正文
you are an exceedingly smart guy at your age, but I really can't stand you here let the real wrong-done alone and point finger to the gov't trying to contain the special interest groups from robbing the whole population.
the key issue of Chinese housing market is that the developers, as a group, together as the local officials and local bank managers, have become the monopoly controlling the supply of the real estate market, at the same time subject to pretty much zero financial obligations as a real market normally rquires. The developers and officials reap gigantic profits from the twisted and artifical demand and supply relationship.
there are many points in your short post here that are false. China is not the first nation to have the construction industry. Many nations also have well designed law and regulations, if only China wants to learn. I can easily give you three examples here.
1) full price for developer only when house is fully delivered, only a 10% deposit instead of the full price when contract is signed. Mind you this is not against the 期房, ie, pre-construction price sales as some 房托 try to smear to confuse people. A consumer will profit from the 期房 not because that he paid full price in advance, but because the price when he received the full product is higher than price at the contract date. Current practice to let developer get fully paid without giving a consumer a ready product is basically a gov't sponsored robbery because the consumer has to take the risk that the developer might default, 烂尾, and the market risk that the price may goes down in future. Meanwhile the developers can indefinitely postpone delivery of most of his products when market is rising with the money from a small percentage of units sold to pay the bank interest. The essentially zero carry cost will enable developers to 捂房 which may greatly reduce the due supply.
2) property tax. Property tax is the way for the property holder to compensate the society for the expense incurred to support the ownership of the property. For example, expense to provide water systems, roads, fire fighting services, etc etc. This is a totally different item from the land acquisation fee. Some in China are often trying again to confuse
the two subjects. Scientifically speaking, property tax is an inevitable policy because no gov't can reasonably accurate forecast the expense, no gov't can come up with any reasonable estimate on the inflation rate over 70 years. So it has to be a floating rate yearly adjustable item. Any one time fee trying to replace such is only some 自欺欺人的假设.
3) clear title registration. Strict registration of primary housing vs investment properties. It's a laugh of the world that Chinese tax branch says they can't identify if a property should be treated as investement properties, or that they can't determine the real purchase price.
----------------------
your other arguments are more of less the old sound bits from the deveopers who thought they had hijacked the Chinese economy and that they are untouchable. Yes many policies were designed when Chinese gov't knew nothing about market economics and when money was desperately needed to get some developers to take risk. But then is then and now is now. It's really an easy case for the gov't to contain the developer class if it wants to. Chinese gov't has 1 trillion USD in bank and they can add a bundle to the treasure chest any time they raid some developer who crosses the line too much. 说实在的，股市都推倒重来了，开发商们推倒重来有何妨.
the key issue of Chinese housing market is that the developers, as a group, together as the local officials and local bank managers, have become the monopoly controlling the supply of the real estate market, at the same time subject to pretty much zero financial obligations as a real market normally rquires. The developers and officials reap gigantic profits from the twisted and artifical demand and supply relationship.
there are many points in your short post here that are false. China is not the first nation to have the construction industry. Many nations also have well designed law and regulations, if only China wants to learn. I can easily give you three examples here.
1) full price for developer only when house is fully delivered, only a 10% deposit instead of the full price when contract is signed. Mind you this is not against the 期房, ie, pre-construction price sales as some 房托 try to smear to confuse people. A consumer will profit from the 期房 not because that he paid full price in advance, but because the price when he received the full product is higher than price at the contract date. Current practice to let developer get fully paid without giving a consumer a ready product is basically a gov't sponsored robbery because the consumer has to take the risk that the developer might default, 烂尾, and the market risk that the price may goes down in future. Meanwhile the developers can indefinitely postpone delivery of most of his products when market is rising with the money from a small percentage of units sold to pay the bank interest. The essentially zero carry cost will enable developers to 捂房 which may greatly reduce the due supply.
2) property tax. Property tax is the way for the property holder to compensate the society for the expense incurred to support the ownership of the property. For example, expense to provide water systems, roads, fire fighting services, etc etc. This is a totally different item from the land acquisation fee. Some in China are often trying again to confuse
the two subjects. Scientifically speaking, property tax is an inevitable policy because no gov't can reasonably accurate forecast the expense, no gov't can come up with any reasonable estimate on the inflation rate over 70 years. So it has to be a floating rate yearly adjustable item. Any one time fee trying to replace such is only some 自欺欺人的假设.
3) clear title registration. Strict registration of primary housing vs investment properties. It's a laugh of the world that Chinese tax branch says they can't identify if a property should be treated as investement properties, or that they can't determine the real purchase price.
----------------------
your other arguments are more of less the old sound bits from the deveopers who thought they had hijacked the Chinese economy and that they are untouchable. Yes many policies were designed when Chinese gov't knew nothing about market economics and when money was desperately needed to get some developers to take risk. But then is then and now is now. It's really an easy case for the gov't to contain the developer class if it wants to. Chinese gov't has 1 trillion USD in bank and they can add a bundle to the treasure chest any time they raid some developer who crosses the line too much. 说实在的，股市都推倒重来了，开发商们推倒重来有何妨.
评论
博主已隐藏评论
博主已关闭评论
