The central bank on Thursday further tightened restrictions on mortgage loans to curb housing speculation, as domestic banks’ real-estate financing has continued to increase. It capped the loan-to-value ratio at 40 percent for corporate entities, 55 percent for individuals buying their third home and 50 percent for those buying their fourth home. The goal is to stem a deluge of loans into the real-estate sector and rein in credit risks.
The central bank also capped the loan-to-value ratio at 55 percent for idle industrial land, and said it would monitor the developments in the nation’s housing market and local banks’ management of credit risks related to real-estate financing.
The new measures took effect on Friday and the central bank said it would make adjustments if necessary.
The move is clearly aimed at property speculators, primarily those who flip presale housing units. The bank said individuals and businesses that own more than four properties are the main targets of its new measures, while market watchers said investment firms that buy and sell properties rapidly are especially targeted.
About 54.51 percent of non-real-estate corporate entities sold their properties within a year of purchase, data compiled by the Ministry of the Interior show.
The central bank’s latest credit controls came a week after the Executive Yuan approved a draft amendment to the Income Tax Act (所得稅法) to impose heavier taxes on properties sold within certain periods after purchase to rein in speculation in the market. For instance, individuals and businesses would face a 45 percent tax on property transaction gains involving homes or land sold within two years of purchase, and a 35 percent tax on homes or land sold within two to five years of purchase. The bill was on Friday sent to the legislature’s Finance Committee for review.
The government’s measures have so far been aimed at raising the cost of short-term property transactions, while it has stopped short of imposing higher taxes on house hoarding. As long as owners are in no hurry to sell their properties — especially wealthy people who own multiple houses as well as developers and financial consortiums that have a lot of properties — they can avoid the increase in the capital gains tax.
On the other hand, imposing higher housing and land value taxes could raise costs for wealthy people and companies, dampening their appetite for hoarding houses on a long-term basis.
However, the real issue is not whether raising housing taxes would curb property hoarding, but whether a higher tax rate would encourage owners of multiple houses to put some of them back on the market or whether it would keep housing prices from rising.
There is already a provision for a hoarding tax for people who own more than one property, with rates for owner-occupied or self-use properties set at an annual rate of 1.2 percent and those for non-owner-occupied residential properties ranging from 1.5 percent to 3.6 percent, subject to the local government’s judgement, according to the House Tax Act (房屋稅條例). Unfortunately, the tax is only levied in Taipei, and Yilan and Lienchiang counties.
There is still a long way to go before the nation implements a higher housing tax nationwide, as this would require cooperation between central and local governments.
The housing market varies regionally, according to socioeconomic conditions. Levying a universal house hoarding tax might solve the problem of vacant houses in big cities, but create new problems in smaller localities. It could help curb property speculation, but it might also make the problem more complicated across the nation.
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