2017年9月10日星期日

「港人首置上車盤」應與白表居屋整合

「港人首置上車盤」與目前的居屋計劃或多或少都會有所重疊,與其花心思去區別兩者,倒不如索性將居屋計劃由「綠置居」和「港人首置上車盤」瓜分取代。 (圖片:Exploringlife@Wikimedia)

上一篇談及「港人首置上車盤」的文章似乎有點負面,對其紓緩香港房屋問題的效用不感樂觀。隨著林鄭月娥首份施政報告即將出台,社會上也對此開始多了討論,既然有關政策幾乎肯定會推行,變數只是政策上的細節,筆者亦希望藉此時機整理思緒,分享一下自己最新的建議與期望。簡括而言,「港人首置上車盤」與目前的居屋計劃或多或少都會有所重疊,與其花心思去區別兩者,倒不如索性將居屋計劃由「綠置居」和「港人首置上車盤」瓜分取代。

至今為止,政府似乎未有正式拍板落實「港人首置上車盤」的細節,甚至連定位也未有十分確實的說法,一方面提到入息上限擬訂於居屋之上,另一方面卻提到轉售限制應會較居屋嚴格。究竟其定位是在居屋之上還是之下呢?最怕就是搞到高不成低不就。另一方面,現時資助房屋階梯主要分為出租公屋及出售居屋兩大種類,而近年加入的「綠置居」本身也與綠表居屋有一定程度的重疊,若再引進「港人首置上車盤」,而不相應調整現有的種類,將會令資助房屋階梯更為複雜化,在有限土地供應下,倒頭來只會分薄每類資助房屋的供應。(雖然當局聲言「港人首次上車盤」不會影響其他資助房屋的土地資源,但從機會成本的角度看,假設沒有推行「港人首次上車盤」,原本為其覓得的土地資源一樣可以投放到其他資助房屋。)更重要的是,居屋一直都有一些弊病,包括轉售限制寬鬆(只要業主願意補地價,便可以自由出售,變相減少了資助房屋的數量),以及定價未顧及市民的負擔能力(只以「市價乘以特定折扣率」定價)。這些弊病可以正正可以透過被全新的「港人首置上車盤」取代而順便解決。

因此,筆者認為可以終止供應一手居屋,其原有資源將由「綠置居」和「港人首置上車盤」瓜分。「綠置居」將成為公屋住戶主要的資助出售房屋供應來源,與綠表居屋一樣,繼續可透過交回公屋單位換取購入資助房屋的機會;而「港人首次上車盤」則主力負責為非公屋住戶供應資助出售房屋,承繼白表居屋原有的功能。這樣的話,資助房屋階梯將會更為清晰,「綠置居」和「港人首置上車盤」這兩種資助出售房屋有明確分工,各司其職,不會再出現其定位和受惠對象與居屋部份重疊的尷尬問題。

「港人首置上車盤」在整合白表居屋的同時,需要避免將居屋的弊病一併帶過來。定價方面,正如社會上普遍意見,應該摒棄居屋以「市價乘以特定折扣率」定價,罔顧市民的負擔能力。筆者具體建議,以「住戶入息中位數」作為定價的基礎,現時該數值為每月2.6萬港元,即每年31.2萬,呎價範圍如訂於「每年住戶入息中位數除以60至100之間」,呎價即為3,120至5,200元之間,再視乎所在地區、樓層等因素,在這個範圍內訂出個別單位的呎價。以450呎單位計算,售價會在約140萬至234萬之間,正是昔日被公認為上車盤的合理價位,絕對是多數有意置業的市民有能力負擔的水平。

申請資格方面,既然稱得上是「港人首置上車盤」,最基本的條件自然是從未置業的香港永久性居民,這點應沒有甚麼爭議,有討論空間的主要是每月入息限額。目前居屋的月入上限為5.2萬,正是每月「住戶入息中位數」的兩倍,未知是巧合還是故意按此計出。這個數字又是甚麼概念呢?根據政府統計處最新發表的《綜合住戶統計調查》,月入5萬以下的住戶已佔76.7%。換句話說,月入達5.2萬的住戶已接近全港月入最高的五分之一,很難稱得上是政府需要大力幫助的一群。故此,筆者建議「港人首置上車盤」只需沿用居屋的入息上限便可,不用刻意再調高。

轉售限制方面,為了防止資助房屋的資源流失,筆者希望「港人首置上車盤」採取最嚴厲的轉售限制:業主只可將物業售回政府,定價是參考當時「住戶入息中位數」再按當初購入有關物業的定價公式計出,與市值完全無關,政府再定期將這些回購的單位,向其他「港人首置上車盤」合資格申請者公開發售。

其實與上一篇文章相比,筆者背後的原則並沒有甚麼大改變,都是希望資助房屋階梯可以維持精簡,各類房屋都有清晰定位,不過今次筆者只是改變一下策略,由反對增設「港人首置上車盤」,改為保留「港人首置上車盤」,並讓其取代白表居屋而已。兩者相比,後者可以順道解決居屋一直以來存在的弊病,應算是更好的建議。只是筆者相信當局應該沒有足夠的膽量,大刀寬斧地如此調整資助房屋政策。

1 則留言:

  1. Sorry, I do not know how to type Chinese. Guess I have to reply in English.

    I have given a bit of thought on the buy-back schedule you proposed for the new first-time home owner plan and unfortunately it is not economically sound.

    Home ownership is linked to growth of personal wealth intricately, the buy-back plan eliminates any potential of market driven growth and prevents proper market behaviour.

    There are few concerns I have with your plan.
    1. If the purchase of the first-time owner scheme cannot be sold in the public market (even with restriction).

    There would be no incentive to purchase those flats. As you mentioned the potential land opportunity cost. Why should those land should not convert and build public housing estates and increase the means-tested requirement and rent adjusted to income level to whatever the price will be paid off in 50 years (the amount of years a most lands are lease-hold)

    2. How would government determine the cost of buy-back?
    - If lower than market price, there is no incentive of returning the flats to the government. (Opportunity cost of taking out a mortgage, moving, not purchasing other properties under this scheme)
    - If higher than market price, it is sponsoring a group of relatively wealthy citizens with additional taxpayer dollars.

    3. Creating all of these formula of pricing is unwise. It creates a price ceiling and price floor. Some units maybe well under the appropriate price or other may well be too high.

    - It creates an illusion of fair while introduce lots of unintended consequences.
    - The latest subsidised housing sale at Mui Wo shows may be too high priced as the market has told. Some housing can be built to the issue of size and prefer a further distance from the hustle and bustle.

    I believe the scheme should be more aggressive and think out of the box.
    - Land to be designated at "zero" upfront cost to private developer and to be silt with the government when the units are sold.
    - life time purchase or moving in between flats for social mobility (change of job location, increase in family size, change of preference)
    - Designated smaller units for single or couples are only applies.

    The idea of all these scheme is assist with social mobility in assisting creation on wealth through asset. The ideas are good intentioned, but lead to a more restricted future for our youngsters.

    Trust in market power and people be able to deciding their future without too much government interference. What needs to be done is just craving a slightly restricted market where there is a potential for social mobility is reachable. Not to chain and strangle people with their homes.

    Long time reader, first time comment. Love your blog.

    回覆刪除

歡迎各位讀者發表意見,筆者會盡量逐一回應。筆者保留刪除任何涉及粗言人身攻擊嚴重離題或其他不當內容的留言之權利,敬希垂注!

為方便交流討論,以及避免被系統誤判為「垃圾留言」,筆者不太鼓勵讀者以「匿名」身份留言。假如在使用「名稱 / 網址」身份留言時,留空網址一欄出現了「網址含有無效的字元」的錯誤訊息,請以半形空格(按一下spacebar)填寫該欄。不便之處,敬請原諒!

由即日起,所有留言需要經過審核,故未能即時顯示


【目前筆者因事暫停網誌更新,期間留言可能需要較長時間才被審核,敬希見諒!】