From Opportunism and Bigotry to Housing Justice

From Opportunism and Bigotry to Housing Justice
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 19, 2011

The legislature swiftly passed the luxury tax. The Executive Yuan may begin levying the tax in advance, on June 1. What is the significance of the luxury tax? It may help prevent soaring housing prices. It also represents an important event in our political evolution. The government must assist the underprivileged and the middle class. Only then can we promote social equality and social justice.

In the past, when government authorities dealt with housing prices, they used the free market as an excuse. They said they could not interfere. They used the free market as an excuse for inaction. But limited land and housing have been the monopoly of a handful of consortiums. They, along with capitalists and opportunists have kited housing prices. Housing has become a luxury that salaried workers cannot afford. It has became a hurdle younger people struggle against but cannot overcome. Such abuses in the housing market are intolerable. And that is why President Ma promised to promote "housing justice."

Consider the recent legislative process. Everyone expected powerful interference from vested interests. But it never happened. Both ruling and opposition legislators knew that sky high housing prices were a problem. They knew that the public shared a deep distaste for housing speculators. Interestingly enough, the luxury tax was merely an anti-speculation trial balloon. Yet it significantly inhibited housing market transactions. That shows just how rampant speculation in the housing market was. To achieve housing justice, the authorities have numerous policy instruments at their disposal. Reforms must be implemented. Trading prices must be determined by the tax system and by transaction prices. Real estate prices must be rationalized.

For example, the luxury tax does not apply to pre-sold housing units. That constitutes a giant loophole. Government financial agencies can expand their inventory of transaction records. They can target the proceeds from such transactions. But if the results are ineffective, speculators will continue to exploit such loopholes to turn a profit. Legislators should amend the law to include pre-sold housing units. Also, the land price quotation system is extremely unreasonable. Prices quoted are far below the actual market price. This leads to serious inaccuracies in the calculation of land values. In particular, land speculation allows consortiums to enjoy windfall profits. They are not required to give anything back to the community. The system must be changed. We must revive the spirit of Sun Yat-sen, who insisted that "profits must acrue to the public."

So-called housing justice is easier said than done, This is not the job of the government alone. Social consensus and community participation are required as well. For example Taipei City is promoting "social housing." Plans for both luxury condos in the city center and residential units in the suburbs of Mucha have met with strong opposition from local residents. They oppose construction in their neighborhoods. This may be the result of inappropriate choices in building location. They may be the result of the city government's inability to communicate and coordinate. But it also reflects public rejection and public mistrust of social housing. People feel that social housing will reduce market values and living standards in their community.

This "not in my backyard" mentality has a long history. But solutions are possible. More importantly, the government must come up with a persuasive scheme for the construction and management of social housing. It must win community support. Members of the public must also open their hearts. They must set aside class prejudices. They must not discriminate between the rich and the poor. They must welcome neighbors living under different housing regimes. Only a non-discriminatory atmosphere can establish community spirit and achieve the ultimate goal of housing justice.

Frequent fliers who shuttle back and forth between Taiwan, the Mainland, and Hong Kong, and those with cosmopolitan backgrounds, know that class divisions are less clearcut on Taiwan, and that Taiwan society is comparatively egalitarian. This is an achievement we should be proud of. But in recent years, imbalances in industrial development, the existence of a mercantilistic tax system, and runaway housing speculation have gradually undermined this hard won equality. That is deeply worrisome. The government has now introduced a luxury tax. The luxury tax will help crack down on speculation and stabilize prices. It also amounts to a declaration that the government intends to "care for the underprivileged." This trend, from "wealthy," to "egalitarian," should continue.

The luxury tax is merely one small step in the direction of housing justice. But it is one giant leap for social justice. Its passage shows that the government has a positive role to play in policy formulation. The luxury tax is not enough. Speculators should forget about short-term speculation. They will need to find other investments. Building contractors will need to create more appropriate housing for people to live in. They must not be wildly extravagant and expensive. The public must understand what it means not to have a home of one's own, and to commute long distances each and every day. Please give social housing a chance. Do not look down your noses at your new neighbors.

從反投機到無歧視的居住正義
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.04.19

立法院迅速通過奢侈稅法，行政院可能提前至六月一日開徵。實施奢侈稅制的意義，其實不只在為飆漲的房價「退燒」，更代表了台灣政治思維進行了一次重要的修正：施政必須更向中間及弱勢調整，才能維持社會公平與正義於不墜。

以往談房價，執政者都以自由市場為藉口，諉稱沒有干預空間，而無所作為。事實卻是，有限的土地及房屋供給遭到少數財團的壟斷，再加上資本家、投機客的哄抬炒作，房屋市場變成薪資階級可望而不可即的豪奢品，甚至成為打擊年輕族群奮鬥意志的社會障礙；如此扭曲變形的房市，絕不容再坐視不管。馬總統宣示要捍衛「居住正義」，原因應也在此。

從這次立法過程看，外界原預期利益團體會有強烈的干擾，結果並未出現。這顯示，朝野立委都認知高房價已成為社會隱憂，也對民眾厭憎房價炒作的心情有深刻共識。值得玩味的是，政府不過藉奢侈稅對房地投機小試身手，即對房市交易產生了可觀的抑制作用，可見市場中以屋養屋的投機客多麼猖獗。要實現居住正義，執政者可以運用的政策工具還很多，未來必須透過稅制及交易價格認定制度的改革，繼續推動房地價格結構的合理化。

例如，這次奢侈稅未將預售屋納入，無異留下一大漏洞。財政部門可擴大清查交易紀錄，來補課這類炒手的交易所得；但如果成效不彰，投機客繼續利用此一漏洞賺取暴利，立法委員仍應修法將預售屋納入。再如，現行公告地價制度極不合理，遠遠低於實際市價，造成土地增值的計算嚴重失實，尤其是圈地養地的財團享受巨額暴利，卻不必將之回饋給社會。這項制度有必要逐步調整，把國父提倡的「漲價歸公」精神找回來。

所謂「居住正義」，說易行難，這其實也不只是政府的工作，而需要社會大眾共同的理解與投入。以台北市正在推動的「社會住宅」為例，不論是在市中心規劃的「小帝寶」，或預定在木柵郊區興建的住宅，都遭到當地居民的強烈抗議，反對設在當地。這或許是區位選擇不當，或者是市府未做好溝通協調；但從另一個角度看，這也反映了市民對於社會住宅的排斥與不信任，認為社會住宅將影響整個社區的房價市值及居住品質。

這種「別在我家後院」的心理，其來有自，但並非無法化解。重要的是，政府要拿出有說服力的社會住宅興建及管理計劃，來爭取社區居民的認同支持。同樣重要的是，民眾要放寬自己的心胸，放下階級高低乃至貧富差異的差別心，來迎接不同住房政策下的鄰居。只有在無歧視的氛圍下，才是建立社區共同體、實現居住正義的終極樂園。

經常往來兩岸三地，或有跨國生活經驗的人都會注意到，台灣是一個階級較不分明、社會相對公平的國家，這是值得我們驕傲的成就。但近年產業發展的失衡，加上稅制的重商、房價的過度炒作，正逐步將原有的公平帶向失衡，才如此讓人憂心。政府此時推出奢侈稅，除了打擊投機、穩定房價，更宣示了政策上轉向「照顧弱勢」的意涵，這個從「富」到「均」的變化，值得繼續推升。

奢侈稅的推動，只是實現「居住正義」的一小步，對台灣整體社會正義觀念的改變，卻是一個大啟發。對政府而言，這顯示執政者在政策上有很多積極角色可以扮演，不能以奢侈稅為已足；對投機客而言，這意味短期炒作可以休矣，請尋找別的標的去投資；對建商而言，要打造更合理、人性而合宜居住的房屋，不要再一味誇耀豪奢及高價；對一般民眾而言，要理解無殼蝸牛及通勤族的痛苦，請給社會住宅一個機會，不要用異樣眼光看待其間居民。