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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS