Amid public complaints about soaring property prices, the Taipei City Government said on Tuesday it would raise taxes on luxury apartments starting in July next year, with other cities and counties expected to follow suit. This “solution,” however, fails to address the critical problem of lack of affordable housing and at most, would only make a small dent in the income of owners of high-end properties.
Take a 245 ping (800m²) apartment at the upscale Treasure Palace complex in Taipei as an example, where the owner currently pays an estimated NT$150,000 in annual property taxes. Under the new regulations, wherein property taxes could rise by as much as three times, the owner will have to pay NT$450,000 starting next year. This is merely a drop in the bucket for owners who can afford to pay between NT$150 and NT$170 per ping per month, or nearly NT$500,00 per annum, in property management fees.
The tax hike also represents a disproportionately small rise compared with the surge in the property’s value, which has doubled to around NT$400 million since 2006, and could climb another 30 percent once Taipei signs an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with Beijing by the end of the year if domestic realtors’ forecasts hold true.
Even if the property’s value were to see only a minor 10 percent rise by the end of this year, a capital gain of NT$40 million from selling the property would still enable the owner to pay the city government’s new tax for another 100 years.
In the interest of equitable taxation, it is reasonable then for the city government to take back a small share of the property boom expected from President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) administration’s pro-China policies.
To promote a fairer tax system, some have called for the Ministry of Finance to impose a higher tax rate on incremental capital gains from high-end properties, although opponents of this proposition argue that this would hurt domestic consumption.
Other than tackling soaring high-end property prices, however, the government has failed to address more urgent issues that affect the general public.
Middle-market properties have also shot up in the past year on expectations that the ECFA would lift the economy. This is an issue that the government should have prioritized, but it has not provided any concrete measures except for plans to build an affordable housing project in Linkou (林口) in four years.
Debate is still raging on whether middle-income earners will benefit from signing an ECFA with China. Even if they do, the gains they make may not be enough to allow them to catch up with the soaring value of real estate. And their housing plight will only worsen if the ECFA undercuts their jobs and hurts the local economy.
The nation’s low-income families are the most vulnerable to the Chinese trade pact or any property boom. If the government is hoping that an ECFA would bring about a property boom similar to what happened in Hong Kong after it signed a closer economic partnership arrangement with China in 2003, it had better think ahead how it could keep the low-income families from further plunging into poverty as happened in Hong Kong, where 1.23 million people — or nearly 18 percent of its population — were living below the poverty line as of the first half of last year.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS