ENG
瀏覽人次:34098    回應:9
 
我要回應
我的稱呼
回應 / 意見
驗証文字
 
回應 / 留言規則
  1. 禁止撰寫粗言穢語、誹謗、渲染色情暴力或人身攻擊的言論;
  2. 禁止以名稱/暱稱/綽號/同音字等批評或映射任何人士、機構、公司;
  3. 禁止發佈有關招聘、推銷、廣告等內容;
  4. 禁止公開任何個人資料(如電話號碼、電郵地址、即時通訊帳號等)。

敬請留言者自律。本網站保留刪除/堵截任何留言的權利。

會員登入
登入ID 或 網名
密碼
1. 亮劍 2013-12-14 10:40:27

政府連九十歲的婆婆買一層物業養老亦要徵收15%BSD??

我估計阿婆應該唔會走去成立公司買樓自住,合理計她只係多付 3.75 % DSD 啫,而且呢一筆發展商可能幫手找數。

2. 非常時期已過一年 2013-12-14 10:54:12

記得BSD或DSD推出時(約一年前), 當時曾財爺說那些辣招是非常時期非常手段。但經過這一年香港都沒有什麼財經上或居住問題上可稱得上非常事發生。

 

3. fan 2013-12-14 11:48:53
   如果亞婆將自己層大單位賣出,然後再買兩層細單位,一間自己住,一間收租,收租果間應不應該徵收15%BSD呢?
      要買樓就不會九十歲才買。最多換一層細單位自住,餘下的錢傍身。
4. 冷眼 2013-12-14 12:02:16
曾瘟神講嘢冇句真,年年預算案都差十萬九千里,正一冇料狗官!加上廢物梁,簡直一擔擔!香港最大的負資產!
5. mini 2013-12-14 13:04:24

點解Milk Powder Formula開徵BSD,DSD & SSD !

We are all from moms !

6. Alan Pepper 2013-12-14 14:07:57
Landlords provide accessibility and mobility to flats. 
Recently the discussions have heated up between two sides concerning rent control and 3D. Rather than constructive discussions we are seeing a lot of cursing and complaining from both sides. I would like to try and calm down the hatred between the 2 with this post. 

First and foremost let me state my interest. I'm both a landlord and a tenant. I lease out flats for investment and rent commercial properties for business, there's also a mixture of commercial and residential properties in my investment. Compared to Dr. I'm only a tiny fraction of his enterprise. So I'm still trying to make a living myself. I agree to SSD but oppose to BSD and DSD. Because SSD deters a lot of unqualified individuals to make a quick buck who may adversely affect the market (I do admire their 勇氣 however) . I oppose to rent control in today's economy but if there's a feasible and cost effective way to rule out 租霸 and unreasonable landlords I will support it (this probably only happens in an utopian society) . 

Anyway, I want to discuss the role of landlords in an economy like Hong Kong. Instead of brandishing them as 奸商, I would like to in their defence present their contributions to the economy. Here's an over simplified calculation:

Let's say one city's government has land. And there's only 1 property developer, who has $100. The cost of building each flat is $100. It takes 1 year to build flats any number of flats. The rental of flats is $10 per year initially. This means in the first year the developer can build 1 flat and rent it out to 1 tenant. And it will be 10 years until the develop collects enough rent to build the 2nd flat. Another 10 years to build 2 more (total 4) flats. This is already been 20 years. 

Now let's say there are investors in this economy. Who has $120 each. And let's for argument sake  ignore supply and demand for a moment and pretend they line up to buy property year by year and prices stay the same.  That means in the first year. The developer will build a flat and will to sell to investor A, for $120 because he can gain $20 immediately. So in the second year,  the developer builds another flat and sells it for $120 again. In 5 years the developer should have $200 and can build 2 flats at a time. In 10 years 4 flats, and in the same 20 years 16 flats each year. That means in the same 20 years there will be hundreds of flats instead of 4. 

This calculation is obviously exaggerated and over simplified. But the logic is intact. I'm not proclaiming that landlords are doing the community a service and are 大仁大義. But they are providing utility, accessibility and mobility to the economy. 

I would also like to speak for the tenants side. I have to rent commercial properties for business. I'm extremely fortunate that my landlords are very kind to me. By all means they do not charge me any less than other tenants, maybe at most 10-20% Sometimes? Over the years my rental has increased on average 10% annually and I do have difficulties maintaining the business. But 食得鹹魚抵得渴. If I'm going to succeed in business then I have to find ways to overcome these difficulties. I am fortunate that i have been able to do it in the past and still remain confident to do so in the future. At the very least my landlords have not vacated me for lucrative rents. And I have been a good tenant to them for many contracts. Sometimes I have no choice but to increase rental more than I wish to but that's the way it goes. 

I have also heard many stories of bad landlords, some claims are believable but some are without merits. In my experience most landlords are negotiable and some are very stubborn. I'm also very fortunate that my landlords opens the door to negotiate with me. 

In any groups of people, landlords, tenants, employees, employers, young, old, men or women. There ought to be ethetical and unethetical individuals. We do not need to brandish a certain group to be one or another. These are all isolated cases. I hope to see productive discussions in the forum and learn from all brothers and sisters here. Please take this post into consideration whenever we post anything in the future. Thank you very much. 
7. 妙奶粉 2013-12-14 17:19:07
近日妙奶粉比人炒貴1倍, 建議政府劎仿傚地產, 徵收DSD重稅.
8. 辣與不辣非二分法 2013-12-15 00:03:52

人的思想盲點,就是很容易將選擇簡化成非此即彼。這種根本的思維,在大多數的情況下都沒有太大問題;尤其是當面對的選擇是我們熟悉的事情。

不過,面對陌生的情況,處理新的問題,將選擇二元化的做法,其實代表墨守成規,未必能對症下藥。

所以,創意思維的第一課,就是要先假設所有現行的方法都不是最好方法,由事實的最根本出發,一步步推論最佳的處理方法。

 

辣與不辣非二分法

以對付樓市泡沫為例,現在討論已經被二分化至應否撤辣招。事實上,提出要撤辣招的人,不代表反對要控制泡沫。問題是辣招有沒有效,以及有沒有反效果。可惜,堅持要繼續辣下去的評論員,很盲目地相信這辣招是唯一方法,令人對香港當前論政者的水平,很是灰心。

樓市泡沫,最大問題不是有人會輸錢,而是怕價格回落時銀行資產負債表萎縮,令到整個靠槓桿支撐的金融制度崩潰。
2008年金融海嘯,正是這個反饋鏈及餘波的效應。歐美央行以量寬去對抗去槓桿化,算是新思維,是否最好則很難說。但肯定香港這個聯滙之地,受到副作用影響,出現另一個泡沫。政府首要任務應是確保銀行體系的安全系數有一定水平。這種監管其實也不是甚麼保證,只屬聊勝於無。

無論如何,量寬的結束,代表這個周期也步入尾聲。

樓市本身的交易成本已經高,連串辣招再進一步增加交易成本,令市場反應更慢,公眾更不易得知真正的價格變化。說穿了,支持辣招的人,心底裏都是希望樓價回落。不過,以金融系統風險做藉口要樓價跌,這種思維的確很矛盾。

客觀事實已經肯定,要是出現去槓桿化,快好過慢,詳細原因,明天續談。

 

專欄電郵:mailto: mcwriter@sharpdaily.com.hk 這個 E-mail 地址已經被防止灌水惡意程式保護,您需要啟用 Java Script 才能觀看

李兆富

9. Oscar Lam 2013-12-15 09:47:19
由於政府在一段較長時間內均會維持辣招,加上銀行按揭困難,相信香港物業這二年的升價空間十分有限。相反,隨著中國經濟持續快速增長,將部份資金轉投中國物業市場也是投資者的一項不錯的選擇。其中上海更是本人的首選,原因我就不多說了。

最近我特別去了二次上海,了解當地的住宅和商業寫字樓的投資機會。上海給我的印象是,政府積極有為,當地基建規劃得很好,政府在不同地區設立新的商業中心(CBD),到處都在大興土木。相反,香港這幾年發展緩慢,本人有點擔心!

言歸正傳。普遍來說,上海的物業價格比香港同級數的物業便宜許多,租金回報和香港差不多,地產代理告訴我當地投資者較注重物業的升值潛力。上海政府對於海外投資者有相當嚴格的限制,其中住宅相對寬鬆,商業寫字樓的投資則嚴格很多。有意投資上海的投資者要努力了解當地的法規和稅務,以免犯錯。以下是本人的一些了解,供各位作為參考:

海外人士投資住宅:
1. 每人限購一套,以個人名義購買。
2. 政府雖有規定購買者需於上海工作滿一年,但地產代理有方法解決這一問題,不用擔心。
3. 銀行按揭可經過代理介紹當地的外資銀行,如:匯豐、恆生等借入美金。利率大約在3.8%-4%,可借6-7成。
4. 建議持有物業超過5年后才出售,這樣稅金會少很多。

海外人士投資商業寫字樓:
1. 嚴格很多!只能以公司名義購買,即投資者需於上海設立一家外資獨資公司。
2. 不能按揭,需要full payment!
3. 理論上該寫字樓只能是公司自用,不能出租。但實際上許多海外投資者均將物業出租。當中涉及法律灰色地帶,這裡我就不多說了。
4. 所交的稅金比住宅為高。