SURVEY: Should Foreigners be Allowed to own Property?

[joshstiles]

noooooo waaaaay.....why would any foreigner want to iwn a hoyse or property in thailand or ANY country. What a ridiculous question. Who wants ownership when renting is so much more convenient and glamorous. And just think if you owned property and then it appreciates in value....heck no; who needs that headache......please come up with a more real world question next time....this one is way too whacked..

holy crap

[Berkshire]

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.

Let me correct this... A non-citizen or a non-resident of Australia can not own landed property in Australia, similar to Thailand. A non-citizen or a non-resident of Australia can only purchase designated, new buildings, such as apartments ( In Thailand, Condominiums). There are stringent laws that prevent foreigners buying houses etc., Most recently a Chinese business magnate was forced to sell off his 40million Aus dollar property in Sydney, as he was found to have breached the law.

Interesting. So if this is how it is in Australia (and I'm sure countless other countries), why are the whiners/whingers complaining about Thailand?

[micmichd]

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.

Edited May 18, 2015 by micmichd

[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.

In a land of one story houses your thought might hold true.

In the (USA) Farangest of Farang countries anyone can buy land?

Check houses owned per capita and see if there is any correlation between homes owned and not allowing foreign ownership. Ready now? Wait for it..... there is not.

You know why San Francisco homes are so expensive? There is a limit on the amount of stories you can build in any building. The population of SF has remained the same for the last 100 years or so (roughly).

[Time Traveller]

If this is "the dumbest thing you have ever heard" .. you have led a charmed life.

I could argue the scale of “dumb” .. Currently it is pointing your way.

To reply to this well written and sound argument with your education on “how numbers work” is really revealing.

It shows that you do not understand the basic laws of supply and demand, and have forgotten that the quantity supplied at the current value, reflecting Thai ownership without Foreigners competing for similar goods, DOES keep land ownership within reach of many Thais. Your “solution” simply eliminates more Thais from the equation by every additional of inflated value (for the benefit of NON Thai People)

Please remember that the Thai owner is question is the average Thai, single plot owner, single dwelling owner, single farm owner … not a BKK Hi So speculator on off plan condos.

The most ridiculous premise here (more money in the pocket) is that a person can simultaneously enjoy the appreciation in value of real estate, and still OWN IT. (Yes, borrowing against it is a possibility, but not the core of your thesis.)

So, when the average Thai has “hit your jackpot” and sold their land, where, pray tell .. shall they live?

Wait for it: They can, according to the laws of supply and demand, REPLACE that parcel by paying more for it? How much more? A percentage very much in line with their “Gain” you claim.

In short, it is .. a wash. They still own the same type of land, and for some reason, (to make foreign speculators rich) ... have sold ... then repurchased ... similar assets.

For someone getting up on their pony and preaching to the unwashed, you have a bit of”book learning” to do.

Artificial inflation of assets must, by the law of supply and demand, reduce the number of buyers in proportion to price.

Let me use your example and see if you get it.

If the quantity of “X” land goes up in price from 1,000,000 per unit to 1,500,000 per unit .. ALL BUYERS below that new higher price are EXCLUDED. So you probably grasp the "American Dream" .. work hard, save money, buy property, have a family, pass down assets, rinse and repeat. news for you .. America did not patent that "dream" .. it is the dream of the working class on this planet. Thailand included. Pumping up property values to create a gambling den for foreigners fails the first and only question any Thai leader needs to ask and answer.

"Is it good for Thailand, and Thai people?" The answer here is a clear "No, not in any way."

Your condescending tone towards Thai people is outrageous in the 21st century. I thought white imperialist racism died off a long time ago, but perhaps not.

Do you really think someone (Thai is what you said) would be so dumb as to sell their only asset -home- because a foreigner came along with some money to buy it and then not have any idea where they would live after that? You really have a snobbish attitude to thai people don't you?

The reason many farmers are poor is because most thai farmers own plots of land that are uneconomical for anything but subsistence farming. Some a too small. Some farmers are just inefficient. Some land is not suited to intensive farming. Some are not interested in intensive farming. And some have no access to capital to purchase machinery that would make their farms more productive.

So yes, it's true not everyone will benefit from higher land prices. But farmers will. Higher valuations of land will allow access to bank finance for machinery or a new home. Or for those farmers that no longer want to -or can't - farm could have more money for their retirement or for a new business, or train for an occupation trade or skill.

And let me ask you 2 questions

1. How do you expect farmers to make a decent living when you have a country with 20 million farms? (the USA is the largest producer of farm output in the world and only have a little over 2 million farms but has almost 5 time the population as thailand does)

2. Those Thais who would not benefit from higher land valuations, how exactly is the currently policy about exclude foreign investment benefiting them right now?

Your whole thesis is based around the premise Thai people can't be trusted with money. If they get money they'll probably just spend it on alcohol and have nothing, so lets just keep them poor on their little land plots in the sufficiency socialist experiement.

[micmichd]

This whole whining from Farangs so greedy for Thai land makes me sick.

I came here from a small old town, and I lost my home in Heidelberg several times to criminal private investors. Yes, criminals, even after German law, one of them an assistant of a former mayor of Heidelberg.

Hopefully they've learned from their previous mistakes in Heidelberg, hopefully Thailand is not about to repeat them.

Edited May 18, 2015 by micmichd

[cornishcarlos]

Are you hijacking another thread with your tales of Heidelberg conspiracies ??

People with families here are not greedy for wanting a stable, secure family home. It's all most sane people want

[Travelman868]

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.

Your wife has too much money

HOWEVER, if Farangs were allowed to purchase property outright, Thai people would be priced out of the market. In Udon Thani it's is possible to buy

a new 3 bed house for around £25,000 if the market was open I bet prices would rise to £40,000 +

The best compromise I have seen is the one on Cyprus. The Government allows property to be sold to foreigners BUT only in restricted area's. Cyprus citizens

are allowed to build in in the rest of the Island.

This system allows the two markets to work along side each other.

[micmichd]

Are you hijacking another thread with your tales of Heidelberg conspiracies ??

People with families here are not greedy for wanting a stable, secure family home. It's all most sane people want

That's all my Thai family and me want, too.

My stories about Heidelberg are based on true facts known to authorities, and my conclusions about the backgrounds are based on science. I'm not talking about conspiracy by a bunch of creeps in a clandestine assembly, nor do I talk about historical links between Heidelberg and Thailand. My link to Heidelberg is the ATM where my money from Heidelberg should be. I'll fight for my rights if necessary, it is my right to take my property over to Thailand even if I disgust the country where I had to leave it. Would be okay if they would pay compensation to my gf instead of me.

I just want to make my Thai family happy, that's what I'm here for.

Edited May 18, 2015 by micmichd

[angiolo]

Well , of course you could buy one in G/f name .

No, you can buy one in your name.... You don't even need a GF.

This massive myth that you are not allowed to own a house here really is bizarrely ingrained.

Rent land on 30 year lease.

Have a prefabricated house or lovely wooden one built to your liking, the older style wooden ones are lovely. You own it 100%, nobody else. If you ever want to move it, it is not difficult to do and many of the companies list this on their sales info, something like 20% of the cost of the house to move it at a future date if you wish.

Or build a typical Western style house that you own 100%, but is a bit more difficult to move should you wish.

People really need to stop listening to barstools and bargirls.

Far too much trouble and I doubt that it is simple to lease land,here in the land of scams. So I still say rent and be without stress. Move house .ie lifting it to another site. Why do I find this so funny ?

[ggt]

If Thailand would allow foreigners to own property...it would open up many more opportunities for lawyers and bankers to benefit...make up new rules offering mortgages for those with good credit...and boost the local economies...

They should offer a lifetime visa with the purchase of a property above a certain level of baht invested...

The Thais might look at foreigners differently if they where treated better by the Thai government...

[micmichd]

You can try to get Thai nationality if you're ready and fit to stay forever.

Edited May 18, 2015 by micmichd

[rwdrwdrwd]

Whilst for me personally it would be great, it's not a good thing for Thailand. It's basically passing over your land and housing stock to foreigners who (as an average, I know there are some very wealthy Thais) have far more money to play with than the average local person, a similar scenario to London, but on a much bigger scale and with a lower barrier to entry.

If foreigners could own land in Thailand, it would already be majority foreign owned since the 1997 crisis.

Edited May 18, 2015 by rwdrwdrwd

[lostoday]

Whilst for me personally it would be great, it's not a good thing for Thailand. It's basically passing over your land and housing stock to foreigners who (as an average, I know there are some very wealthy Thais) have far more money to play with than the average local person, a similar scenario to London, but on a much bigger scale and with a lower barrier to entry.

If foreigners could own land in Thailand, it would already be majority foreign owned since the 1997 crisis.

Are you for real? Most countries in the world allow anyone to buy land. It stays in the country. You can't take it anywhere. I can buy all the Thai land that I want as part of a real estate trust now. The price of Thai land is already for sale on the international market. Do you not really know this? If you think Thai land will increase in value buy some now. It is called a real estate investment trust.

[micmichd]

There are people living and working on the land that you want to buy.

What are you about to do with them if they are in your way?

[greenchair]

The second hand house market in Thailand really struggles. Many thai just abandon an old house, when wanting to upgrade. These abandoned houses, fall apart quite quickly and bring down the value of properties near it.

They also have to be sold below market price if wanting a quick sale.

The foreigner should be allowed to buy second hand homes.

It's a win win.

[lostoday]

There are people living and working on the land that you want to buy.

What are you about to do with them if they are in your way?

If they own the land they are the ones who sell the land. What are you on about?

Do you have a right to occupy land you don't own? In what country does that happen?

[SoilSpoil]

This whole whining from Farangs so greedy for Thai land makes me sick.

I came here from a small old town, and I lost my home in Heidelberg several times to criminal private investors. Yes, criminals, even after German law, one of them an assistant of a former mayor of Heidelberg.

Hopefully they've learned from their previous mistakes in Heidelberg, hopefully Thailand is not about to repeat them.

You mean the same whining farang you are trying to persuade to give you a loan for your step daughter's tuition fees?

[Stan42]

Respect the law, pay your taxes, learn the language and culture. If you've done all of that, you are no different than a person born here and should be treated as a Thai national. Including full rights to buy, rent, and sell real estate.

You can't chose the country you were born in, but you can chose the country which you love.

That said, I know dozens of examples where foreign property owners are boosting the Thai economy by establishing great businesses on their land, while a vast number of Thai property owners just leave their land unattended mostly due to not having the ability or being unwilling to invest in that land.

[26vinny]

the right to own your own house and a few Rai it sits on would be no harm to Thailand,

[micmichd]

This whole whining from Farangs so greedy for Thai land makes me sick.

I came here from a small old town, and I lost my home in Heidelberg several times to criminal private investors. Yes, criminals, even after German law, one of them an assistant of a former mayor of Heidelberg.

Hopefully they've learned from their previous mistakes in Heidelberg, hopefully Thailand is not about to repeat them.

You mean the same whining farang you are trying to persuade to give you a loan for your step daughter's tuition fees?

Fortunately there are some Thais on this Forum, too. Who said I asked Farangs for credit?

Farangs could give me credit on my property that I had to leave in Germany when they chased me out. Because I worked for it, and it is still my property.

Maybe I have even legal rights on real estate in Heidelberg, I'm just about to figure it out. If I do have (which I'm not certain of) then I could sell this. It would be near the house where a prince was born.

[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. ,

[raphoedon]

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.

[raphoedon]

the US dollar the British pound the euro are always welcome here. I agree with the Thai people, don't come here and try to buy our land at inflated prices that some Thais cannot afford.

So come, enjoy, stay a while and rent!

[Wadan]

Thank you Goldbuggy for an excellent article; very well thought out and written. It is a pleasure reading constructive thought rather than all the nonsense some people are posting who have no idea of economics or social living conditions

[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.

You can buy as much of Thailand as you want. It is called the SET or Baht.

How much stock can a foreigner own? How would anyone know? Set up a couple of companies or hold stock in a few more or marry a Chinese girl who's dad owns a gold store in Bangkok.

You fellows are funny. You can buy as much of Thailand as you want to buy.

The question is who wants to buy outside of the Chinese and in that respect Thailand competes with the USA and any other country that has stocks and bonds.

[micmichd]

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?

Edited May 19, 2015 by micmichd

[Tatsujin]

Well , of course you could buy one in G/f name .

No, you can buy one in your name.... You don't even need a GF.

This massive myth that you are not allowed to own a house here really is bizarrely ingrained.

Rent land on 30 year lease.

Have a prefabricated house or lovely wooden one built to your liking, the older style wooden ones are lovely. You own it 100%, nobody else. If you ever want to move it, it is not difficult to do and many of the companies list this on their sales info, something like 20% of the cost of the house to move it at a future date if you wish.

Or build a typical Western style house that you own 100%, but is a bit more difficult to move should you wish.

People really need to stop listening to barstools and bargirls.

The confusion for many is the simple difference between "owning" a house and "owning" the land it sits on.

With a few exceptions, you can own the house outright, but you (as a foreigner) will never own or control the land it sits on ... and if a Thai wants that land, they'll find a way to get it our from under you, and you won't have a leg to stand on ... or the house or land.

That is what people are complaining about, that you cannot (as a foreigner) easily or fairly own (or even long term lease) the land that your house sits on.

EDIT: The main title of this survey is "SURVEY: Should Foreigners be Allowed to own Property?" but the actual poll survey title is "SURVEY: Should Foreigners be Allowed to own Land?"

So if you answered the poll assuming "property", then the results are all incorrect.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Tatsujin

[lovelomsak]

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.

Edited May 19, 2015 by lovelomsak

[eggers]

Agree with most comments & if investment limited to owner occupier with work permit or retirement Visa for property including house & land, should have limited impact on Thai property market.

As it stands, cannot borrow for property purchase, pay different prices & fees, require Thai guarantor for Personal loans, etc + if retiree, cannot borrow.

Despite the fact that, as expats we contribute a good slice to the economic pie, foreigners are treated as 2nd class.....all the brouhaha about the new Constitution; been no mention of equality for non-residents as is case in other countries.