on the Thai Stock Exchange now open to anyone.

[micmichd]

With more and more mixed marriages and families, it is only common decency that foreign fathers (or mothers) and husbands should get a chance to invest here. I have a wife and kids, who have 2 passports, and want to invest in their future. What if I end up alone when I am 80 years old, or what if my wife decides to leave me? Our position here is fragile, but we cannot complain as we knew this from the start.

My hope is that a volatile economy and real estate will lead one day to different rules, I hope that money/greed will prevail over nationalism and foreigners will be allowed to buy up empty units or homes (for personal use) one day. We keep some of our assets outside of Thailand because of this. I wouldn't mind bringing it in and spend it. Now we basically have our feet in 2 countries and will logically keep that option open. A shame, my wife an I want to invest more here the but our wings are clipped.

If your wife is Thai, then she can own the land and share it with you.

Where's the problem?

Why should you still want to own Thai land at the age of 80?

In case of divorce:

You can take all your own property away from your ex-wife's land, just not your children and the house they're living in.

Your hope that money/greed will prevail everything else one day is well noticed. At least you're honest in this matter, kob cun kap.

Edited May 19, 2015 by micmichd

[impulse]

The market is open to foreigners now. Because money is money an knows no nationality.

Foreigners cannot own a controlling interest in land in Thailand.

You can come up with all the investment mechanisms and schemes you want, but if it can be shown that a foreigner controls the land, the government considers it illegal ownership.

You can own 49% of an entity that owns Thai land (your REIT, for example). But again, if the government can prove that your 49% effectively controls the land, it will be considered illegal.

Can you get away with it? Maybe. Lots of entities do. But it seems to be getting tougher and tougher. And you better hope you don't piss off anyone that can rat you out.

So, sure, you can invest in all the Thai land you want- as a minority shareholder. But you have no legal right to control that land.

[Om85]

My personal view is that foreigners should not be allowed to own land, but what should be done is to facilitate the process of becoming a Thai citizen to those foreigners who have family ties(wive, children etc), and those who are really interested in owning land here then will be able to do so without any problem.

[lostoday]

The market is open to foreigners now. Because money is money an knows no nationality.

Foreigners cannot own a controlling interest in land in Thailand.

You can come up with all the investment mechanisms and schemes you want, but if it can be shown that a foreigner controls the land, the government considers it illegal ownership.

You can own 49% of an entity that owns Thai land (your REIT, for example). But again, if the government can prove that your 49% effectively controls the land, it will be considered illegal.

Can you get away with it? Maybe. Lots of entities do. But it seems to be getting tougher and tougher. And you better hope you don't piss off anyone that can rat you out.

So, sure, you can invest in all the Thai land you want- as a minority shareholder. But you have no legal right to control that land.

We are talking about two different things. You are talking about control and I was talking about land value. Minimum value of a REIT is 500 million. Foreigner ownership can be up to 249,999 million. I think it is fair to say that with those kinds of numbers if a foreigner wanted to push up the value of Thai land it would certainly be no problem to do legally. REITs put Thai land values on an international market as the SET does.

Any changes in the ownership laws will be but a blip on the radar and not effect land prices much because the land is already on the international market. How many Farangs are going to buy houses? 1 REIT is 500 million vs some Farangs buying a few small parcels of land. It would make no difference.

[impulse]

How does that help an expat or retiree that just wants to own the patch of land under their home?

[lostoday]

How does that help an expat or retiree that just wants to own the patch of land under their home?

No help at all except for the folks who are worried that ex pat land ownership would have any effect on prices (it would not) because any large amount of land you want to buy is available now.

[captspectre]

Perhaps a single family home if lived in by the owner. No investment or commercial property.

I voted no! the term foreigner applies to the Chinese, indians, laotians, burmese, and any other person who would be able to purchase land and turn it into anything they wanted to, most importantly taking the land from the thai's!

[Berkshire]

My personal view is that foreigners should not be allowed to own land, but what should be done is to facilitate the process of becoming a Thai citizen to those foreigners who have family ties(wive, children etc), and those who are really interested in owning land here then will be able to do so without any problem.

Good suggestion and makes a lot more sense than trying to change current land ownership laws.

[Anon999]

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

That idea would never work and is ridiculous. You live where you want to not where some 'special zone' is dictated as suitable by a government. The reaction from most would probably be 'stuff it'!

[micmichd]

My personal view is that foreigners should not be allowed to own land, but what should be done is to facilitate the process of becoming a Thai citizen to those foreigners who have family ties(wive, children etc), and those who are really interested in owning land here then will be able to do so without any problem.

Good idea.

Farangs and their authorities should not be allowed to judge relationships between other Farangs / Expats and Thai ladies by prejudices.

Edited May 19, 2015 by micmichd

[lust]

Allowing unlimited ownership would increase the prices of Thailand thus driving down tourism.

In Vancouver, the Chinese have been buying everything. It's great for the economy when you see all this money coming into the country, but what about the Canadian born nationals who can no longer afford to buy a house because the rich Chinese bought everything.

Also, they spend a lot of time outside of Canada so the businesses in these areas suffer since there are not a lot of customers.

The rich get richer, the poor stay poor. The whole world is so fubarred.. There will never be world peace.

[lostoday]

Allowing unlimited ownership would increase the prices of Thailand thus driving down tourism.

In Vancouver, the Chinese have been buying everything. It's great for the economy when you see all this money coming into the country, but what about the Canadian born nationals who can no longer afford to buy a house because the rich Chinese bought everything.

Also, they spend a lot of time outside of Canada so the businesses in these areas suffer since there are not a lot of customers.

The rich get richer, the poor stay poor. The whole world is so fubarred.. There will never be world peace.

Maybe you should pass a law that rich Chinese can't buy land in Vancouver.

[VINCENT2012]

Gentlemen, I would ask you to consider the reasoning behind a lot of this.

Thailand is a top down society. Unless the top own it all then there can be no real power. Once foreigners are allowed to start owning then it is understood that they will bring other laws with them in regards to ultimate ownership. This is not to be allowed under any circumstances.

Also, the current situation allows locals (read women) a way to own their own place when they would never be able to ordinarily do it.

Why do you always talk about owning in Thailand when you should know that you are not wanted. here.

i would say your money is surely wanted ................but not you.

high top thai society who always run all the business is very very conservative for everything and they do control everything.

changes is not on the menu today!

in spain they still say sometimes " mejor mal conocido que bueno por conocer"

[Berkshire]

Allowing unlimited ownership would increase the prices of Thailand thus driving down tourism.

In Vancouver, the Chinese have been buying everything. It's great for the economy when you see all this money coming into the country, but what about the Canadian born nationals who can no longer afford to buy a house because the rich Chinese bought everything.

Also, they spend a lot of time outside of Canada so the businesses in these areas suffer since there are not a lot of customers.

The rich get richer, the poor stay poor. The whole world is so fubarred.. There will never be world peace.

So true. This same sort of thing has happened in Canada. And in Australia. And in Spain. And in London. And in certain parts of the US. The same scenario, over and over again. And yet, some TV members are insisting that it should be allowed to happen in Thailand. Are these people out of their minds?

[lostoday]

Gentlemen, I would ask you to consider the reasoning behind a lot of this.

Thailand is a top down society. Unless the top own it all then there can be no real power. Once foreigners are allowed to start owning then it is understood that they will bring other laws with them in regards to ultimate ownership. This is not to be allowed under any circumstances.

Also, the current situation allows locals (read women) a way to own their own place when they would never be able to ordinarily do it.

Why do you always talk about owning in Thailand when you should know that you are not wanted. here.

i would say your money is surely wanted ................but not you.

high top thai society who always run all the business is very very conservative for everything and they do control everything.

changes is not on the menu today!

in spain they still say sometimes " mejor mal conocido que bueno por conocer"

The great majority of businesses in Thailand are owned by small entrepreneurs with limited capital and small earnings. Perhaps you should come to Thailand and take a look at a typical market on market day. 1 Lotus and 1000 small shops. 1 Pizza company and 1000 mama noodle stands. 1 Fuji and 1000 fish ball sellers. 1 MK restaurant and a million ladies from Issan selling som tom. 10 big go go clubs in Cowboy and 10 thousand Karaoke bars in every small town and village across Thailand.

[TPI]

I don't think that anyone should be allowed to by land where he isn't a citizen. I've watched the issues in Ecuador where much is mountainous and good land is scarce. Foreigners including expats have bought so much of the good land that the locals can no longer afford any for themselves.

There's always some disparity in income with wealthier people seeming to like to buy up land in poorer areas. They often don't care if they get a return on investment until they sell, hoping for appreciation. There's even that dynamic in the US and Canada where there is a lot of land but rich people from big cities buy a farm while they are on vacation and then lease it to a poor farmer on a share crop basis. The word "sharecropper" has always had a negative connotation - meaning a poor farmer.

When there is more and new demand chasing the same supply of land, prices go up and make it almost impossible for a farmer's children to buy land or for the farmer to increase his holdings. The price shouldn't be based on speculation but rather on what it can produce. That can happen only when the producers are the interested buyers.

Gasp!! Are you saying that capitalism is a bad thing? Shame on you for thinking about others.....it would never never do in 'merica!

[Shaunduhpostman]

Look what happened to Mexico in the 19th century. In perhaps an oversimplified account of things, by allowing the sons of the New England elites to marry their Mexican daughters and buy land, the Anglos bought up much of what is now Texas, buying up enormous ranches. When the Anglo land barons began to feel they no longer wanted the bother of the corrupt Mexican authorities, they lobbied in Washington for support and they got their war against Mexico. Mexico lost and lost half of their territory to the United States. Not that you need to feel particularly sorry for the Mexican oligarchy who may have lost their war, at least in part, because they were hated by their own people, but the whole fiasco shows you that the Thais are right not to allow farangs to snap up land.

[lostoday]

Look what happened to Mexico in the 19th century. In perhaps an oversimplified account of things, by allowing the sons of the New England elites to marry their Mexican daughters and buy land, the Anglos bought up much of what is now Texas, buying up enormous ranches. When the Anglo land barons began to feel they no longer wanted the bother of the corrupt Mexican authorities, they lobbied in Washington for support and they got their war against Mexico. Mexico lost and lost half of their territory to the United States. Not that you need to feel particularly sorry for the Mexican oligarchy who may have lost their war, at least in part, because they were hated by their own people, but the whole fiasco shows you that the Thais are right not to allow farangs to snap up land.

A little backward there fella. If you married a Mexican woman the Mexican government gave you a large land holding for a ranch. They also paid people to come from Europe to settle Texas. They needed people - had lots of land. So you had the land and people thing but just in the reverse.

You also might want to check out the Louisiana purchase for stories about buying lots of land from the country who owned it.

[rwdrwdrwd]

Thailand does not need lots or people, and nor does it have a lot of land.

@lostoday In regard to your prior incredulity at my opinion: yes I am aware that investments can be made that allow a foreigner to profit from Thai land price increases, but this is not the same as allowing direct foreign ownership of land, which would simply be a free for all that would lead to foreign ownership of all prime real estate and would not benefit the average Thai citizen whatsoever. Of course this already has happened to some degree, but it would be far worse if Joe Bloggs or Chén Xiǎomíng could just buy any land in the country with no restriction.

Just because many other countries allow something does not mean it is a good thing for their respective citizens.

Edited May 19, 2015 by rwdrwdrwd

[Thongkorn]

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.

#There are a few Thais in the Uk that own Football clubs 100%

[lostoday]

Thailand does not need lots or people, and nor does it have a lot of land.

In regard to your prior incredulity at my opinion: yes I am aware that investments can be made that would allow a foreigner to profit from Thai land price increases, but this is not the same as allowing foreign ownership of land, which would be a free or all that would not benefit the average Thai citizen.

OK I'll try and make it simple. Chinese people are buying up Thai land at a record rate and any inflation that was going to occur in land prices has already happened.

You are a Farang you are not important in Thailand or anywhere in Asia. Might as well get used to it. You have no big clout here in purchasing power.

Give every Farang in Thailand one rai and it would not equal 1% of the Thai land owned by Chinese interests in Thailand.

[pacovl46]

Yes, they should be allowed, but obviously there would need to be restrictions because otherwise the entire coastline would be bought up by the tourism industry and the wealthy.

Edited May 19, 2015 by pacovl46