Policy Address: More needs to be done to mitigate wealth inequality in SAR
The 2020 Policy Address is lengthy and much of it is sensible and easy to support. The problem with the PA is one of omission — some major issues are not mentioned.
In particular, one of Hong Kong’s fundamental problems is increasing inequality and that is not mentioned in the PA. Inequality is worsening and Hong Kong is probably the most unequal society in the developed world. To put it bluntly the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. I see nothing in the PA that purports to slow this trend.
Much of Hong Kong’s problem of inequity is due to the reliance on land sales to produce a major share of government revenue. The government works hard to get maximum revenues from land sales and withdraws land from sale if the sale price is deemed not attractive enough. This approach ensures that land prices remain high. This in turn translates into high property prices, high commercial rent costs and very high rental costs for accommodation. All of this increases the cost of living which particularly impacts the poorer members of society. This revenue from land sales also allows Hong Kong to maintain a very low tax environment for the richer members of society. This is because much of their income (investment income, capital gains, overseas income etc.) is not taxed.
This approach to government finances has resulted in a strong government financial position. The downside has been too little developed land, too little housing, extremely high housing costs and high cost of living. This has inexorably increased inequality.
The level of poverty in Hong Kong gets no mention in the PA. This may be because the government knows that its statistics on poverty badly need to be overhauled. There are however some short-term proposals in the PA that will reduce poverty. For example, I welcome the recommendation to give special assistance to those waiting in line for public housing. However, the lack of long-term goals to reduce poverty is a serious omission. In the future, it would be good to see a true reflection of the real numbers of those mired in poverty and specific recommendations to mitigate this sad state of affairs.
The PA does discuss housing and land at some length but reading it will not convince me that change is coming. The government will still rely on land sales and this will make the land price, and therefore housing costs, continue to soar. The government’s objectives for land development and new housing are far too low even according to government friendly think tanks. There is no sign of the vision required to alter this with a real commitment to bringing Hong Kong housing standards up to a level commensurate with the wealth of the city.
The minimum wage is not discussed either in the PA. Hong Kong’s minimum wage is far below the level in other developed economies. That should not be the case. The minimum wage is not enough to keep someone out of poverty in a pricey Hong Kong. The BPF, however, does not at this point recommend the direct approach of a major increase in minimum wage. Such an abrupt step would be damaging to Hong Kong’s SME’s who already have to cope with the high-cost environment. The BPF, instead, recommends wage supplements, paid by the government, to those earning the minimum wage or close to it. This would be a major help to these workers who should have a living wage when they have full-time work.
The PA also did not discuss MPF. In a previous PA there was a commitment to eliminate the offset mechanism that so blights MPF and makes MPF almost meaningless for many of poorer citizens. Time has passed and the offsets are still being made and there is no renewed commitment to making the change. Also, the BPF has recommended that MPF be brought up to international standards by increasing contributions from 10 percent to 15 percent of salary with the government paying the extra 5 percent. The PA is silent on this or other improvements to MPF.
In summary the PA has many detailed recommendations that are sound but it fails to come to grips with some issues that are of great importance to the less wealthy.
from Victor Apps, Chairman, Business & Professional Federation, HKSAR in China Daily Dec 1, 2020 ,
解决財當不均/wealth inequality
Re: 解决財當不均/wealth inequality
很多國家，尤其美國，靠印錢應付政府開支。香港可以嗎？admin 寫: ↑2020-12-02, 08:30[
In particular, one of Hong Kong’s fundamental problems is increasing inequality and that is not mentioned in the PA. Inequality is worsening and Hong Kong is probably the most unequal society in the developed world. To put it bluntly the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. I see nothing in the PA that purports to slow this trend.
Much of Hong Kong’s problem of inequity is due to the reliance on land sales to produce a major share of government revenue. The government works hard to get maximum revenues from land sales and withdraws land from sale if the sale price is deemed not attractive enough. This approach ensures that land prices remain high. This in turn translates into high property prices, high commercial rent costs and very high rental costs for accommodation. All of this increases the cost of living which particularly impacts the poorer members of society. This revenue from land sales also allows Hong Kong to maintain a very low tax environment for the richer members of society. This is because much of their income (investment income, capital gains, overseas income etc.) is not taxed.
港元和美元掛勾。美國印錢，香港應否同步？
銀行可借無中生有的錢，若銀行是政府擁有，政府可减少依賴買地嗎？
若可以的話，可不可以向低收入羣眾傾斜？
Re: 解决財當不均/wealth inequality
7月3日，聽了丁新豹教授談論了香港的填海史，有很大的啟發。
(1) 整個香港發展，其實是利益集團的鬥爭。
(2) 最初是英國政府，支持英商利益，和清朝的鬥爭。
(3) 香港的做地填海，是英商利益之爭。有海旁地的，不願填海令地價跌。庶打爵士有遠見，估計有中國人湧入，地價不會跌。更主張把填海的一部份地，低價賣給有海旁地的商人。利益分配好，填海做地，自然成功。
(4) 港英政府發現填海賣地可大賺，銀行借無中生有的錢給地產商和置業者，也會大賺。那時賺錢最多的是馬會，匯豐，第三才是政府。這3位都是英商控制。
(5) 回歸前後，英商撤走，華商上場。董建華的8萬5房屋政策，供過於求、樓價大跌。原意是利民，但樓價跌，經濟跟著跌，市民信心更跌。
(6) 樓價跌時，市民不願負資產，銀行又怕收不到貸款，收緊借貸。少了無中生有的錢。各人分得的利益自然少。
(6) 結果政府削減樓宇供應，樓市回升。經濟回穏。地產商話事權急升。利益又再側向他們。
(7) 跟著的各屆政府，明說解決市民住屋，暗怕經濟下滑。研究又研究，共識又共識。官員求保持利益，不做不錯。好貓変成懶貓。
(8) 香港政制，以前是英國指派。回歸後，名義是中央指派，但中央以一國两制，港人治港為由，積極不干預。令反對派覚得可以唱衰政府，以選民自重，甘為外國勢力所用，從而執政。
(9) 有些學者，更鼓吹違法達義，令青少年覚得可推翻無能無為的香港政府。得到執政的利益。
(10) 現在中央以國安法，選舉法，摧毁反對派的美夢。以愛國者治港，把經濟溶入大湾區，香港地產的比重，可以下降。政府可真正為人民服務。
這論點可再討論，尤其溶入大湾區，令港人生活更富裕，更快樂。
(1) 整個香港發展，其實是利益集團的鬥爭。
(2) 最初是英國政府，支持英商利益，和清朝的鬥爭。
(3) 香港的做地填海，是英商利益之爭。有海旁地的，不願填海令地價跌。庶打爵士有遠見，估計有中國人湧入，地價不會跌。更主張把填海的一部份地，低價賣給有海旁地的商人。利益分配好，填海做地，自然成功。
(4) 港英政府發現填海賣地可大賺，銀行借無中生有的錢給地產商和置業者，也會大賺。那時賺錢最多的是馬會，匯豐，第三才是政府。這3位都是英商控制。
(5) 回歸前後，英商撤走，華商上場。董建華的8萬5房屋政策，供過於求、樓價大跌。原意是利民，但樓價跌，經濟跟著跌，市民信心更跌。
(6) 樓價跌時，市民不願負資產，銀行又怕收不到貸款，收緊借貸。少了無中生有的錢。各人分得的利益自然少。
(6) 結果政府削減樓宇供應，樓市回升。經濟回穏。地產商話事權急升。利益又再側向他們。
(7) 跟著的各屆政府，明說解決市民住屋，暗怕經濟下滑。研究又研究，共識又共識。官員求保持利益，不做不錯。好貓変成懶貓。
(8) 香港政制，以前是英國指派。回歸後，名義是中央指派，但中央以一國两制，港人治港為由，積極不干預。令反對派覚得可以唱衰政府，以選民自重，甘為外國勢力所用，從而執政。
(9) 有些學者，更鼓吹違法達義，令青少年覚得可推翻無能無為的香港政府。得到執政的利益。
(10) 現在中央以國安法，選舉法，摧毁反對派的美夢。以愛國者治港，把經濟溶入大湾區，香港地產的比重，可以下降。政府可真正為人民服務。
這論點可再討論，尤其溶入大湾區，令港人生活更富裕，更快樂。