|
|
Updated Wednesday, February 3, 2010 9:32 am TWN, The China Post news staff More tax on luxury homesMayor Hau Lung-bin said the tax for limited number of designated “luxury apartments” will be readjusted upward starting in 2012 while the majority of residents in the capital city will not be affected. The so-called “luxury apartments” will not be defined by their sizes or market prices but by objective criteria like the number of housing units in a same apartment building, parking space, and security facilities. Officials at the municipal Department of Finance added that other criteria for the definitions will include the locations of the apartments at various roads or sections, building structure, and opinions of real estate agencies. According to initial estimation, there are 11,177 apartments in 269 buildings conform with the “luxury apartments” definitions, they said. The new tax payment will be one to 2.8 times more than the figure as now, they said. The officials explained that it is not fair for owners of an apartment with market value of NT$100 million to pay the tax by the same tax rate of 1.2 percent like the those who own housing units valued at only NT$3 million. A survey carried out last month shows that the Daan District has the highest number of 52 “luxury apartment” buildings while the Zhongshan District has the largest number of 2,073 Officials clarified that the new and higher tax will not affect the city's commercial buildings and independent mansions or villas that are already subject to higher housing tax rates. The MOF at the central government took a concomitant action to help unify possible similar tax plans by various local governments. At a coordination meeting of tax officials from local city and county administrations yesterday afternoon, Vice Finance Minister Chang Sheng-ho said the housing tax structure will be “rationalized” to ensure fairness. The general principal is that owners of extraordinarily valued housing units will have to pay higher tax while the tax burden those owning old and low-value apartments will be reduced, he said. He said the current standard apartment price, which is used as the base for taxation, will be derived from the factors like the standard apartment market price, locations, construction cost of the buildings, and depreciation of the structures. The housing tax rate is presently reviewed and readjusted once every three years. Chang said the readjustments should be made once a year to more accurately reflect the value of apartments. The details will be studied and worked out by tax officials in Taipei City after consulting with tax experts and those working in the real estate field, he said. Wang Yao-hsing, chairman of the state-owned Taiwan Land Bank, said he backs the plan of levying higher taxes on “luxury apartments” because it will not affect the more affluent people in Taiwan while the government can raise more funds for public projects. Subscribe to The China Post and save 25%. Click here Comments February 7, 2010 elumpen@ Pakua, it would certainly be a good idea to tax people in order to make Taipei a beautiful city, but I suggest the building companies (and the people who buy their products) should be taxed because they are making it uglier. These so-called "luxury" buildings are the same old low-quality poured-concrete structures that were built 30 years ago. They're just clad with expensive materials to make them look "attractive"; personally, I think they're just baroque eyesores, designed by people with all the refined tastes of a New York pimp. Builders compete on pushing the limits of bad taste and conspicuous consumption - such as the "swimming pool on every floor" building, which is a crime against humanity. The bottom line is that these rich people are not using their riches to contribute to wider society, but simply to abuse the resources of a small country to fluff up their stunted egos. February 8, 2010 cigars898@ Elumpen,That's socialism in a nutshell. Thank God we don't live in a socialist country, at least not yet. Taxing people a higher percentage just because they make more money than you? You are the greedy one wanting a piece what some else has. Why is it any of yours or the government's business to tell people what they can or can't buy? Socialist always want the unearned. February 9, 2010 elumpen@ Cigars, you misunderstand me. Taxing people for being rich is wrong. Taxing people who have obtained their wealth by dubious means and are using it to make an enormous mess is a lot less wrong. What currently exists is a 'reverse tax' whereby the rich are permitted to appropriate land, put ugly buildings on it, and waste Taiwan's limited resources (water, concrete, wood, air) to the benefit of nobody except a few nouveau-riche country bumpkins. The losers are those who pay taxes to subsidize the water being flushed down the drain, rehabilitate abandoned quarries and trashed forests, and get run over by badly-driven SUVs. If you think I'm being dramatic, it's because you're not familiar with the way land law and construction contracts are abused in Taiwan (and many other countries, of course). It's my business because I have to look out of my window at the damage being wreaked on a country I love. And no, I'm not jealous: I have plenty of money. I also have nothing whatsoever to prove, so I don't need to spend my money on adolescent status symbols. February 9, 2010 bankonline@ cigars898Taxes depend on the APPRAISAL of the lot and property value. Percentage of tax will be computed after the APPRAISAL. It was a common commercial taxation practice's even in America or EU to gain more revenue for the gov't for public expenses. Your BRAIN is now in the nutshell. Better stop smoking. February 10, 2010 cigars898@ elumpen@ wrote: If that is the case, then the companies breaking the law should be prosecuted not slapping some luxury tax on people. If they achieved there wealth by dubious means then shouldn't they be thrown in jail? Your views on architectural aesthetics are subjective and would never hold up in a court of law. I think the anger should be in the direction of the government who is obviously not enforcing its regulations if what you say it true.Cigars, you misunderstand me. Taxing people for being rich is wrong. Taxing people who have obtained their wealth by dubious means and are using it to make an enormous mess is a lot less wrong. What currently exists is a 'reverse tax' whereby the rich are permitted to appropriate land, put ugly buildings on it, and waste Taiwan's limited resources (water, concrete, wood, air) to the benefit of nobody except a few nouveau-riche country bumpkins. The losers are those who pay taxes to subsidize the water being flushed down the drain, rehabilitate abandoned quarries and trashed forests, and get run over by badly-driven SUVs. If you think I'm being dramatic, it's because you're not familiar with the way land law and construction contracts are abused in Taiwan (and many other countries, of course). It's my business because I have to look out of my window at the damage being wreaked on a country I love. And no, I'm not jealous: I have plenty of money. I also have nothing whatsoever to prove, so I don't need to spend my money on adolescent status symbols. February 10, 2010 cigars898@ bankonline@ wrote: Yes and look at the financial mess the US an EU are in. Not a particularly good example. The problem is the PERCENTAGE OF TAX. We are all equal so why is it fair to tax one citizen at a higher percent than another. Don't think about it too long because it's not, no matter how you argue it, unless you don't believe we're all equal. Do yourself a favor, go buy a luxurious Cuban cigar and read Ayn Rand's "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal".cigars898 Taxes depend on the APPRAISAL of the lot and property value. Percentage of tax will be computed after the APPRAISAL. It was a common commercial taxation practice's even in America or EU to gain more revenue for the gov't for public expenses. Your BRAIN is now in the nutshell. Better stop smoking. February 11, 2010 bankonline@ cigars898It's unnecessary for me to read the obscure author's book. Taxes is Tax. Even all my employees must pay their INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RETURNS annually. They also pay WITHOLDING TAX monthly. The difference between the employer's and employee's is that I paid more than my employee's. Because of other's Taxes due. Like Municipal Taxes and other categories. February 14, 2010 cigars898@ bankonline@ wrote: I never said people shouldn't pay taxes. I said they should all pay the same percentage. Ayn Rand an obscure author?cigars898 It's unnecessary for me to read the obscure author's book. Taxes is Tax. Even all my employees must pay their INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RETURNS annually. They also pay WITHOLDING TAX monthly. The difference between the employer's and employee's is that I paid more than my employee's. Because of other's Taxes due. Like Municipal Taxes and other categories. Are you sure? February 15, 2010 carltanong@ cigars898Did I accuse you of saying "people shouldn't pay taxes"? Yes. I said that Ayn Rand is an Obscure AUTHOR. Know why? Because it's you advising me to read his/her book. I'm not interested or have time to read his/her fairy tale story. Besides, this is my very first time to hear his/her name is Ayn Rand from you. Got it? |
 Owners of costly apartments like the one at The Palace apartment building on Renai Road in Taipei City will face higher housing tax under a plan of city government. Officials ... Enlarge Photo
  | |||||||||||||||
Sitemap | Top Stories | Taiwan | China | Business | Asia | World | Sports | Life | Arts & Leisure | Health | Editorial | Commentary
Travel | Movies | TV Listings | Classifieds | Bookstore | Getting Around | Weather | Guide Post | Student Post | English Courses | Terms of Use | Sitemap
Are there too many rich people in Taiwan and should they be penalized? Would doing so drive them away? Do rich people create more jobs for poor people, or, do poor people create more jobs for society?
If rich people spend more money on their homes doesn't that money help the craftsmen, the laborers, truck drivers, artists, interior designers, suppliers, earn their livings and support their families, etc.?
Doesn't spending more money stimulate the economy and spread money around to our citizens?
Does Taipei wish to be known as "a beautiful city"? Would it be better for the government to tax everybody to make it beautiful, or, would it be helpful for private individuals to support the construction of beautiful "luxury" buildings which enhance our city's image?
Are such penalties against certain segments/individuals of our society consistent with our political system of a democratically elected Constitutional Republic?
Once certain groups are "singled out", where does it stop? Will we be forced to stop wearing "unnecessary luxury bourgeois clothing" and only allowed to wear blue baggy pajamas?
Are we on the road to "class-struggle" and communism?