Foriegners not being able to buy land.........

[chuckwoww]

We are just discussing whether this is a good policy for the Thais themselves.

 

Maybe we need to define what we mean by Thais? Upper class? Middle class? Isarn family with farang son-in-law? Song thao driver in Udon?

[Nervous_Dog]

OK - how about Australia, unless you are Australian or have residency, non of you Farangs, regardless where you come from, can buy just any old house, land or appartment, you CAN buy NEW places, that are less than 6 months old, apart ffrom that, you CANT!

 

Australia is pretty much the same as Thailand,

 

NOW I only heard that a while ago, when a Thai asked if they could buy a house in Australia with me. Before then I didn;t know other people could buy in Thailand.

 

While we write "Thais can buy with tourist visa" I would be really curious if that was the real case.

 

DOG

[Central Scrutinizer]

All,

 

This has been a long and interesting thread. I have one question though. Why would anyone want to own land here? For a house to build? For business purposes? So you can sell and get back your investment and make a profit?

 

For me it is not necessary or even wise to buy property here.

 

In one word, 'rent'. It is cheaper. It is less troublesome. I don't have to worry that one day after the next coup I will have my land and home appropriated by the xenophobic government. I can leave whenever I want and not come back if things go down the toilet, and lose very little. I don't have to worry about evil Thai family members trying to kick me out of my home and sell it if my Thai wife dies before I do. I have no worries about willing the property to any family members, Thai or farang. The price of a home here in Surin is btween 1 and 2 million baht. Rent for these same places is betweeen 2,500 and 4,000 baht a month. BKK is more, but if you want to live in the big city this is par for the course. Up to you. BUT, you can easily rent a great house and/or apartment or condo in BKK cheaper than if you bought one. Much cheaper usually. I don't really understand this obsession of some who want to buy land in their name here.

 

Some say renting is throwing away your money and not getting anything back on your investment. I say renting (here) is cheap, and buys 'peace of mind'.

 

You want to leave property/home to your Thai wife you say? Good. Go to her village, buy a plot of land in her name, build her a 2 to 4 million baht home on it. And forget about it except to visit once in a while when visiting her family and friends in the village. You die she gets the house and property (which are hers anyway in any eventuality).

 

Then, go rent a nice place where ever you want to live in the country. Simple, inexpensive, easy to do, and much less headaches and worries.

 

And no matter how much farangs want to be able to own here it is up to the Thais. Give them another 50 years or so to catch up. They'll sell out eventually (in a 2-tiered market of course) and screw every farang that buys property here when they finally do. ::

 

Or, buy a condo, a small one with one bedroom, so the in-laws can't move in on you.

 

Cent

[Nervous_Dog]

easy one Cent, as you know I've built a Thai house up on the "Farm", I want to extend it and make it a pretty dam palatial thai style neo resort place for me to sit. I want to do this on land I feel safe about.

 

Now I feel safe with the current arrangement, but what if I was single, even then I'd want to build something special in Thailand, and I couldn;t if I was single,

 

Thats a pretty good reason I think

[Central Scrutinizer]

ND,

 

????? The place I built in the village is in my wife's name. I trust her. And as I stated in my previous post if we divorce or I die she gets it, it's already in her name. I could care less about it either way it ends up (although I'd rather be divorced than dead :-)). She deserves it anyway. And your place up in the village is in whose name? Your wife's? Right? So what's the problem? If you buy more land for your palatial style neo-resort just buy it in her name. If you weren't married you more than likely, as a single guy, wouldn't be living or retiring to the Isaan village anyway. You'd probably buy a beach condo or a BKK condo and stay where the action is. There are very few single guys living in the Isaan on their own in their own home (I'd say none), or even would be if they could own land up there.

 

Like I stated, owning here would/could be problematic if there is a change in government and the xenophobic elite robber barons decided to toss out the farangs and confiscate their property, property bought under a new law let's say. It hasn't been that long since the last coup and military takeover of the government, and I don't see this present government and the present political climate as being all that reassuring even if we could own land here. It's all in my wife's name, and if she wants it she'll have it. No big loss other than the sentimental value. And actually it is much better protected being in a Thai's name than a farang's.

 

I've just finished having some work done to my own village home the past week. New bedroom added in the old shop room, very large and roomy, ceilings, tiled floor, glass block replacing the air block, paint, electric, new windows and doors, walls built, tiled the whole front veranda, tiled the whole rear area behind the house as well, more painting back there as well. The whole bill for everything, stock, and 8 guys doing the work for a week is less than 900 USD.

 

Yet, if I just rented (like I do in Surin) a year's rent for a two bath/shower, three bedroom home such as the one I have now will cost me 780 dollars for the year. At 2,500 baht a month like I currently pay. So the work I had done (which was cheap and well done and looks great) cost me more than a year's rent. (This doesn't include the costs of the village house to be built obviously and the work I've done to it over the years. But still, in Isaan unless you go nuts and try to be a bigshot and go wild building a mansion in the rice fields, even these costs are really minimal.)

 

Would it be nice to have the same sort of protections and rights as we have in the west? Of course. Is it a problem for me? Nope. I just use the present system to the best advantage I can for me and don't worry over what isn't and likely will not be for the forseeable future. I'm talking here about reality and the present situation the way it is.

 

The Thais (read government/rich) will do what they want when they want here. We hold no sway over them. And like I said, if they ever do open it up for foreigners to own property here legally, every Thai with a rai to sell will charge double for the farang to own what a Thai could own for maybe half the price.

 

You'll never see them doing these things with our best interests at heart, or any fair play or equal footing. They'll never change until it comes to their advantage, then they'll take advantage as much as they can. They do it to their own people, and they'll do it even worse to we farang.

 

So no, doesn't bother me really. I'll rent what and where I want, and let my wife have her nice home in the village free and clear. What will be will be. I'm not worring over what could be, and might be, or what I'd like it to be.

 

Cent

[FIGJAM]

Nervous_Dog said:

OK - how about Australia, unless you are Australian or have residency, non of you Farangs, regardless where you come from, can buy just any old house, land or appartment, you CAN buy NEW places, that are less than 6 months old, apart ffrom that, you CANT!

I'm going to reply exactly like I replied to you on 03/02/2005 in the thread "Westerners rights in Thailand": if the foreigners are just temporary residents (including retiress and even students), they can buy any new property without any restriction and established property provided it is their residence. Permanent residents don't have any limitation.

That law is meant to prevent a certain type of property speculation going on in OZ and it still puts no restrictions on foreigners on commercial property under AU$50M.

 

RE the land (the subject of this thread), your reply is total BS since you don't need even temporary resident status to buy land, any tourist can show up and buy vacant land as long as building commences within 12 months of purchase. Can ALSO buy an established property if an additional amount of no less than 50% of the original property cost is spent on improvements or additional construction.

 

How you dare to compare OZ to Thailand is beyond me, even without taking into account how easy it is in OZ, relatively to Thailand, getting permanent residency (which grants you the exact same rights as the Australians RE ownership of assets).

Not to talk about citizenship...

 

 

Australia is pretty much the same as Thailand,

Really?

In whose name are the land and the house you are building in Thailand?

If the parts were reversed and you and your wife were to buy land in OZ and building there "your pretty dam palatial neo resort place" could your Thai wife have the land and the house in her name?

Cut the bullshit, Nervous_Dog.

 

 

NOW I only heard that a while ago, when a Thai asked if they could buy a house in Australia with me. Before then I didn;t know other people could buy in Thailand.

 

While we write "Thais can buy with tourist visa" I would be really curious if that was the real case.

Tell your tourist friend in Australia that wants to buy an house there that he/she can:

- buy land and start building his/her house within 12 months from the purchase

- buy a new built house

- buy an older than 6 months house and invest at least 50% of the original property cost on improvements or additional construction

 

Thailand allows you (who even are not just a tourist but a resident legally working and paying taxes there and married to a Thai citizen) NONE of the above.

 

And since this is already the second time that you come up to me with this crap, I repeat: the aforementioned (which you can only dream about in Thailand) is granted by your homecountry to any simple Thai tourist.

A Thai in your position (legally residing, working and paying taxes in Australia and married to an Australian citizen - heck, each one of these conditions would singly suffice!) has in your homecountry, regarding ownership and countless other things, the exact same rights as you as an Australian born citizen.

[BelgianBoy]

FIGJAM said:

Tell your tourist friend in Australia that wants to buy an house there that he/she can:

- buy land and start building his/her house within 12 months from the purchase

- buy a new built house

- buy an older than 6 months house and invest at least 50% of the original property cost on improvements or additional construction

 

Thailand allows you (who even are not just a tourist but a resident legally working and paying taxes there and married to a Thai citizen) NONE of the above.

Errrrr...... wrong....... basically any farang can do the above in LOS, except have the title of ownership.

But buy & built is not the problem, owning it is.

Confusing isnt it ?

 

BB

[FIGJAM]

BelgianBoy said:

FIGJAM said:

Tell your tourist friend in Australia that wants to buy an house there that he/she can:

- buy land and start building his/her house within 12 months from the purchase

- buy a new built house

- buy an older than 6 months house and invest at least 50% of the original property cost on improvements or additional construction

 

Thailand allows you (who even are not just a tourist but a resident legally working and paying taxes there and married to a Thai citizen) NONE of the above.

Errrrr...... wrong....... basically any farang can do the above in LOS, except have the title of ownership.

But buy & built is not the problem, owning it is.

Confusing isnt it ?

Your track record in past threads makes me wonder whether this is a genuine attempt at humor or you actually mean it...

[gummigut]

Gadfly, you really don't get it do you.

 

STAY ON TOPIC!

 

AGAIN, my whole point is that I believe the Thai middle class would be hurt if they opened up real estate restrictions with all things remaining the same.

 

ME: I demonstrated my assertion using standard economics.

 

YOU: Stated my assertion isn't true. Show me how, and use standard economics like I did. I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING OF MERIT YET!

 

YOUR ATTEMPT: Farangs and middle class thais will not participate in the same market. That's erroneous. They will.

 

YOU DON'T GET IT: I stated that even if one farang enters the Thai middle class market, then they are worse off. You stated that I had to change my assertion of a farang buying several townhouses to one shows that my point doesn't hold. That's flawed logic. Doesn't matter. I know several farangs who would like to buy in the 2 to 5 million baht housing market in Bangkok. That's right smack dab in the Middle class Thai market.

 

YOU OFF TOPIC: Don't spout off again about freedom of choice and different market economies like China and the Soviet Union.

 

Gadfly1 said:

Now, of course, in your most recent post (the one above) you have backed off this claim after I challenged you to support that position with comparative figures. You no longer claim, as you did before, that the US and Europe are the worst offenders, the most protectionist, etc.

 

AGAIN, this is all OFF TOPIC, and AGAIN how you twist words. I NEVER backed off from my assertion that they are the worst world trade offenders.

 

The US and Europe are the worst protectionist in the world regarding agri-foods. That's where the less priviledged nations take a beating (including Thailand).

 

Ceded you a point on the biasness of OXFAM, but that doesn't negate that this is a undeniable truth. Quantifying the level is something that is arguable so I never took that up.

 

Gadfly1 said:

In my post about mercantilism, for example, I explained why your reasoning is flawed: basically, protectionist limits on foreign investment and trade do the most harm to those who live in protectionist countries irrespective of the policies other countries adopt. This is an issue that you haven't dared address head on.

 

GAH. STAY ON TOPIC!!!!

 

I never addressed the issue, because my assumption was EVERYTHING REMAINING THE SAME.

 

I didn't want, and I don't want to get sidetracked because YOU go off the deep end.

 

Can we just keep it focused on the ONE point THAT:

 

Opening up land restrictions would hurt the Thai middle class all things remaining the same.

 

IS THAT SO HARD TO DO???

 

<<burp>>

[gummigut]

Beautifuly intelligent argument.

 

Tying an asset's value to its performance.

 

thewalkingatm said:

The Thais know that foreigners staying in Thailand are trapped in the rental market. This allows the Thais to extract a premium by renting to foreigners.

 

As a result, rental prices and hence land values are almost certainly higher than they should be if the market were truely free.

 

So by giving foreigners the option to buy land, that foreigner rental premium would be reduced. This would reduce the potential investment return on land, which in turn reduces the value of land.

 

The counters to this would be... 1) Freeing up the land restrictions would lead to greater demand thus driving up asset prices way beyond what a Thai could extract from a foreign rental premium.

 

2) I'm not entirely sold on the farang rental premium. Many landowners prefer decent farang tenants. Secondly, farangs can rent anywhere. There are no restrictions, so if they pay a "premium" it's just because they have not done their due diligence to understand market rates. To me that's more ignorance.

 

<<burp>>