Statistics compiled by the Fiscal Information Agency showed that from 2013 to 2019, the number of people who together with their spouse and minor children own four or more residential properties rose by 47,000 from 268,000 to 315,000.
The number of properties owned by multiple homeowners, who are subject to a local house-hoarding tax according to Ministry of Finance criteria, rose by 240,000, from 1.4 million to 1.64 million.
The numbers of multiple homeowners and their properties both increased by about 18 percent.
Furthermore, one-quarter of the 1.06 million new homes sold during that time were acquired by multiple homeowners. This means that less than 4 percent of the population owns 14 percent of all residential properties, which shows that house hoarding is an increasingly serious problem.
House-hoarding conceals the reality of an oversupply on the residential property market and prevents the real demand for owner-occupied homes being met. This is a blow to housing justice.
On Dec. 8 last year, the central bank instituted four credit control measures to target the issue. Two days later, the Ministry of the Interior proposed its “actual transition price registration 2.0” policy, which was approved by the legislature in January and could be implemented as early as July.
This policy would reveal complete information on housing properties and land lots. It would require prompt declaration of presale transactions and bring presale properties fully within the ministry’s purview. It would also impose heavier penalties and prohibit transfer sales of presale reservation receipts.
These measures are an important first step to curb real-estate speculation.
However, the main reason for house-hoarding and the concentration of wealth is the low cost of owning vacant real estate.
The measures would have only a limited effect on investors who are already hoarding buildings and land, as they cannot rein in property already owned by multiple homeowners.
On May 20 last year, Deputy Minister of the Interior Hua Ching-chun (花敬群) wrote on Facebook that a house-hoarding tax is an ineffective and mistaken proposal.
How can anyone say that a nationwide house-hoarding tax would be ineffective when housing prices in downtown Taipei fell immediately after the city government imposed such a tax in 2014?
The biggest hindrance to the implementation of a house-hoarding tax by local governments is that they have no way of knowing how many properties an individual owns nationwide.
If a person owns no more than three residential properties in each of several cities or counties, then they can own four or more properties nationwide, without being known to local tax departments as multiple homeowners subject to a house-hoarding tax. Consequently, local governments’ revenue from house-hoarding taxes is currently negligible.
To make it more feasible to levy such taxes, observers have long suggested that the finance ministry should provide local governments with nationwide real-estate ownership data and allow multiple homeowners to decide which of their properties should be counted as non-owner-occupied housing units. Local governments could easily levy a home-hoarding tax on those properties.
Whether such proposals can be implemented depends on whether the finance ministry is willing to institute a tax reform. If it does, it would allow housing justice to take a big step forward.
Wei Shih-chang works in the information industry.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
RSS