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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS