In recent years, we have seen foreign investors and conglomerates buying land and buildings and quickly reselling at a profit. Media have reported regularly on investors and landlords acquiring wealth through realty investment. Meanwhile, because of the gap between the market value of luxury housing and the government’s “current land value” and “assessed house value,” the rich purchase such housing to avoid tax. Property prices are surging in urban areas, while the government’s finances are in dire straits. These are key sources of public discontent. Now the Taipei City and County governments have proposed a luxury housing tax, but will it be effective?
After Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) took up his post in September, he suggested that affordable housing be built near airport subway lines on expropriated land to prevent housing prices from soaring. But we must not forget that zone expropriation often involves converting farmland.
Take Taipei County’s Danhai New Town (淡海新市鎮) for example. The area has been idle for almost 10 years since it was first developed. With a capacity of 300,000 residents, it was part of a government supply-oriented policy aimed at reining in housing prices. Yet, the development rate remains less than 10 percent to this day. In addition, average housing prices are between NT$100,000 and NT$150,000 per ping (3.3m²) in Linkou Township (林口), Taipei County, and Nankan (南崁), Taoyuan County, along the airport subway line.
Moreover, there are more than 1,000 empty living quarters there. There is no need for the government to convert more land to build houses through build, operate, transfer (BOT) or operate, transfer (OT) projects.
Competition among major international cities has helped create excellent urban living environments, encouraging the rich to invest in or purchase real estate. Over the past few years, Taiwanese builders have built luxury houses in previously unfavorable areas, improving their surrounding environment and boosting the real estate value.
The government should feel optimistic. By proposing a luxury housing tax, it will become impossible for local governments to tax short-term speculation. The tax is a targeted tax, which shows that local governments have lost control of the real estate tax base.
Real estate taxes are considered an important source of local tax revenue to improve public facilities and the quality of living. In 2005, the central government proposed slashing the land value increment tax to boost the realty market, and lawmakers passed the legislation with surprising efficiency. Similarly, local governments’ assessments of land and housing values are far from the true market value because they are currying favor with the public.
Statistics show that for each new luxury housing project that costs at least NT$100 million in Taipei City, the sum of its land value and assessed housing value are less than one-third of its market price. The sum of its land value and housing tax, meanwhile, is significantly less than annual maintenance costs.
Prices for regular housing in areas surrounding the project rise, meaning they enjoy relatively low land-value tax and real-estate tax. As the central government has cut local tax rates and local governments have cut the tax base, the cost of holding onto property has fallen. With excessive capital on the market, property ranging from luxury housing to old homes and office buildings in urban areas have become top targets for investors and speculators.
The media report extensively on the huge profits made by foreign investors and insurance companies buying and selling property, or on the high incomes of landlords who own dozens of houses. Yet local authorities make excuses, saying that they do not have accurate estimates of land and housing values. The result is inaccurate assessments of the land and housing tax base that are unfair if we compare luxury housing with regular housing nearby. This also cuts into the government’s tax revenues.
At least for the short term, the government should review the division of “land value districts,” announcing current land values by treating individual communities as land value districts or further narrowing such districts to reflect market prices. Construction costs and street values should be taken into consideration.
A medium-term approach should integrate the land administration agencies for land value assessment and the tax administration agencies for housing assessment into an independent assessment agency. It should amend the land value increment tax, learning from the real estate transfer tax to levy taxes in line with market prices.
The targeted luxury housing tax is not an appropriate long-term policy for the nation’s tax system. The real estate tax is a key financial source for local infrastructure. The government create a fair environment with a reasonable tax base and reasonable rates. This would lead to greater tax revenues, in turn allowing for improvements in rural infrastructure and urban environments. This would also make our cities more competitive internationally.
Yang Song-ling is dean of the College of Social Sciences at National Chengchi University. Cho Hui-hua is president of the Real Estate Appraisers Association, ROC.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past