The Ministry of Finance has finally announced its taxation reform plan that will combine housing and real-estate taxes, but it seems to have failed to address the doubts that many have expressed. Tax regulations are continuously being revised to meet the needs of certain interest groups, such as the rich, investors and the construction industry, but policymakers have completely disregarded public opinion.
The plan was welcomed by people from many of the industries involved, including investors and luxury home owners, which is interesting in itself.
Owners are currently required to pay a “luxury tax” of between 10 and 15 percent of the transaction price in addition to the land value increment tax and others. However, with the combined housing and real-estate tax they will only have to pay 30 percent of the gains on transactions, which can be used to deduct the land value increment tax.
Delighted by the big difference the proposed reform will make, short-term investors may be forgiven for thinking Christmas has come early.
Furthermore, owners who live in properties worth NT$40 million (US$1.26 million) would be exempt from tax, but the average person will find it difficult to think of a NT$40 million home as a “basic” housing need. This measure was apparently devised by the government to protect the housing demands of the rich. How can such “false equality” be fair?
The finance ministry said that capital gains in relation to assets other than primary residences can enjoy a tax rate of just 17 percent because the current income tax of a legal corporate entity is 17 percent, and so it is necessary to impose the same rate on capital gains to prevent the average person from arbitraging and exploiting loopholes by establishing companies.
However, how can the government tolerate the establishment of companies that are solely designed to arbitrage the housing markets?
Instead of addressing the cause of the problem by fixing the corporate income tax or strictly auditing such arbitrage companies, the government is catering to the arbitrageurs’ needs by lowering the tax rate to 17 percent. Is this reasonable?
In addition, those who profit from real estate investments not only distort the distribution of wealth, affecting housing needs — and therefore should not be encouraged — but also enjoy a much lower income tax than hardworking people.
Is this fair?
The ministry also felt that although a progressive tax is fairer and more reasonable, it is harder to implement than a flat tax. Given that capital gains from real-estate investments in Taiwan are so unfair and unreasonable, should the tax reform prioritize a progressive tax, which is fair and reasonable over a flat tax, which is easier to practice?
The public will have its say, and the government should pay attention.
Some people also thought that accumulated capital gains from real-estate transactions made over the years are not the same as money earned by working for one year. The implementation of a flat tax rate can average out the tax paid over the years.
However, is it possible to average out capital gains from real estate transactions over the years to an average annual capital gain?
In this way, the annual progressive labor income tax rate can be applied. Is this a fairer and more reasonable tax policy that would meet public expectations?
The ministry also said that holding a property for more than two years can be called long-term ownership, which would make it eligible for tax deductions ranging from 4 to 80 percent, while holding properties for less than two years is subject to a 30 percent tax rate.
Is holding an asset for longer than two years enough to qualify for long-term ownership and eligibility for tax deductions? The answer is quite obvious.
Research shows that on average, Taiwanese move after living in one property for 10 years. Therefore, it would be more reasonable to allow property owners deductions for holding non-primary residential assets for at least 10 years and to at least penalize short-term owners by imposing higher taxes. If ownership of more than two years is enough to qualify for long-term ownership, this could be seen as an attempt to lighten the luxury tax.
Is it reasonable to allow property owners a bigger tax deduction for non-private residential properties and to mete out a smaller penalty for short-term ownership?
What does the public think of the ministry’s tax reform?
According to the ministry, less than 1 percent of taxpayers will be slightly affected, and some will benefit more from it than from the current luxury tax. What is the purpose and meaning of ratifying such a tax reform?
We can also look at this matter from a different perspective: That as long as basic housing needs are completely unaffected, most people who live in only one house — which accounts for 60 percent of the population — and people who do not own their own homes — who make up 20 percent of the population — are likely to support a fairer and more reasonable tax policy plan.
The Cabinet and the legislature should think very carefully about how to proceed. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), the opposition parties and the public should all be actively engaged in the debate.
Chang Chin-oh is a professor of land economics at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Ethan Zhan
To The Honorable Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜): We would like to extend our sincerest regards to you for representing Taiwan at the inauguration of US President Donald Trump on Monday. The Taiwanese-American community was delighted to see that Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan speaker not only received an invitation to attend the event, but successfully made the trip to the US. We sincerely hope that you took this rare opportunity to share Taiwan’s achievements in freedom, democracy and economic development with delegations from other countries. In recent years, Taiwan’s economic growth and world-leading technology industry have been a source of pride for Taiwanese-Americans.
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
Next week, the nation is to celebrate the Lunar New Year break. Unfortunately, cold winds are a-blowing, literally and figuratively. The Central Weather Administration has warned of an approaching cold air mass, while obstinate winds of chaos eddy around the Legislative Yuan. English theologian Thomas Fuller optimistically pointed out in 1650 that “it’s always darkest before the dawn.” We could paraphrase by saying the coldest days are just before the renewed hope of spring. However, one must temper any optimism about the damage being done in the legislature by the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), under
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
RSS