Thailand wants wealthy tourists, but shoots itself in the foot

Dear Louis. At the start of the elite card (what a name!) this thing only cost 1 million baht. The price was first increased to one and a half and then to two million. At the presentation it was assured that participants could acquire one rai of land in a foreign name, but this plan died in beauty, as did the possibility of inheriting membership.
The whole setup is a dragon, where the promises were never fulfilled. Rich people are not stupid either.

I cannot accept the comment that expensive yachts are not allowed to anchor at Phuket. I think that is the order of the day.

It is unlikely that the wealthy or the wealthy will orient themselves towards Thailand. One will not first see what Thailand has to offer, and then abandon Thailand because of the little that TH has to offer. I think that Thailand is not among the 'jet set' in the list of desired countries of residence, but that people immediately focus on Malaysia or the Philippines, for example. Why would you? Thailand constantly profiles itself as a low-income country.

A more friendly, inviting and confidence-inspiring treatment and attitude towards foreigners would be more appropriate. Thailand would do well to omit all those checking restrictions such as annual proof of income and assets, and those nonsensical three-month address checks. In addition: never has one Thai been able to explain to me why Thailand is so afraid of (knowledge) input from farang, and why, for example, even volunteer work is out of the question?
Anyway! They must know for themselves. Then stick to the short term, the short sight and the quick fleeting profit.

The better and more highly educated Thai just don't give a shit about the foreigner. Also the authorities where you have to go for your residence visa. There is only one rule here, how do we get the foreigner's money in our hands as much and as quickly as possible. They only make it more unpleasant with their visa rules and corruption, but in the long run, countries such as Malaysia and the Philippines will benefit from it and these are of course not free of corruption, but they all make it a lot easier to stay there.

I summarized my earlier series of somewhat higher reactions into a clearer and more complete, realistic proposal with relevant considerations:

Protectionism of Thai soil is socially responsible. Poor Thai people would be driven out if foreigners could just buy land. In world cities it was also seen that marriageable children from poorer neighborhoods were forced to leave. Other regulations also prevent or unnecessarily spoil the enjoyment of foreigners who want a regular place in Thailand. Tapping into some intelligence seems an insurmountable effort to the decision-maker Thai. Otherwise it could be solved easily, I suggest:

“Article NN.1
An area up to 2 rai can be purchased or inherited under special objection by a foreigner who spent at least 3.654 days in the Kingdom of Thailand during the 800 days immediately preceding the execution of the deed of purchase or death respectively.
Each owner referred to in this article has equal rights with persons of Thai nationality with regard to the management, including sale, rental and usufruct, of his land.
This special objection consists in the fact that the land must be sold within five years after the death of the foreign owner by each of his heirs of the land, insofar as the heir concerned has not himself spent at least 400 days in the Kingdom during the 1.827 days immediately preceding the date of death. Each heir who is not thus obliged to sell himself, acquires the right to buy or acquire the inheritance of the land of any other heir or co-owner, whether or not to be sold, by mutual agreement, to buy or acquire, with a new right of ownership. under particular objection as described herein.
If a piece of land that is owned or co-owned by one or more foreigners has not been in the personal use of an owner or a co-owner for at least a total of 1.827 days during a period of thirty consecutive calendar years, that land to the Kingdom.
Article NN.2
An owner of foreign nationality referred to in Article NN.1 and his legal children, if any adopted, as well as spouse of foreign nationality are exempted from being reported to an Immigration Office if they stay on the territory for more than 24 hours. property or co-ownership referred to, except in the specific cases determined by the competent Minister.”
Article NN.3
An owner of foreign nationality referred to in Article NN.1 and his legal, possibly adopted, children as well as spouse of foreign nationality are exempt from 90-day registration with an Immigration Office when staying in the Kingdom, except in the specific cases determined by the competent Minister.”
Article NN.4
An owner of foreign nationality referred to in Article NN.1 and his spouse of foreign nationality shall be entitled to a work permit, when applied for, except in specific cases determined by the competent Minister.”

This offers the desired opportunity to those who built a lasting relationship with Thailand through an annual stay of 80 [slightly less than 90] days, already after 10 years; or of 160 [slightly less than 180] days after 5 years; or already after three whole years with an annual holiday of 3 months in the country of origin.

The right to sell, lease, rent or leave in usufruct is necessary and sufficient to satisfy an owner who no longer meets the requirements of a residence permit, or who wants to live elsewhere voluntarily or for health reasons, or who would like to move within Thailand, allow it to recover its investment in a reasonable manner.
The right to inherit, which can only pass through generations if the next heir also has a connection with Thailand, also allows, for example, to inherit from a Thai spouse. This seems only fair and would finally provide a solution for the many who already have a connection with Thailand but who had not been given the opportunity to acquire land ownership in their own name, without the Thai wife, for example, having to immediately abandon her security because of all the need to sell to the foreign spouse while alive.
The purchase right to some foreign heirs prevents a co-owner alien to the family from being necessary, which would often be unacceptable. The foreign heir-owner who already half fulfilled the condition of independent ownership, will most likely fully comply after some time; if not, it is virtually impossible that a subsequent heir would develop a sufficient relationship with Thailand, and yet no Thai leg has been broken because the level surface of the land can never come under the control of a foreigner who does not have a fairly durable connection with Thailand. In practice, lands after a first or almost certainly after a second generation foreign owner will turn out to be mostly owned or co-owned by children of Thai nationality from a mixed marriage, which is then no different from such a child being considered under current law from a legal Thai sole proprietor.
The proposal provides sufficient legal certainty, but limits ownership at all times to persons who retained an effective link with Thailand. The five-year term to sell is sufficient to obtain a fair price; a shorter term would be exploited as 'force sale'. During those five years, an heir who is himself eligible for long-term residence can interrupt the obligation to sell by his own presence. In practice, a descendant will often have Thai nationality.
The thirty-year statute of limitations [also not completely unknown in Thailand] is sufficient to prevent the long-term disappearance of a substantial surface of the Thai Kingdom into foreign hands, and thus the scarcity and unaffordability of land.

The automatic exemption from 90-day reports and the work permit to be applied for will normally be granted, but exceptions can be made, so that a flexibility (to difficult orphans) acceptable to Thailand remains possible. For example, the 90-day reporting could be mandatory if the owner spent less than 366 days in Thailand in the previous 120 days (so had recently maintained a less clear connection to Thailand), or a work permit for 'retired' visas/extensions of residence could be limited. can be down to a number of working days, a low income or even volunteer work. The exemption to report as soon as possible upon arrival at the address would probably not be easily accepted, while the 90-day reporting will also be dropped, unless it remains possible to exclude, for example, who most recently entered the Kingdom without a 'resident' visa or annual visa, nor hold a valid one-year residence extension. Importantly, the restrictions should be specific ministerial regulations and not subject to local arbitrariness ('at the discretion of the Immigration Officer') in Immigration Offices.

These provisions do not require additional requirements such as 'Elite' or other costs and as few restrictions as possible by a 'competent Minister'. The normal requirements for the necessary visas and extensions of stay ('extension of stay') to be able to get the number of days, are more than sufficient for this, compared to many other countries, still limited right of ownership and more normal enjoyment of residence.

Possibly, an heir could be given the right to prove a connection with Thailand, instead of only within 1.827 days prior to the death, also within the period of 1.827 days following the death. That gives a really strange foreigner who inherits the opportunity to follow in, for example, father's footsteps. It does require more leniency from Thailand and was therefore not included in the initial proposal. This extra right may only apply if the heir submits an application for it within six months of the death.
Remember that buying or inheriting from, for example, a Thai wife is only possible if she was the rightful owner. The 'farang' who had given his Thai wife money to buy land in her name without meeting the legal requirements for a Thai married to a foreigner, can see that land confiscated and is likely to provoke this in an inheritance. A regularization would require 'amnesty' and Thailand is certainly not inclined to grant a special favor to foreign lawbreakers; such an additional proposal would seriously jeopardize the acceptance of the more necessary and evidently fair proposal. Perhaps that regularization can be proposed for consideration after the more reasonable proposal has been put into practice and proved to work to everyone's satisfaction.