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

[FAT_AUSSIE]

Easy to draw a distinction between a foriegner married to a Thai national raising a family in Thailand and somebody looking to speculate on property or buy up the countryside.

 

if the Thai government was slightly fair they would recognise this and provide some opportunity for guys who want to simply settle and raise a family.

[bust]

This is the problem these day. Corporate bottom line is the almighty. Unfortunately developing countries always see foreign investment as a wind fall but never look at the big picture. That's why the days of growing up in a society are long gone as we all now live in an economy. :shakehead

[chuckwoww]

In an ideal world maybe. But how long before guys would be marrying girls just to get their hands on nice bits of beach front then bribing officials and building condos? At least under the current system the property stays in the wife's name.

[FAT_AUSSIE]

a family home would not need to be positioned on any more than 1 rai, greater than two stories and need to have any comercial pourpose. For someone who has lets say been married for a number of years, has at least a child with his Thai wife there should be a chance to let the bloke who more than likely foots the billl for the lot to have some ownership at the least. Some sort of provisional right to citizenship in Thailand would be resonable too.

[chuckwoww]

FAT_AUSSIE said:

a family home would not need to be positioned on any more than 1 rai, greater than two stories and need to have any comercial pourpose. For someone who has lets say been married for a number of years, has at least a child with his Thai wife there should be a chance to let the bloke who more than likely foots the billl for the lot to have some ownership at the least. Some sort of provisional right to citizenship in Thailand would be resonable too.

 

Well if the bloke trusts his wife there shouldn't be any problem. I think the Thais are worried about what happens in cases of divorce. They also know that granting property rights is the thin end of the wedge. Provisional citizenship rights would come next. Followed of course by full citizenship rights. I don't think fairness comes into their thinking.

[FAT_AUSSIE]

granted. No the current property laws in Thailand are very much designed to only benefit the Thai's. It almost seems the Thai gov't want's to help unscrupulous bargirls turn big dollars...

[chuckwoww]

Basically they want us to spend money and keep buying the visas....but they'll never come right out and say so.

 

I'm not saying you don't have a great relationship with your wife and I hope it lasts.

[Old Hippie]

Fat_Aussie, Chuck,

 

I was under the impression that you could own 1 rai in your name for the purporse of building a home, if you had been married to a Thai for a set amoutn of time. This topis has come up before, but no definitive answer/terms on it. It might be worth looking into.

[Guest]

I was under the impression that you could own 1 rai in your name for the purporse of building a home, if you had been married to a Thai for a set amoutn of time. This topis has come up before, but no definitive answer/terms on it. It might be worth looking into.

The answer is very clear: the circumstances you are describing do not entitle you to buy land. Indeed, the opposite is true. If your marriage is registered in Thailand (or they somehow otherwise know a Thai woman is married to a non-Thai), the Thai Land Department will not allow your Thai wife to buy property unless you, the Farang, sign a statement in their presence disclaiming any interest in that property.

 

Consequently, if you have a falling out with your Thai wife, you are screwed. Of course, at the beginning of a relationship when you are in love and have convinced yourself that your TG really loves you for who you are - despite the age, education, language and cultural differences - little or no thought is given to the possibility of a falling out. Indeed, if you insist on using a holding company to buy the property, you are likely to hear her complain bitterly about how you don't really love or trust her. I have seen this happen to others, and it happened to me when I first realized that I might be staying in Thailand for the long haul. But I still used a holding company for that acquistion, and today, about eight years later, I have no idea where my ex-Thai GF/soulmate for life is (she wasn't a BG) - or have any interest in finding out. OK, I digress, but I did want you know this is not just theory; I have a bit of personal experience here.

 

OK, you are smart, think with the big head instead of the little one, and go the Holding company route. Holding companies are tricky and cumbersome. If you go to Pattaya, Koh Samui, Phuket or virtually any other resort locale, you will see store front operations advertising that they will assist you in buying a house. They do everything from helping you find the place, to reviewing the contract, acting as your lawyer and inspecting title. No worries.

 

Fraud is rampant.

 

Any place that does everything has a built-in conflict of interest (and how can you possibly trust any place that operates with such conflicts of interest in the first place?) and in a place like Thailand a conflict of interest usually means you will get ripped off to some degree. It is not a question of if, but rather of how much. If the same company that will get a commission if the sale goes through is the same company that is supposedly looking after your interests, giving you guidance on Thai law, translating documents you can't read (how many here can really read a Thai property document?), making sure title is secure, making sure the holding company actually does protect your interests, etc., you can imagine the result in place like Thailand. These sorts of conflicting incentives mean trouble anywhere, but in places such as Thailand, where the rule of law is thin, they practically guarantee problems.

 

Ok, now let's assume you are really smart, you separate the real estate agent/developer/property owner group (who have an interest in procuing a sale irrespective of your interests) from your professional advisors, and those professional advisors are both competent and able to communicate complicated concepts to you in English (the two do not necessarily overlap, although many Farangs don't seem to understand this). You do it right, and you set up a proper holding company. You haven't been ripped off, but you still have problems.

 

After a few years the Thai Revenue Department will expect that company to generate a profit. You can't go on foreover declaring a loss. Company profits here are taxed at 30%. And you need someone to do the books and maintain corporate records, so your transactional costs of "owning" property in Thailand are substantially higher than they would otherwise be. How many of these "land companies" explain any of this to prospective Farang home owners when they try to buy property? Few, if any, I suspect.

 

Someone above said that if you have a right to work in a place (here, the coveted "work permit"), you should have the right to buy a place to live. I agree 100%. But it is even worse here. Even if you have a work permit, you are a legal permanent resident - someone who has the right live in Thailand for the rest of their life - and you pay substantial taxes, you still cannot buy property. In brief, not only are Thai property laws contrary to good economics and an incentive for corruption and fraud, they are also absolutely unfair.

 

When we talk about restictions on foreign ownership of land in Thailand, this is the practical reality of what we are really talking about.

[gummigut]

cavanami said:

The USA is screwed up with people expecting instant rights...

 

All I've got to say is go read the Federalist papers and what the forefounding fathers fought for and established the country for.

 

Inalienable rights. We're violating them at Guantanamo. I don't think we're doing those that fought in the revolutionary war proud.

 

Old Hippie said:

But what about when the foreign investor sells the property at a profit and takes the money out of the country (USA)?

 

That's fine. The only reason he was able to get a profit is because someone else sees that there is an opportunity to put that piece of real estate to even better, more productive use.

 

Old Hippie said:

Also, he is taking away a property from a potential domestic buyer, helping to drive up prices, and maybe driving up the rental costs as well (depending on the market)...

 

The US is a developed market. There is no excuse for the domestic buyer to not be able to buy the piece of property. There's lots of opportunities to earn money in the US.

 

The same can not be true of developing countries where often they are on the short end of tariffs and trade deals. Look at who are the worst world trade offenders. US and Europe.

 

Old Hippie said:

You lost me on this. For me, it is more the principle than the actual ability to buy the land in a foreign country.

 

In a most efficient economy, capital can flow both ways. If one country is economically disadvantage, and the more industrialized nation takes advantage of that in trade and the less advantage country puts up protectionist barriers then the economic system as a whole isn't as efficient as it could be. But the industrialized nation is much better off then the developing nation.

 

Old Hippie said:

In Things like government jobs, I do think a person born in this country should have a priority over someone who was not. Sorry, but I see it that way. Oddly, my adopted dad, who is an immigrant also sees it that way.

 

Father served on the USS Iowa. I was BORN an American. I can't be clearer than that. In Hong Kong no less. I can be a President if enough Americans elected me. I've paid tax, voted, and served jury duty. How do I have less rights than someone who was born in weehawken New Jersey?

 

Old Hippie said:

Go to any foreign country, and see if you can get a government job. My guess is the locals in those countries would take my position on this. That doesn't mean I am right of course, it's just how I feel about it.

 

Fine, but let me ask you this. How many of those countries have a better standard of living???

 

US has to be doing something right.

 

Old Hippie said:

My tentative answer is to say, that you weren't born in the USA, so you should have a lower priority for a governemnt job than someone who was.

 

Piss on you then. And wearing a kilt, I don't have to unzip!

 

Old Hippie said:

I also stated that I would have no problem with you becomming a citezen and buying property. I would however have a problem with you NOT being a citezen, buying property, and then returning to HKG...

 

Then the US wouldn't have such a robust economy. Doesn't matter if the owner is present or not, but that the asset is put to the highest and best use.

 

That's an economic principle.

 

...On the inference that "citizens born here" have more rights than naturalized.

 

This is just plain wrong. It goes against the founding principles of the forfathers as well...."

 

Old Hippie said:

True, I can lose many rights as punishment for a crime, but I can't be kicked out of the USA, you can.

 

Wrong! Imprisoned yes. Not kicked out.

 

Old Hippie said:

In short, abuse the privilidge, lose your rights...That is a fundamental difference between people born here, and people who immigrated here, and became citezens, like it or not, and it is not my doing!

 

This is ignorant and wrong. I was born OVER there, in what is now China, and my citizenship can't be taken unless I myself voluntarily revoke it.

 

Old Hippie said:

Additionally, as I said, in the case of Government jobs, I feel first priority should go to Veterns born here, then people born here, before people not born here (citezen or not).

 

Where does this stop? Hospitals, doctors maybe? Screw that. Best person for the job is what it should be. More efficient, less deaths. More productive for society overall. Thus more goods get produced and everyone has a better standard of living. You're trying to drag us backwards.

 

Old Hippie said:

I agree with Thais not wanting to sell their country off to foreigners.

 

I do to, but I really wish they'd push enforcement and transparency then there wouldn't be a need to restrict land rights

 

<<burp>>