SURVEY: Should Foreigners be Allowed to own Property?

[canuckamuck]

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'!

Well of course you should live where you want, but currently you can't own the land anywhere at all.

If there were certain Mubahns where full ownership was available, there are many foreigners who would be quite happy to make a purchase. Especially if the land was in an advantageous location with decent infrastructure.

This is would be a big step for Thailand.

A better option would be to allow ownership of one house and the land it sits on with no restrictions on location. But I don't think the nationalists would ever allow that.

My suggestion represents the extent I feel Thailand could be encouraged to go,

Edited May 19, 2015 by canuckamuck

[rwdrwdrwd]

@lostoday Is it not the case that Chinese individuals and firms are held to exactly the same rules as those from every other nation?

Or, are you referring to Thai citizens of Chinese ancestry? If so this is a whole different ballgame since they are not foreigners.

[Bloodnut]

The Thai Paradigm of land ownership is deeply engrained in every citizen through the National Anthem.

By the 3rd English translation there is no doubt about the status on land - the 2nd line about Thai's owning Thailand has gone from "...Belonging to Thais in every respect..." to every inch of Thailand belongs to the Thais..." Check out the changing English translations here -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_National_Anthem

Foreign ownership is not going to happen for at least another generation (20 years) IMHO because the last time Thais let foreigners own their land was prior to WWII and the Japanese owners all came outside one day dressed in Japanese Uniforms - and then they helped the Japanses take over the country. The Thai history books don't tell the true story about this invasion. They were overun. It was not a peaceful take over. All the older Thais were told this story about the Japanese land owners by their parents. They'll never forget that.

If Thais don't own the land - or feel that 'foreigners' are infiltrating and getting a foothold - deep down they think they'll lose control of their own destiny.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Bloodnut

[dragonfly94]

Pointless survey, it will NEVER happen.

[MikeTexas]

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.

Who do you think owns it now?

[micmichd]

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.

Who do you think owns it now?

The existing disparity is bad enough and doesn't need any international add-ons.

Anyway, Farangs can invest in so many things in Thailand. Why should it need to be Thai land?

Edited May 19, 2015 by micmichd

[micmichd]

Dear Farangs,

if you're so in such a desperate need of land, why don't you learn from the Dutch and create your own land on your shores?

[ZeldasCavern]

While I do not subscribe or support an unregulated foreigner land-grab fest; I absolutely believe in 100% legal land ownership and investment for foreigners.

This would eliminate a lot of the real estate schemes, and provide security for the foreigner living, working, raising a family, or retiring in Thailand.

Thai's welcome the foreign tourism money, technological advances, as well as assistance from foreign governments. Investment and ownership would help the local populace advance.

[micmichd]

Every piece of land owned by a Farang would be a piece of Thai land taken away frdom Thai people. That's the big difference to other goods and services.

Edited May 19, 2015 by micmichd

[lostoday]

Every piece of land owned by a Farang would be a piece of Thai land taken away frdom Thai people. That's the big difference to other goods and services.

Same can be said about America and most other civilized countries in the world except the governments of those countries realize you can't steal dirt.

Every piece of land bought by anyone is taken away from someone else. It's called a land sale. If a Thai loses land in a card game it is called a gambling loss. If a Thai loses land as a result of marriage it is called

(you met my ex wife).

[lostoday]

@lostoday Is it not the case that Chinese individuals and firms are held to exactly the same rules as those from every other nation?

Or, are you referring to Thai citizens of Chinese ancestry? If so this is a whole different ballgame since they are not foreigners.

Chinese families transcend borders as does their cash.

[lostoday]

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.

Who do you think owns it now?

The existing disparity is bad enough and doesn't need any international add-ons.

Anyway, Farangs can invest in so many things in Thailand. Why should it need to be Thai land?

It should be land because it is land that the Farang business sits on. Who wants to build an expensive business on land belonging to someone else? You would have to be nuts.

[micmichd]

Do you know the difference between a private and a (legal) corporate person?

Make a company of 3 equal shareholders, 2 Farangs and 1 Thai. The Farang shareholders could own the buildings, the Thai part could own the land where it's built on. You might still call it Farang business because you're so proud.

[lostoday]

Do you know the difference between a private and a (legal) corporate person?

Make a company of 3 equal shareholders, 2 Farangs and 1 Thai. The Farang shareholders could own the buildings, the Thai part could own the land where it's built on. You might still call it Farang business because you're so proud.

A person can own a business or a private individual can own a business. I would not start a business where I did not own the means of production and that includes factory and land. Thailand could take a tip from the larger economies in the world and let the people buy land. People per sq km UK 265. Thailand 131. Vietnam 289.

[Srikcir]

Land title doesn't have to be sold.

Many nations offer transferable 100-year land trusts, ie., Mexico. In fact many of the native Hawaiian lands have been sold through 99-year transferrable land trusts; at the expiration of the trust term, all property assets revert back to the Native Trust.

[micmichd]

Do you know the difference between a private and a (legal) corporate person?

Make a company of 3 equal shareholders, 2 Farangs and 1 Thai. The Farang shareholders could own the buildings, the Thai part could own the land where it's built on. You might still call it Farang business because you're so proud.

A person can own a business or a private individual can own a business. I would not start a business where I did not own the means of production and that includes factory and land. Thailand could take a tip from the larger economies in the world and let the people buy land. People per sq km UK 265. Thailand 131. Vietnam 289.

You would never work as a freelancer? Not even after you lost all property?

[rwdrwdrwd]

@lostoday Is it not the case that Chinese individuals and firms are held to exactly the same rules as those from every other nation?

Or, are you referring to Thai citizens of Chinese ancestry? If so this is a whole different ballgame since they are not foreigners.

Chinese families transcend borders as does their cash.

So they are held by the same rules as everybody else. They have to use nominees or corporate structures to own land in Thailand, regardless of the fact they may have family connections that may ease the process (and in the case land is put in a Thai family member's name the land is not owned by foreigners anyway, it's still owned by Thais).

Creating and maintaining a corporate entity remains a bureaucratic, expensive and risk ridden approach whereas absolute freedom to purchase and own land is not. Were the laws so lenient that anybody could buy any land, far more of it would be under the control of non Thai citizens than is the case at the present time. Inflation that has occurred is lower than would be the case if foreigners had been freely and easily able to purchase land.

Edited May 19, 2015 by rwdrwdrwd

[matman]

Unfortunately the four choices do not cover all circumstances. The Thai worry is that foreigners will buy up large area's of land.

Foreigners should be allowed to buy sufficient land to put a dwelling on, and a garden area, if they wanted to be self sufficient they should be allowed to buy the equivalent of a small farm, but restricted to erecting one house on it.

[micmichd]

@lostoday Is it not the case that Chinese individuals and firms are held to exactly the same rules as those from every other nation?

Or, are you referring to Thai citizens of Chinese ancestry? If so this is a whole different ballgame since they are not foreigners.

Chinese families transcend borders as does their cash.

So they are held by the same rules as everybody else. They have to use nominees or corporate structures to own land in Thailand, regardless of the fact they may have family connections that may ease the process (and in the case land is put in a Thai family member's name the land is not owned by foreigners anyway, it's still owned by Thais).

Creating and maintaining a corporate entity remains a bureaucratic, expensive and risk ridden approach whereas absolute freedom to purchase and own land is not. Were the laws so lenient that anybody could buy any land, far more of it would be under the control of non Thai citizens than is the case at the present time. Inflation that has occurred is lower than would be the case if foreigners had been freely and easily able to purchase land.

So, you'd accept higher inflation if you only can own land? Edited May 19, 2015 by micmichd

[rwdrwdrwd]

No. That's not what I am saying at all. I'm responding to lostoday who claims inflation has already been priced in to the market to the maximum possible degree because Chinese families have been able to work around the system.

My contention is that demand, competition and therefore inflation has been restrained due to the complexity involved in foreigners acquiring control of Thai land, and that if anybody was able to buy it, prime real estate would be both more expensive than it currently is, and controlled by foreigners to a greater degree than it currently is.

I don't personally think it would be a positive thing for Thai citizens or Thailand to allow foreigners to own land, and am not advocating exchanging higher inflation for permission to own land as a foreigner at all.

Edited May 19, 2015 by rwdrwdrwd

[MAJIC]

Unfortunately for foreigners to openly own land you will have to change the national anthem as a section of it is rendered variously as saying:

Nation of the people; belonging to the Thais in every respect. Land of Thailand belongs to the Thais. Every inch of Thailand belongs to the Thais.

Many Thai people consider it is their nationalistic duty not to cede the land of Thailand either to foreign nations or to foreigners.

A bit like that nasty spoilt child who won't let others touch his toys but will take the other children's toys

And that's why it's not going to happen, even the big boys don't wan't any Farangs creating a sellers market,that they have to pay competitive rates for, it's their game/market and we are not invited! and never will be!

[lostoday]

The Thai Paradigm of land ownership is deeply engrained in every citizen through the National Anthem.

By the 3rd English translation there is no doubt about the status on land - the 2nd line about Thai's owning Thailand has gone from "...Belonging to Thais in every respect..." to every inch of Thailand belongs to the Thais..." Check out the changing English translations here -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_National_Anthem

Foreign ownership is not going to happen for at least another generation (20 years) IMHO because the last time Thais let foreigners own their land was prior to WWII and the Japanese owners all came outside one day dressed in Japanese Uniforms - and then they helped the Japanses take over the country. The Thai history books don't tell the true story about this invasion. They were overun. It was not a peaceful take over. All the older Thais were told this story about the Japanese land owners by their parents. They'll never forget that.

If Thais don't own the land - or feel that 'foreigners' are infiltrating and getting a foothold - deep down they think they'll lose control of their own destiny.

Absolute nonsense. The Thai PM at the time made a deal with the Japanese before the war for Thai support of an invasion of Singapore and Burma. The Thai Army invaded Burma with the Japanese army and the Thai PM was tried for war crimes after the war for his actions.

[Beng]

I'm happy with my crumbling old 1970s condo, so I don't really have a horse in this race.

I understand and respect Thai opinions and traditions on foreign ownership of Thai land and houses. I think that if there were to be a change, it should be for foreigners to own a single house and a small lot, for personal use only. I would not support an unregulated foreigner land-grab fest, which would obviously only make life even harder for Thais on modest incomes.

[lostoday]

No. That's not what I am saying at all. I'm responding to lostoday who claims inflation has already been priced in to the market to the maximum possible degree because Chinese families have been able to work around the system.

My contention is that demand, competition and therefore inflation has been restrained due to the complexity involved in foreigners acquiring control of Thai land, and that if anybody was able to buy it, prime real estate would be both more expensive than it currently is, and controlled by foreigners to a greater degree than it currently is.

I don't personally think it would be a positive thing for Thai citizens or Thailand to allow foreigners to own land, and am not advocating exchanging higher inflation for permission to own land as a foreigner at all.

Take a look at the Forbes rating of the top 50 wealthiest families in Thailand and you will already see the Chinese control. I am not making a contention I'm simply stating a verifiable fact. You really think Thailand is smarter than the US and UK in land ownership policy?

[rwdrwdrwd]

I'm not disagreeing with that, however this simply serves to prove that Thai citizens of Chinese ancestry are wealthier than average. It does not prove that

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

Looking at the heredity of Thai citizens on Forbes does not prove that land in Thailand is priced as though any individual worldwide were able to own it.

Firstly there is great income disparity between the wealthy and the not wealthy in Thailand which reduces competition in country, and secondly for the wealthy, the market has been essentially closed to outsiders unless they are willing to accept the bureaucracy and risk of skirting around the law to do so.

In terms of the land ownership policy compared to the US and UK - yes I do think Thailand is smarter, or more accurately 'more in the interest of citizens'. Only need to look at the situation in the UK where due to a reduction in housing stock and foreign ownership of prime real estate, the generation aged 20 - 30 are unlikely to ever own property.

Edited May 20, 2015 by rwdrwdrwd

[lostoday]

I'm not disagreeing with that, however this simply serves to prove that Thai citizens of Chinese ancestry are wealthier than average. It does not prove that

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

Looking at the heredity of Thai citizens on Forbes does not prove that land in Thailand is priced as though any individual worldwide were able to own it.

Firstly there is great income disparity between the wealthy and the not wealthy in Thailand which reduces competition in country, and secondly for the wealthy, the market has been essentially closed to outsiders unless they are willing to accept the bureaucracy and risk of skirting around the law to do so.

In terms of the land ownership policy compared to the US and UK - yes I do think Thailand is smarter, or more accurately 'more in the interest of citizens'. Only need to look at the situation in the UK where due to a reduction in housing stock and foreign ownership of prime real estate, the generation aged 20 - 30 are unlikely to ever own property.

Home ownership percent UK 64% , USA 64%.

What percent of Thais own homes?

[Berkshire]

Home ownership percent UK 64% , USA 64%.

What percent of Thais own homes?

Did you get your stats from this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate

Not sure what that proves, especially since China is at 90% and Germany is at 53%. How would you explain that?

[micmichd]

The longer you've had capitalism the less probable it is that your people still can afford real estate.

Germany is not really comparable because they lost two wars, and after WW2 the country was divided.

In 1948 they devalued the currency, and everybody had to start up with 40 DM (20 EUR) Banks and insurances were compensated, industry was built up again (with US credit, "Marshall plan")

The reunification of Germany was the next big program to expropriate the population of East Germany from property by introducing Western DM. The hitherto public agricultural communities (LPGs) were stripped from land, and this land was handed over to private economy. Refugees from East Germany got a small compensation first, their children (eg me) were forced to pay it back to West German government. Also taxes increased, up to day every German taxpayer has to pay extra "solidarity tax" for this BS.

Germany is a perfect example of what can happen if the land of a country gets less while the population increases. In the case of Germany, millions of now homeless migrants and POWs (all Germans!) came to West Germany, and now the West Germans had to share with their countrymen. Until 1954 they were forced to share houses by law (Wohnraumbewirtschaftung), then the problem was left to the "free market". West Germans still hate and disgust people from the East, there was never anything like a national social reintegration really. Maybe they need a common enemy to stand together as a nation, immigrants from Africa and Asia make good scapegoats for their national misery - once again.

Edited May 20, 2015 by micmichd

[lostoday]

Home ownership percent UK 64% , USA 64%.

What percent of Thais own homes?

Did you get your stats from this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate

Not sure what that proves, especially since China is at 90% and Germany is at 53%. How would you explain that?

I don't know. I was responding to the statement, "In terms of the land ownership policy compared to the US and UK - yes I do think Thailand is smarter, or more accurately 'more in the interest of citizens'. Only need to look at the situation in the UK where due to a reduction in housing stock and foreign ownership of prime real estate, the generation aged 20 - 30 are unlikely to ever own property"

[rwdrwdrwd]

According to this, 75% of Thai properties are owner occupied vs 50% in the UK and 65% in the US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owner-occupier

Higher than the UK, and also the latter is falling, despite income discrepancy being far greater in Thailand than in the UK.

The UK is now pricing generations out of home ownership and shackling them to increasing rent.

Seems like an advert for not opening up your land stock to foreign ownership to me.

Edited May 20, 2015 by rwdrwdrwd