SURVEY: Should Foreigners be Allowed to own Property?

[lostoday]

According to this, 75% of Thai properties are owner occupied.

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.

Home ownership percent UK 64% , USA 64%.

What percent of Thais own homes?

A foreigner can buy land in both the UK and USA so if Thailand is correct in not allowing land ownership the home ownership in Thailand would be higher than the USA and UK.

If on the other hand home ownership is greater in the USA and UK the people have made enough money by selling land to foreigners so the natives can afford homes.

Although the money was made 50 years ago by whoever owned the land before the Chinese started buying Thailand because now even if the law is changed to allow Farang to buy homes the inflation has already been figured into the market (Shadow banking 50% in China and grey market in Thailand 60%.

[rwdrwdrwd]

With respect, it feels like we're just going round in circles here, bouncing from 'Chinese' to 'Thai's with Chinese ancestry' (who are simply Thai) and repeating the same statements.

I just posted a stat with equivalent weighting to the link you referenced that shows Thailand owner-occupier percentage to be 50% greater than the UK and 17% greater than the US.

My opinion is that competition and therefore the price of land has been restrained due to laws that affect the ability for foreigners to compete on an even footing, and I'm not seeing any proof otherwise from the points you are raising.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Edited May 20, 2015 by rwdrwdrwd

[micmichd]

Guess the problem was the invention of interest (money on money), and the Imp. "solution" (take foreign land) doesn't work anymore. It's over, Western land belongs mostly to banks, be glad if you can pay your rent in Europe / UK.

And be glad Thailand saves you from being caught in the same vicious circle again.

Peace.

[lostoday]

With respect, it feels like we're just going round in circles here, bouncing from 'Chinese' to 'Thai's with Chinese ancestry' (who are simply Thai) and repeating the same statements.

I just posted a stat with equivalent weighting to the link you referenced that shows Thailand owner-occupier percentage to be 50% greater than the UK and 17% greater than the US.

My opinion is that competition and therefore the price of land has been restrained due to laws that affect the ability for foreigners to compete on an even footing, and I'm not seeing any proof otherwise from the points you are raising.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

To be honest with you I was shocked that the percent of Thai home ownership is 80%. That only leaves 20% and they probably are working in Pattaya/Patong/Nana... and only hours away from a Farang buying them a house. So what are you worried about everybody in Thailand already has a house?

[micmichd]

Is it so hard?

As a Farang, you can own a house, just not the land. You don't expect to own the land where you park your car, do you?

Thai land might be needed for infrastructure projects.

If the land where your house is built on should really be needed for other purposes, then you might be given another house in exchange. There's a very well defined procedure for this.

[VINCENT2012]

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.

so tell us what you understand and why !

cause me after so many years here i am still in another planet, i dont understand nothing especially when it is not logical, the thai system is made a way that you have many chances to loose if you are not very very carefull with who you put your money on especially when this "who" has 2 tits.

today still renting is the best solution in thailand, never buying !

think about it

Edited May 21, 2015 by VINCENT2012

[apalink_thailand]

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

Agree. Too many foreign money laundering operations going here. One nationality in particular.

[BlackJack]

most of the Gold coast in Qlds Australia was developed by Japanese money

people were screaming the Government is selling out the country

to which the Premier replied "well they cant take it with them when they go can they"

[lovinglife]

Common sense to allow an individual to own a maximum of 1 rai for their own living requirement, would give a huge boost to the economy at a time when it is desperately needed. I live South of Hua Hin and there is so much land that is unused for anything currently, millions of rai owned by the army or the King that if allowed to be bought could be put straight into the government coffers.

[rethaier]

What is the point of this survey. The Thai government does not care what we think so it will have zero impact anyway.

[lockman]

I understand why they want to not allow foreign ownership. Why not allow limited ownership, but can only be passed down to a Thai national, and limited as to say 1-5 rai maximum.

[slipperylobster]

Correct me if I am wrong...but have not the Chinese (foreigners) broken some ground on land ownership in Thailand, recently?

Does make it look like some back door politics going on....lobbying...and such.

To the preference of Chinese over Westerners

[slipperylobster]

Is it so hard?

As a Farang, you can own a house, just not the land. You don't expect to own the land where you park your car, do you?

Thai land might be needed for infrastructure projects.

If the land where your house is built on should really be needed for other purposes, then you might be given another house in exchange. There's a very well defined procedure for this.

Except that most houses do not have wheels. You move your car, when told...you cannot move your house.

As for taking my house and giving me another.....would you like somebody to snatch your Mercedes and give you a Toyota truck?

Edited May 21, 2015 by slipperylobster

[northernjohn]

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.

So in the United States of America they invade countries on bogus reasons.

Do you believe if they do it we should do it?

In Canada they send their soldiers into countries to keep peace.

Do you believe we should do it?

I believe that what my home country does has nothing to do with what Thailand should do. If it was such a big deal to me to own the lot my house is on I would find a country where I could own it. How ever I am not that insecure. I refuse to own any thing I can not just wash my hands of and walk away from. I realize and understand that people raising families do not have that freedom but I am not raising a family any more. I flat out refuse to let any thing own me.

[northernjohn]

Correct me if I am wrong...but have not the Chinese (foreigners) broken some ground on land ownership in Thailand, recently?

Does make it look like some back door politics going on....lobbying...and such.

To the preference of Chinese over Westerners

Any one can own property here in Thailand if they have a business and meet a lot of other requirements. Besides that the Chinese might have relatives here already who are Thai citizens. They stick together and it would not be a problem for them.

[GOLDBUGGY]

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.

If the Farm Land was located adjacent to populous growing city, then I can see investors buying this up and holding for a future return. But a Farm located in Tim-Buck-Two, I highly doubt. Especially in Thailand.

After all Farming is a Business and not a Vacation Retreat. It generates an income and from that you calculate the Land Value Price. With your labor I would expect that you make a minimum return of 10% from Smaller Farms. So a 25 Rai Farm which say generates 300,000 Baht a year, you should not pay more than 3 Million Baht for. Unless this property is special to you, as in Mountain and Ocean Views, or next to the In-Laws. You would be crazy to pay more and then hold expecting to reap a huge profit later.

I was raised in a large Farming Community in Canada, and to be quite honest I never heard of or new anyone who was a "Sharecroppers" their. With the cost of farm equipment and machinery for a large farm, it was difficult enough for them to make a decent living, let alone renting out this land and taking half the profit.

You also give the impression that Sharecropping puts many people in the poor house, and thus is a terrible thing. But I tend to disagree with you on this also. You just need to visit any Farmer Bank in any Farm Community to see why. There are several Farm Properties up for sale, that has been taken back by the Bank from People who may have overextended their credit. Most sit empty and unproductive.

So should some rich Farang buy up one of these properties, then Sharecrop it to some Thai, what harm has he done? He has put to work a family who was not working before and given them a place to live and food to eat. Agree that perhaps their existence is still substandard, but it is still better than what they had. And if you give someone something better than what they had, it is always a good thing.

In my case I bought a small farm in Thailand with my Thai Wife from an Old Thai Couple. Neither of their 2 Thai Sons wanted to Farm this land, as both owned a profitable Fertilizer Business in a nearby city. A trend you are seeing more and more in Thailand, and like Canada 50 years ago. Where the younger generation want to go to the big city and make their own careers and not be stuck on a substandard farm with a subsistence existence, like their parents.

Because the Thai Couple was old, they could no longer take on the duties off looking after the farm, and their sons where not interested either, as well as being too busy for them care for it. So this farm went up for sale 3 or 4 years ago. They moved their parents to the big city so they could better care for them. So in all this time this property sat idle.

So for 4 years the Rice Field was not planted and was now overgrown with weeds, as was the huge garden. The Fish Pond was empty. The Fruit from the Fruit Trees lay on the ground and rotten. The Rubber Trees had not seen any fertilizer for many years. The near completed modern house sat empty and bare. But since we took over all of this has changed. We have even employed several of the local community and put them to work at very reasonable prices, to help us in this task.

When it comes to property speculation it is the Thai's that are doing that and not the Farangs. With the 51% - 49% Thai Condo Ownership Rule, many developers are forced to sell some Condos to Thai's at a reduced price, to get this 51% and then sell the rest to Farangs at an inflated price, to make up the difference. You can see from that the Value of the Condo for the Thai has gone up on the day all the units are sold. He just now has to sell it back probably to some Farang, who made some fake company to be able to buy it and exceed this ratio.

Believe me Friend! There is not a line-up of Rich Farangs wanting to buy poor Thai Farm Land in hell knows where. But this is a huge line-up of Thai's trying to sell. And this will get worst as the present generation gets older, and the younger one don't want to take it over or farm anymore. ,

Sorry, it's not a question of your personal intent what happens to land after it's occupied. It's a question of economic logic, and finally the banks take it all. You should know about this.

Does anyone remember the American Farm Aid movement from the 80s?

I am sorry My Friend but you are on a totally different subject and far different Tangent than what the Op Posted. Which was if Foreigners should own land.

Banks taking over Farm Land, or your House, because you fail to make your Mortgage Payments is not the issue here. So I will not comment further on your post.

[GOLDBUGGY]

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.

I for one don't feel sorry for the Mexicans here and that they lost all this land. Because at this time the Mexicans didn't own any of this land. It all belonged to Spain and the true Mexican was no more than a slave to them during this time. So England marrying Mexican Daughters is hog wash. Remember the Alamo? That war wasn't fought against Mexicans but instead the Spanish.

It was not until many years later, when the Mexicans had there own Revolution against Spain, and with the help of the Americans supplying them arms, that they were finally able to drive Spain out and get there country back.

[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.

I for one don't feel sorry for the Mexicans here and that they lost all this land. Because at this time the Mexicans didn't own any of this land. It all belonged to Spain and the true Mexican was no more than a slave to them during this time. So England marrying Mexican Daughters is hog wash. Remember the Alamo? That war wasn't fought against Mexicans but instead the Spanish.

It was not until many years later, when the Mexicans had there own Revolution against Spain, and with the help of the Americans supplying them arms, that they were finally able to drive Spain out and get there country back.

You might want to mention that Spain stole the land from the Indians eh?

[greenchair]

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?

No, we are saying countries that offer thai ownership rights, should offer the same right to citizens of that country.

Or countries that are allowing thai and Asians to buy land should have the same no foreign ownership to certain countries.

So most Asian countries would not be allowed to own land in Thailand as they have similar non citizens land laws.

America , nz, Australia, Canada would be allowed to purchase lands as many many thai freely do in those countries.

Asean constantly want their cake and eat. While not reciprocating the sweets.

[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?

No, we are saying countries that offer thai ownership rights, should offer the same right to citizens of that country.

Or countries that are allowing thai and Asians to buy land should have the same no foreign ownership to certain countries.

So most Asian countries would not be allowed to own land in Thailand as they have similar non citizens land laws.

America , nz, Australia, Canada would be allowed to purchase lands as many many thai freely do in those countries.

Asean constantly want their cake and eat. While not reciprocating the sweets.

Ok, I get you. You're dreaming, of course, because it will never happen. Besides, most of the Thais in America who own homes are in fact American citizens. So it would have zero impact on them.

[micmichd]

Asean not reciprocating the sweets?

The West already took most of the cake (they simply grabbed it), and it's now eaten up.

Reciprocating the sweets? Also sweet Napalm and Agent Orange?

Fortunately, Thailand managed not to get colonialized the way Indochina was.

But here in Pattaya, I've got the impression that what worries Farangs most is to keep Thais away from them. Otherwise they wouldn't hide behind thick walls.

Edited May 22, 2015 by micmichd

[greenchair]

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?

No, we are saying countries that offer thai ownership rights, should offer the same right to citizens of that country.

Or countries that are allowing thai and Asians to buy land should have the same no foreign ownership to certain countries.

So most Asian countries would not be allowed to own land in Thailand as they have similar non citizens land laws.

America , nz, Australia, Canada would be allowed to purchase lands as many many thai freely do in those countries.

Asean constantly want their cake and eat. While not reciprocating the sweets.

Ok, I get you. You're dreaming, of course, because it will never happen. Besides, most of the Thais in America who own homes are in fact American citizens. So it would have zero impact on them.

Well, let's address the citizenship too, now while we are at it.

Citizenship in Australia.

Unemployment benefit to the lazy thai wife that doesn't want to work. About 28,000 per month.

Garanteed retirement benefit.

About about 33,000 per month for life.

Free old age care.

Free health services that is equal to any international hospital here.

Free international schooling for their kids.

Free international standard dental care for their kids.

Half the husbands house and assets after 2 years of marriage.

This is one of many benefits of being a citizen in a western country.

Benefits to be a citizen in Thailand. ?????

Lose all of benefits above.

Plus everything you own upon divorce.

[micmichd]

Then why do you want to settle in Thailand if it is so nice to be Australian?

[greenchair]

Then why do you want to settle in Thailand if it is so nice to be Australian?

Fortunately or unfortunately we love the Thai people. The people that stay have families, and they cannot leave them. Many of them informally care for children that are not their own. Some have wives or husbands that don't want to leave their families or life in Thailand. Some cannot get jobs in their own country because Asians have moved in. They work for less money and do not want to follow the unions that protected our rights. Some just love thailand as a country, but not the discriminatory government policies. Their love of Thailand is higher than the benefits they might receive.

[rwdrwdrwd]

Edit - can't be bothered.

Edited May 22, 2015 by rwdrwdrwd

[micmichd]

Well, I Iove Thailand, too. First of all my Thai lady and my Thai stepdaughter, more than anyone else.

I got stripped off my civil rights in Germany, and it wasn't any Asian's fault. It was the Germans that did it, nobody else.

Edited May 22, 2015 by micmichd

[micmichd]

Edit - can't be bothered.

Edit -

Edited May 22, 2015 by micmichd

[ttthailand]

I think all foreigners should pack up and go back to their own countries and all Thais return to Thailand. Not really ....

Thais should permit foreigners to own 100% of anything they buy. For land I think one rai but must hold for 5 years before resale. Can only have one property, condo or house and must live in it and report this address on 90 day report. I also think that the property price should be applied to the 800,000 baht required to stay in country. This way it will keep foreigners from buying and selling property and taking jobs away from Thais. Buying and selling and having rentals is really a business and should be considered working and with out a permit it should not be legal. If done any other way foreigners would buy up all the land and condos and normal Thais would not be able to afford a home. I look for a win win situation but I know most Farang would not agree with this.

Edited May 22, 2015 by ttthailand

[Keesters]

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?

No, we are saying countries that offer thai ownership rights, should offer the same right to citizens of that country.

Or countries that are allowing thai and Asians to buy land should have the same no foreign ownership to certain countries.

So most Asian countries would not be allowed to own land in Thailand as they have similar non citizens land laws.

America , nz, Australia, Canada would be allowed to purchase lands as many many thai freely do in those countries.

Asean constantly want their cake and eat. While not reciprocating the sweets.

Perhaps it would be better for America , nz, Australia, Canada to disallow Thais from owning land there. That would bring about same rights wouldn't it?

[Credo]

Foreigners should be able to own land, IMO. It's a little more tricky in countries like Thailand to allow for widespread changes to ownership of land laws though. Speculation could mess with price of land.