SURVEY: Should Foreigners be Allowed to own Property?

[lostoday]

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.

You think Thais and/or Thai investment companies are not speculating on land now? Aw come on.....

[meatboy]

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.

see what thai's own in the uk. besides football clubs.and you dont need a WORK PERMIT.

[micmichd]

Taking into account all the negative effects of private land ownership as posted here, Thailand should better not repeat Farangs' mistakes.

[Seastallion]

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.

Too late...there are already tens of thousands of parcels of land that are 49% NOT owned by Thais.

Extrapolate, and in theory, only 51% of Thailand may be owned by Thais.

[micmichd]

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.

Too late...there are already tens of thousands of parcels of land that are 49% NOT owned by Thais.

Extrapolate, and in theory, only 51% of Thailand may be owned by Thais.

51% is the control majority.

[Seastallion]

Although I personally would want to own my home, there are some very good arguments put up against foreign ownership.

I'm not convinced about the reciprocity arguments though...they seem rooted in pettiness.

The way to go about it, as suggested, is limit in size of land parcel and area.

A national quota of foreign-owned land would work to ensure little impact on Thai ownership on the rest of the land mass. If, say, 1% was allocated, only that foreign-owned land would have it's own micro-market and not affect the general real estate market.

The large-scale industrial/agricultural foreign ownership is a definite no-no.

I don't want to mention a certain giant Asian neighbour who would indeed gobble up as much as it could.

[wowfactor10]

yes of course but to avoid speculation make it only one rai pro foreigner..

It will bring back a life the dead housing market in Thailand

It send out also a positive signal.

[lostoday]

Although I personally would want to own my home, there are some very good arguments put up against foreign ownership.

I'm not convinced about the reciprocity arguments though...they seem rooted in pettiness.

The way to go about it, as suggested, is limit in size of land parcel and area.

A national quota of foreign-owned land would work to ensure little impact on Thai ownership on the rest of the land mass. If, say, 1% was allocated, only that foreign-owned land would have it's own micro-market and not affect the general real estate market.

The large-scale industrial/agricultural foreign ownership is a definite no-no.

I don't want to mention a certain giant Asian neighbour who would indeed gobble up as much as it could.

You mean if I wanted to buy half of the land to build a new mall or industrial complex I could not do it?

[Seastallion]

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.

Too late...there are already tens of thousands of parcels of land that are 49% NOT owned by Thais.

Extrapolate, and in theory, only 51% of Thailand may be owned by Thais.

51% is the control majority.

Read what I was replying to. " Land of Thailand belongs to the Thais. Every inch of Thailand belongs to the Thais."

Every inch already does not belong to Thais.

[Seastallion]

Although I personally would want to own my home, there are some very good arguments put up against foreign ownership.

I'm not convinced about the reciprocity arguments though...they seem rooted in pettiness.

The way to go about it, as suggested, is limit in size of land parcel and area.

A national quota of foreign-owned land would work to ensure little impact on Thai ownership on the rest of the land mass. If, say, 1% was allocated, only that foreign-owned land would have it's own micro-market and not affect the general real estate market.

The large-scale industrial/agricultural foreign ownership is a definite no-no.

I don't want to mention a certain giant Asian neighbour who would indeed gobble up as much as it could.

You mean if I wanted to buy half of the land to build a new mall or industrial complex I could not do it?

I don't mean that.

The OP question is about owning land outright.

What I am suggesting is that land can be owned outright, but not for commercial enterprise, and only land within the set quota.

Commercial investment in land should remain as it is with minority shareholding only, and that would be outside the freehold quota.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Seastallion

[micmichd]

Guess it wouldn't be possible for Farangs to keep commercial interests of Farang banks or institutions out. Once you own land, a creditor can seize it when your instalments are overdue.

[steelepulse]

Doesn't a sales transaction involve a willing buyer and willing seller? Who is selling the land here to these "greedy foreigners", ghosts?

[micmichd]

Maybe impoverished farmers or workers would have to sell their land.

[lostoday]

Maybe impoverished farmers or workers would have to sell their land.

Yes of course. the impoverished farmer that is the largest landholder in Bangkok who sells the land to build all the apartments, shopping malls and industrial complexes that are financed from abroad. You can buy any commercial land you want as long as you have the cash to buy lots of it. Farangs can buy land for commercial purposes and own mega bucks worth of it right now. I don't understand you fellows who can not grasp this.

Edited May 26, 2015 by lostoday

[micmichd]

There are Isaan ex-farmers in East Pattaya who got land in exchange for land in Isaan which was needed for infrastructure projects. They are now workers. I'm sure quite a few of them would sell their land to Farangs and then eventually get homeless.

Better not to let Farangs get a foot into that door and avoid riots which are common in some European cities now.

[lostoday]

There are Isaan ex-farmers in East Pattaya who got land in exchange for land in Isaan which was needed for infrastructure projects. They are now workers. I'm sure quite a few of them would sell their land to Farangs and then eventually get homeless.

Better not to let Farangs get a foot into that door and avoid riots which are common in some European cities now.

What eh? You don't think a Thai would make them homeless quicker if a buck was to be made? My grandfather got homeless because he was a drunk and a gambler. Stuff happens. Grow up. Not everyone is a refugee on the dole. Some of us work and are sober and do well in life and don't ask for a nanny to take care of us.

[micmichd]

The question if Thais should be allowed to drive fellow Thais away from land is off topic here, so is gambling and alcohol. The problem is that land is a limited resource which (usually) cannot be increased, and you don't get win-win situations if you trade naturallly limited resources.

Once you have land as property, you're able to sell it again. As you point out: Shit happens, and you might be forced to sell or pawn your land. Guess quite a few Farangs are in Thailand because exactly this happened to them in their home country.

You think you don't need a nanny?

Maybe not at the moment, but maybe if you get older. And maybe you would be happy to have a Thai family or Thai partners to care for you then.

Why not find Thai people that you can trust? A wife or someone like that? Women are quite good in keeping a home together, why should you always be the boss?

[lostoday]

The question if Thais should be allowed to drive fellow Thais away from land is off topic here, so is gambling and alcohol. The problem is that land is a limited resource which (usually) cannot be increased, and you don't get win-win situations if you trade naturallly limited resources.

Once you have land as property, you're able to sell it again. As you point out: Shit happens, and you might be forced to sell or pawn your land. Guess quite a few Farangs are in Thailand because exactly this happened to them in their home country.

You think you don't need a nanny?

Maybe not at the moment, but maybe if you get older. And maybe you would be happy to have a Thai family or Thai partners to care for you then.

Why not find Thai people that you can trust? A wife or someone like that? Women are quite good in keeping a home together, why should you always be the boss?

I am old. I have a Thai wife and family. They take care of me because when I die my pension stops. It is a symbiotic relationship. What does that have to do with land? Foreign companies can invest in and purchase large tracts of Thai land. Thais can invest in and purchase large tracts of Thai land. Agricultural companies are more efficient than individual farmers and will eventually own much of Thailand.

USA used to have 30% farmers now a couple of percent because the farming is done by large companies. So? Progress. The day of the small farmer is over. Sorry. You might as well get used to it. It started with the first mechanization of farming years and years ago.

Every year the farming population of Thailand shrinks. It is not because Farang are buying land. It is because large companies are buying land.

[micmichd]

Congratulations. What difference does it make whether you or your Thai wife owns the land?

"Progress" is a nice word.

Western progress lead to Imperialism, World Wars, and now to a severe economic crisis which could end up in a civil war. Why should Thailand repeat all this?

Edited May 26, 2015 by micmichd

[lostoday]

Congratulations. What difference does it make whether you or your Thai wife owns the land?

"Progress" is a nice word.

Western progress lead to Imperialism, World Wars, and now to a severe economic crisis which could end up in a civil war. Why should Thailand repeat all this?

The alternative is Nepal. Every country in the world is trying to produce more with less. If Western (UK and USA) progress leads to imperialism what does Eastern progress (China, Japan, Korea) lead to?

I don't think the USA or UK is headed to a civil war and the only severe economic crisis I see is Russia and they don't look like they are headed to a civil war.

There is no connection between progress and imperialism in the current century.

Besides it does not make any difference anyway. If one company can produce rice of the same quality cheaper that company will buy all the land. No matter what you say. Thailand will become more industrialized and less involved in agriculture. It is what happens when you invent a combine,

[micmichd]

What's wrong with Nepal?

Surely every country is trying to produce more with less. You don't need private property in land, though. Should be possible for farmers to share machines for increasing productivity.

Some farmers (maybe most) would have to leave their farms, go to the industrial or tourist places, and get a job there. They could also get land in exchange if there's enough land left. You might call me a socialist dreamer if you want.

Guess the nations with large land and/or national resources will be better off in the ongoing worldwide struggle. USA, Russia and China.

Internal conflicts will rather break out in these countries which are overcrowded, like England or Germany. The conflicts are already there, look at all this bashing on immigrants (which are actually needed as cheap labour)

In West Germany there's a decades-long history of urban riots, they call it "fight for housing" ("Häuserkampf"), in England they complain about "overbreedring". Like rats when they have no room to move anymore. Brutality increases, religious and racial prejudices are added.

Understandably Thailand doesn't want to become like this.

China has its rather experimental system of "two systems", about Korea and Japan I don't know enough for a prognosis.

The question if UK should remain part of EU is discussed in another topic, Germany is not a topic at all afaik.

The role of Thai women and children for the development of Thailand in a globalized economy might be discussed elsewhere, but please without hysteria.

[ABCer]

I have voted for a second choice.

Any foreigner should be able to buy a piece of land with a house or with a plan to build a house within, say, 2 years.

To safeguard Thailand belongs to Thais concept the land size should be limited to between 1 and 2 Rai.

The number of such blocks of land owned by foreigner should be limited to 3 (say, one in the city, one on the beach and one in the mountains).

[wowfactor10]

Kindly have a look this list it covers most of it...:

1.Ease land owning regulations so allow us foreigners to limited ownership example max purchase of one rai in our own name on the title deed.

2.Ban the 49% foreigner business ownership rules with thai share holders but change it into a 100% foreigner business ownership in Thailand.

3.Present us a one stamp a year hassle free visa.With no strings attached except our one year payment.

4.Land plots bigger then one rai should come with a minimum of one 100 year lease.

5.Police / and Thai courts need be more serious to end the Thai against farang crimes.(no 500 BHT fine for a bag snatcher)

6.Police need change their hot uniform in a uniform that is more suitable for this hot climate.Example bermudas and shirts with short sleeve.

7.Ban jet skies en horses from all Thai beaches.

8.Bring back on the beach chairs ,umbrellas,food and cooling drinks.

9.Consider all outdoor burnings a serious crime that carries a minimum of 2,500 BHT fine.

10.Modernize and simplify the rules for work permits.example 4 staff rules etc etc...

11.Ban all security guards from carrying whistles.

12.Go back to a democratic system as that will surely help to recover with the poor economical situation of Thailand.

13.Offer expats health care insurances for a reasonable price.

14.End the dual pricing in Thailand especially in hospitals.

If we forgot something please be free to add some more demands...

[JB300]

You only need to look at the example of the Lake District in the UK to see what happens when you allow relatively richer people (In this case Londoners looking for a "Weekend Cottage) to buy land/homes without restriction, in this case it resulted in youngsters who's families had lived in the area for generations being forced to move out of the community as they couldn't afford to rent never mind buy.

Policies got changed so a certain %age of property could only be bought by people with "Strong Ties" to the community, but much of the damage had already been done.

Similar story in Singapore, used to be relatively easy for Foreigners to (get a PR &) buy HDB housing, but restrictions have got tighter & tighter and last time I looked included a clause about selling any other property you owned overseas within 6 months... Again, probably too little too late for the locals struggling to get in the housing ladder (this in a country that allows you to offset your pension contributions against your mortgage).

Point I'm trying to make is in both the examples above, the local community suffered by not restricting "Rich Foreigners" from buying property, do you really think Thailand should go down the same route?

Edited May 27, 2015 by JB300

[Colin Foreman]

Please stop moaning about Thai law....you are not Thai....you can't own land or property...

If you want to compare it to Australia or England or Timbuktu or anywhere....buy land there....not in Thailand...simple

If you dislike the disparity between the laws of various countries you should return to your own country.....stop moaning

[50baht]

of course not. Thais are to smart for that.

[JLCrab]

If we forgot something please be free to add some more demands...

Some people see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not?
George Bernard Shaw

... or some dream of things that never were to which I say: Keep on dreaming.

[micmichd]

Make your dreams come true, try at least.

Not the one that fails is to blame, the one that never tried is.

Would there be a USA without dreams?

[JLCrab]

Make your dreams come true, try at least.

Not the one that fails is to blame, the one that never tried is.

Would there be a USA without dreams?

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to say screw to the rest.

(almost by) Reinhold Niebuhr

[krisb]

Maybe just cap how many bedrooms at 4 max.

And the roof has to be red.