你將人要地方居住的要求與皮樓珠寶等奢侈品相比較也太不適當了。我們八十後只想要一個居住地點比較方便，面積與新舊也不太嚴格要求的地方居住而已。難道我們真的要住在上下班耗時兩小時，十幾尺兼超過五十年樓年的地方才能成就香港這個自由體系的所謂港人驕傲？我們不要也罷。而且我們不是要限制外來人士來港置業，只不過是加多些少條款以保障當地人的利益，政府是應該要實施的，我想全世界的城市都會有累似的措施，並不出奇，當然要權衡各方利益，要讓居者有其屋，與讓所有業主可以在他們已有的物業帶來收益。不過，當然不是暴利。因為只為益左炒家，而不是想以小換大或想二度置業的業主。

資助洗左錢都唔緊要,最驚就係賺左無人多謝,個市冧嗰陣啲人如果到時蝕左

就會話: 政府吸引佢地買樓,所以政府有責任去幫佢哋填氹

又或者話:政府同開發商官商勾結托市等啲市民上車填氹,所以政府都係有責任幫佢哋填氹

以前已經試過,政府俾人鬧到趴街

試問"做好我份工"嘅公務員,又點會肯做呢啲嘢丫

香港連續16年得到全世界最自由經濟美譽,值得全香港人驕傲!

事實上食飯和買衫等等嘅名店都俾大陸人搶貴咗,如果禁止外地人來港消費的話,物價一定可以平好多,我地市民一定有著數,但係我哋唔能夠因為咁而阻止人地來港消費.

我們要捍衛自由經濟權利,唔能夠走社會主義嘅計劃經濟,為咗大多數香港業主嘅權益,呢個底線我地一定要守住!

香港應該禁止外地人來買樓或買珠寶名牌,搞到樓價和物價貴哂,如果唔係,樣樣嘢平好多,樓價平上車容易,我地年輕人置咗業後,腳踏實地專心工作,社會就好和諧啦!

呢個先係要樓價跌嘅最好方法,政府應該及早實施!

蔡志忠 --亞洲地產董事總經理 ,你真後知後覺.又盲目支持樓市.
"政府在制定長遠房屋政策時，也要密切留意樓價走勢，市民希望樓市平穩健康發展."你這句話兩年前講就差唔多.政府就是聽了很多蠶虫師爺獻計,攪到民怨沸騰.如果再如此下去,他的支持度會跌至10%20%,你唔好害佢.

還有,你入了幾多貨,你寫這麼多文章跟你的利益有無衝突. 股評人都要申報利益wo.

當然係啦,多人買衫消費力高自然有加價空間,多人排隊食飯飯店都有加價條件,係人都知呢啲係正常嘅邏輯.

所以如果冇咁多外來人到港消費,物價便唔會咁貴,同樣地樓價都唔會咁高啦!

客觀的香港事實,大多數香港人都希望樓價平穩向上發展,因為港人都係勤奮努力工作嘅,辛苦搵錢供樓,梗係想樓宇有保值及升值功能,呢啲肯定係多數港人意願.

想樓價大跌者並非自流意見,有部份人唔肯努力工作及儲蓄,平時貪玩和大花桶,得閒嘈吵抗議,怨天尤人,買唔起樓就嘈樓價貴,全部賴政府無能,官商勾結.這些人雖是一小撮人,但是他們得閒冇嘢做,人云亦云,你嘈我鬧,聲音震天,唯恐天下不亂,呢啲就係香港嘅悲哀.

最唔公道的事情,係一班專業人士,中產階層及中小企人士,他們努力工作,埋頭苦幹,每天工作十幾小時,辛苦得來儲到錢就買樓自住及收租,樓宇已成為他們最大的財產,但是由於他們太忙,沒有時間和機會向政府發表他們的心聲,反而往往俾別有用心者扭曲他們的意願.

周邊國家的樓價及物價都高了很多,是因為人家經濟進步咗,收入增加好多,樓價升了係好正常現象,但係我哋一部份人却總是在嘈樓價貴,咁多年樓價跟通漲上升係好正常,可憐那小部份未上車者總係心有不甘,其實如覺得樓價貴,點解唔去買嘉湖山莊,麗港城或港連城等等,這些樓價都只係97價嘅6-7成,仲好抵買,大家睜開眼睛望清楚啲啦,住呢啲屋苑一啲都唔失禮!

To:服左你: 更正你的有所誤會,股評人要申報其利益是因為他評論的是某一隻指定的股票,如果他只是評論股市將會上升或下跌,那是無須申報的.

同樣地,很多樓市評論者如只評論整個大市的起或落,都是不會申報其個人利益的.

Agreed with 'Mi' comments which make sense and consider other needs.

政府應拿出部分賣地收入，現金資助中下階層上車，或以租金津貼協助他們租樓儲錢，增加津貼偏遠地區到市區上班一族，申請範圍放寬，或跟交通工具合作，推出優惠月票。這樣，怨氣將會減少，對業主、租客、年青人都是一種德政。

大樓 comments just make me think that he is very selfish ! HK flat prices must drop again on or before 2012 ! Go back to china and you can buy many houses if you like.  Then, wait to become negative asset.

To : 過路人

香港地邊度要駛花兩小時上下班呀? 我住係屯門兆康撘西鐵去尖東返工都只不過半粒鈡。我早2個月買左間552尺10年新樓都係170萬, 九龍區無250萬都唔駛諗宜家樓价係咁上, 做人要因時制宜、面對現實, 平平地搬遠一點點,起碼都有個自己物業。

To : 過路人 & Mi

叫<政府應拿出部分賣地收入，現金資助中下階層上車>, 真係發夢中MARK SIX仲實際D喇。香港人乜都係要靠博同努力先至可以搵到生活基本需要, 望政府打救仲想話貼埋錢你買樓, 不如咬老軟好過啦~~

收入低，要買樓，但*未儲夠*首期、首期五多，就要求住市區，甘點得啊。

經濟學都講啦，人既慾望系無窮既，要系有限資源去滿足人類無窮慾望系沒可能既。 所以有人可以住私樓，有人就只可以住公屋。

五好見人買樓 自己就都要跟風去買，五好自己荷包五夠、首期五夠 就要怪政府，應該靠自己勤奮工作，儲多幾年錢。住私人樓既人都系靠自己努力儲錢買既，五系政府比渠地既。

政府可以興建多D 公屋，等D 低收入人士起碼有瓦遮頭，照顧渠地最基本既生活要求就足夠啦。

果D想要住私人樓既就要靠自己努力啦，五好事事自己搞五定 就要揾政府 行 社會主義，打沉樓價等渠地可以低價買樓。

樓價跌既時候，業主受難，整個市道都會受影響，D 低收入人士 更加難揾食，收入更低，一樣受影響。

其實，大家都知而家 系 資金氾濫，百物騰飛。

樣樣野都加價，樣樣野售價都比2-3年前加價30%以上。樓價唔升先系唔正常啊！！！

要打擊樓價，甘系五系都要打擊其他物價呢？

柴米油鹽都加左好多哦。

政府如果能確保市民有飯開，有瓦遮頭，已經做得好足夠，算做得好好啦。

講左甘多野，歸納起來得一句：

政府照顧市民最基本生活要求就足夠啦，市民所有額外要求就要靠自己努力啦！奸爸爹啊！

好似D 綜援戶 又想個仔女 參加戶外活動，參加呢樣 參加果樣，跟住怪政府比既錢五多，呢D 心態五得咯，人系要靠自己努力，五系伸長手板 問政府拿咯。

香港社會唔系社會主義福利社會，系公平競爭，多勞多得既社會；香港政府唔可以隨意犧牲一部分人群的利益去滿足另一部分人群的需求。社會財富是所有納稅人的共同貢獻，如何分配，不應太顯失公平。

其實，即使政府唔興建居屋，市民都可以申請公屋啊，***再五系 都可以買二手居屋啊***

售價百幾萬，居住環境唔錯。如果連百幾萬既樓都買五起，甘就五好強求自己去買更加貴既私人樓，或者強求政府幫渠地做額外野啦；

香港老一輩人 一個大家庭10個8個人 逼系一齊住一間沒廁所既公屋，

好多人最後都靠自己努力，用自己血汗錢買入私人樓...

***事實證明靠自己努力先會有出路，你睇以前Ｄ人，幾挨得！！以前Ｄ中五畢業生強過而家Ｄ普通大學生幾多倍？！；凡事攤開手問政府拿，要政府做野，自己唔去挨，唔識反省自己系唔會有好發展***

***事實證明靠自己努力先會有出路，你睇以前Ｄ人，幾挨得！！以前Ｄ中五畢業生強過而家Ｄ普通大學生幾多倍？！；凡事攤開手問政府拿，要政府做野，自己唔去挨，唔識反省自己系唔會有好發展***

The above comments seems to be made by an old man or woman at least over 45 or over 50 !  I am a University graduate (over 35) but should NOT be your mentioned "common university graduate" !

To be fair, it is the truth that if you are over 50, if you can complete F5 or even F7, it does not mean that your qualification is very lower than the recent graduate University student because I have many friends that they are teacher and mentioned that the HKCEE or HKALE or AS-level of the difficulties in nowadays is more easier than 197x or 188x's HKCEE/HKALE. 

However, if you say that old man have completed F5 or F7 is smarter than recent U graduates is NOT fair because I have a friend (my schoolmate in primary school who completed F7 ONLY but he cannot have 2A3O because he got a Unclassified for the Biology in HKAL), he can still now work for the government), but I can sure that he is NOT smart, NOT independently, NOT well-educated but he can still work for the government.  So, I can only agree that the 60's or even 70's may have more chances to get career advancement even they can completed F5 or F7.  

Now, HK is a knowledge society and competition is very keen compared in 197x or 198x years. So I CANNOT agree with you that ALL F5 graduate is smarter than the recent U graduate.  I worked in the Univeristy before and I know many recent graduates is very smart (both in work and as a adult).

I think many 80's or 90's will understand what I say and you have generation gap with them! I can sure this point 

Our youngsters should focus on their careers, pursue further study if needed to increase their bargaining power instead of requesting our govt to give more "welfare". But to be honest, i agree that our govt should implement more measures to stabilize the proprty market, cool it down the price a bit let say a 10 to 15%. With this, 2 room flat owner could upgrade to buy 3 room flat and so releasing more supply of 2 room flats. I agree to abolish 95% mortgage. Maybe, we can think of waiving stamp duty limited to property of HK$3M for first time buyers. For immediate effect, turn few blocks of buildings that was built for public estate to HOS.  

to 過路人: there are still many properties under 2M, which size is 500sq ft + with property age under 20 yr in new territories. Please do more homework before you make comment here. You do not need to spend 2 hours travelling for work at all! i can ensure this coz i live in new territories (western part) as well (and work in HK island (eastern part)).

to mi: totally disagree with you. what is the reason '政府應拿出部分賣地收入，現金資助中下階層上車，或以租金津貼協助他們租樓儲錢，增加津貼偏遠地區到市區上班一族'? i agree govt should do something to help ppl in need to get a house to live in but NOT 'own' a house.

to 香港人: i believe i share the same point of view with you.

to U Graduate: i am also 35+ and also a university grad.. but i totally agree with YCC. Just take a look in hk history, in 50 or 60s, the social envirnment was very bad (corruption, chinese were treated unfair etc). but our parents/grandparents seldom complained coz they understood how to 'change' themselves to survive/suit into the environment. This is nothing related to the education level or whether they are smart or not. Nowadays, i can see many ppl (of coz sometimes i behave the same as well) do not want to change themselves but just asking the society or government to 'change' to fit for their need. I believe this is the main differences between our/youger generations and our parents/grandparents' generation!

TO : U GRADUATE

I AM JUST 31 YEARS OLD!!!

"你睇以前Ｄ人，幾挨得！！"

我話 呢句 你就甘肯定 當作我系果個時代既人啊？！

好彩 我沒話之前 D 朝代姐，如果唔系，我而家嘛變成 全世界最老人瑞？！？！？！ 咩邏輯啊 ？？？

而家真系一代不如一代，（我甘講當然唔系話全部新一代啦，請唔好再曲解我意思啊）

天救自救者，好多人未挨過或挨少少 就喊苦喊忽。唉... 再甘落去，香港唔比國內城市取代先奇啊 .......

同意YCC所講,香港人再唔努力,成日唸住靠政府或反政府,成日抱住憎人富貴厭人貧嘅心態,遲早俾大陸追到.

好簡單,宜家咁多國內同胞有錢買香港樓,証明佢地財富不斷增加,人地專心搞經濟拚民生,人民生活得以改善,我地香港人日日吵吵鬧鬧,示威抗爭,學台灣關心政治成日講普選,咁樣落去後果好嚴重!

大家嘅頭腦真係要清醒啲,唔係胡亂鬧人就唔正常了,究竟大陸人來香港買樓或自由行消費係想整死香港人定係幫助香港人?大家一定要搞消楚.

就算我地普通市民仇視有錢人及當局政府,都冇理由連大陸政府都嬲埋,亂咁講嘢至得嘅!

外國唔俾"支那人"去佢地度買屋係因為只想祖國政府買佢哋啲垃圾債券,繼續做儍仔借錢俾佢地過嗰啲佢地根本負担唔起嘅優質生活嘛

Expensive land is a charateristics of HK. I m proud of that fact that HK is a free economic market. But when it comes to affect the living of our citizens, or quality of living, our govt should not stand aside. HK is a low tax society, hk govt's tax is significantly coming from land sale or property market (stamp duties) etc. So that lower class citizen can get welfare or basic protection, not to starve to death. So u see, budget deficit for few years after 2003 is a nightmare to our govt. Our govt wont let property price down to lot. But so far, recent measures are to increase sales / transaction transprancy or mildy stop speculation. There is no action to assist those $20K to 40K family income to buy property flat. But we have to admit that some rural flats are not that expensive, below HK$2M. But oue lives is not to work for our flat, but our family members and HK!!! 

大樓同意政府在高地價收益後,應該多啲照顧弱勢社群,更應該制造多些就業機會,失業者應該積極找工作,重新從工作中得到自信,如果人工低唔夠生活費,政府應以津貼形式津貼其收入至足夠生活所需,香港市民唔想見到社會上有人寧願唔返工,而拿綜緩過活嘅金額仲高過返工嘅薪水.

只要努力工作,積極儲備,便會找到自信,現今社會如有一份正當工作,便已經可以買樓,例如:設施完善嘅著名屋苑-嘉湖山莊,其500幾呎2房單位,只售130幾萬,首期+杂費共約16萬左右(以按揭保險借9成計),每月供款不過$5千幾元而已,非常輕鬆.

香港係一個自由經濟社會,買唔買樓應由自己決定,升跌皆不可埋怨他人.係現今社會,即使剛出來做嘢嘅年輕人,都有能力去承擔買樓,請大家留意,大陸中產已經到新界區買細價樓,港人如果宜家有能力時都唔買,將來樓價升咗買唔起,就唔好怪政府及仇商仇富(仇有樓者)!

IF YOU ARE ONLY 31 YEARS OLD, YOU JUST DON'T LIKE OTHERS CAN BE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT !

OTHERWISE, YOU ARE A LIER AND YOU MUST OVER 31 YEARS OLD !

YOU ARE SO NATIVE ! I STUDY PSYCHOLOGY BEFORE ! YOU ARE SO STUPID !

"只要努力工作,積極儲備,便會找到自信,現今社會如有一份正當工作,便已經可以買樓,例如:設施完善嘅著名屋苑-嘉湖山莊,其500幾呎2房單位,只售130幾萬,首期+杂費共約16萬左右(以按揭保險借9成計),每月供款不過$5千幾元而已,非常輕鬆."

The above comments are just bullshit ! He must hold many this kind of properties and clever readers do not buy all of this.  Then, he will have negative assets !

to U Graduate: i am also 35+ and also a university grad.. but i totally agree with YCC. You agree with YCC or actually you are the same person of YCC.

Just take a look in hk history, in 50 or 60s, the social envirnment was very bad (corruption, chinese were treated unfair etc). but our parents/grandparents seldom complained coz they understood how to 'change' themselves to survive/suit into the environment.  In the past years, you can bring plastic flowers back to home to earn more livings but nowadays all factories moved to China, your father/mothers can work until die if you don't mind in the past years

This is nothing related to the education level or whether they are smart or not. Nowadays, i can see many ppl (of coz sometimes i behave the same as well) do not want to change themselves but just asking the society or government to 'change' to fit for their need. I believe this is the main differences between our/youger generations and our parents/grandparents' generation!  Do you mean that you support this government! Are you government staff ? We pay taxes to support this kind of people to say all goods about government! HK people will feel very sad...

To conclude, YCC is the same as Passer by 2

鼓勵港人買二手樓係很正確和正面嘅做法,年輕人一定要進步,不要凡事皆反對,咁樣才有前途!

非常同意大樓所講,二手樓仍有很多選擇,既然樓價難以下跌,倒不如購買二手物業,"嘉湖山莊"好抵買,就算買來收租都唔錯,努力加油,大樓,支持你!!

i am not YCC.... whether you believe it or not. I am just wondering how could you draw such conclusion?

Well, i could tell you i am not a civil servant (i believe this is what you mean 'government staff'...........pls correct me if i am wrong), again, i am wondering how you could draw such conclusion? Just because of saying something favor our government?  i am also a taxpayer which i am glad to be one of the person who offer help to support the government operation.. but again, i do not support government to subsidise those ppl to 'OWN' a flat.. i agree government to do something to help ppl to have a living place which is an good example to better utilize public resource.

BTW, i do not quite understand what you are talking about 'In the past years, you can bring plastic flowers back to home to earn more livings but nowadays all factories moved to China, your father/mothers can work until die if you don't mind in the pasts'

could you pls elaborate more?

梁振英曾配合董建華推出"八萬五"房屋政策,此一政策嘅後果如何,大家有目共睹,宜家佢再次提出復建居屋,各位是否支持?復建居屋會否打殘二手市場?大家要三思!

現時樓價非常唔平均,新樓利用宣傳造勢令價格賣得特貴,但係香港還有好多平樓,應該鼓勵市民購買二手屋苑,市民置業買二手樓並不困難,二手屋苑業主要換樓及變現,唔好抺殺和損害佢地賣樓嘅權利!

有關包致金侄女的判決及再判決，當然是已到達了人神共憤的地步。其中的一些要點，我的看法是﹕

1. 有錢人是否在法律上佔了便宜？這答案肯定是的。她可以找一個很好的律師，找出一個合理的疑點，把罪名打甩了。但是她沒有，而是認了罪。在認罪方面，你找最好的律師，法官也會給面子，當然也會輕判。問題不是她的輕判，而是這輕判太輕了，超出了人們可以接受的範圍﹕如果她只是初犯，我們可以接受她因找了好律師而遭「放生」，問題是﹕她是第三次了。這好比說，我們可以接受七八折大酬賓，這卻是兩三折出售了法院的尊嚴。

2. 法院對於身份背景好的人有優惠，這也是必然的。例如說，一個品學兼優的高材生，犯了非禮案，法官可考慮他的身份，作出減刑。相比一個吸毒的積犯，前者當然可以獲得減刑的對待。但「背境好」的定義是這個人在過去的品德，例如他是一個慈善家，而不是因為他有沒有錢、有沒有有勢力的親人。包致金的侄女既然常常醉酒，又犯了幾次案，法官應視她為「吸毒的積犯」，而非「品學兼優的學生」。

3. 一個人精神有問題，是否可以獲得豁免，答案也是「是」。但如果一個心理有問題的人，屢次挑戰警方的權威，她已是對社會構成了威脅。判她入獄的確是不正確，法官的正確判決，是判她進小欖精神醫院，直至她把心理問題和精神問題都解決了，才准她出來。

4. 從懲罸的角度看，包致金侄女變成了千夫所指的大罪人，非但侮辱了香港市民，相信連法律界也不齒於她。就算是法官和律政署，兩者本來私相授受，對自己人向來七八折大酬賓，玩得十分過癮，但玩在給這一粒老鼠屎攪串了party，也一定痛恨這位不知廉恥的惡女。就算是其家族，再去疼她，也一定對她影響了全家族的聲譽的行為而搖頭。換言之，她已變成了人人喊打的過街老鼠，這在香港的歷史來說，幾年沒出現過一個，上一個是陳健康，再上就是錢志明了。我想，這懲罸似乎已不下於坐牢。(不過至少沒有人當面摑她一巴，看看會不會坐牢。陳健康就被人當街打了一頓。)

5. 現在這宗判決，已變成了政治案件。一個區區的小裁判官顯然沒有這能力去處理。由於牽涉到重大的公眾利益，只能訴諸終審法庭。我的高見是，此案對法院的權威已造成了極大的傷害，法院無論怎判，其傷害是無法彌補的。因此，如果港府再予上訴，法院以維持法院的公信力為最大前題﹕究竟是在群眾壓力下而低頭，或是任由錯誤判決維持，兩種的那一種對法院權威的損害比較小？前者可能令法院很沒面子，後者則更令法院失信於市民，這可能會令市民衝擊法院，那法院就更威信掃地了。

強烈譴責亞洲最暴淚及最民主嘅國家-菲律賓凶徒,無人性殘暴行為,要求菲律賓政府立即交代事件並公開道歉,作出賠償,並對受害者家屬表示深切慰問!

非常同意大樓所講,二手樓仍有很多選擇,既然樓價難以下跌,倒不如購買二手物業,"嘉湖山莊"好抵買,就算買來收租都唔錯,努力加油,大樓,支持你!!

大樓's meaningless comments can also be supported by others. They should hold the "嘉湖山莊". DON'T BUY IT

雖然大樓有持有-嘉湖山莊-之嫌,但仍然說得有理,我估佢都係上進青年,一直鼓勵大家置業上車,思想較為正確,值得支持.

星加坡平均供完樓需要34年,係全球房奴第一位,香港較短需要20年才供完.

人生變幻無常,開開心心去游行,搞到咁慘回來,真係好悲哀,所以游行選地點很重要,不要去呢啲咁落後及貪污嘅地方,因為凶徒無處不在.

菲律賓是綁架之都!

菲律賓冷血事件,証明菲國係一個綁架之都,咁更顯得香港嘅可貴之處,菲律賓華人更加會抽多啲資金來香港投資,因此香港物業將會更受歡迎.

香港作為最自由民主嘅地方,人民可以當家作主,政府施政遵從民意,故此即使沒有工業,農業或制造業等等,仍然廣受世界推崇,喜歡來香港觀光旅游,並以在香港擁有物業為榮.

香港樓價係易升難跌嘅,目前政府打壓樓市,樓市更加健康發展,如果樓價下調5-10%,請各位把握機會,尤以中下價樓仍然係抵買嘅,此類物業落後大市,相信一定唔會輸.

十分同意

二. 政府只發虛招扮為民請命, 但監管不力, 而且默許樓面發水.

三. 政府更協助發展商自圓其說. 環保露台 和 設施 原為改善石屎森林光照和空氣流通而設. 我們的官員不但沒有保障市民應得權利. 並容許發展商納入銷售面積. 這卻是盜竊我們. 一尺地可作兩尺賣.

自由經濟不是萬能的, 也是不應全盤套用的, 而是在適當的時候應該予以限制。原因在於不是所有自由都是好的。舉例來說, 販毒和買毒也是自由經濟裡的行為, 販毒者和買毒者都是出於自願而作毒品買賣, 但為甚麼政府要干預甚至禁止這種自由經濟的商業行為?為甚麼不可讓人們有販毒和買毒的自由?原因很簡單, 就是毒品買賣對社會為害很大。同樣的, 樓價過高會令有房需要的市民買不起, 還會引起剝削勞工, 負資產, 社會不公(窮人辛苦工作都未夠錢買樓, 炒樓者卻坐着都能發達)的問題, 為甚麼政府就不應干預?

任何社會規則都應有其目的, 自由經濟的目的應是令人們積極工作, 而不是製造貧窮, 剝削與不公平。請滿腦子自由經濟的人, 要麼好好想想自由經濟的正確目的, 然後來個誠心懺悔; 要麼乾脆承認自己是衰人, 是賤人, 別再藉自由經濟作愰子來妖言惑眾。

We have nothing to do in HK except the financial / service industry.  This is our core of success and we need to protect it and further expand it.

I don't think those who propose "Freedom of Economy" is bad people at all, nor those who involve in property investment.  Everyone works hard in HK in order to survive.  Construction worker, taxi driver, police officers, nurses, real estate agent, government officials and even businessman.  The difference is, someone work harder, someone don't;  someone play hard, some don't;  someone take risk, someone don't.

If our government intervene too much on economic activity, we will lose the investment from outside.