Real estate adjustment should be less dependent on the traditional paths
Released on 2011-10-24 15:25 | readings
从2009年12月初到2010年1月初，短短1个月内，中央政府5次调控房地产市场。国务院参事、经济学家陈全生回答了关于房地产调控的问题。
问：中国房地产主要依赖哪两个传统路径呢？
答：第一个就是房地产以卖为主的传统路径依赖，从住房体制改革开始，所有房屋都以卖为主，福利房、房改房卖完了，商品房继续卖，无论是出台什么政策，都是在围绕房屋买卖做文章，这是有失偏颇的。第二个就是土地财政和GDP考核的路径依赖。以70年的土地使用权和5年一届政府来算，等于第一任政府就用了后面13任政府的钱，因为它的事权和财权不对等，必须卖地，而且卖地收入还和GDP考核直接挂钩。这种寅吃卯粮的土地财政也是一个重大制度弊端。
问：应该如何解决这两种路径依赖？
答：现在房屋出租的税收要比卖房的税收多30%，等于说租赁的成本比交易的成本更高，这就是在鼓励买卖房屋而压抑了租赁市场，这就造成了一个巨大的制度缺陷。政府应该鼓励买房、抑制卖房、奖励租房，建立健全租赁市场，完善租赁市场的法律法规和经济政策，这一套制度要比打击商品房市场更加重要。
问：不少分析人士认为，保障房的大量投入市场将会有效分流商品房的需求，从而对房价起到调控的作用。你如何看待这种观点？
答：这个逻辑是有问题的，事实上，不管政府如何增加土地供给和减少不合理需求，总会有一部分中低收入和从农村进城的群众住房题难以通过市场化手段解决，他们不仅不能买房，甚至连普通房都租不起，他们本来就没有能力影响商品房市场，他们从根本上就不会对商品房的供求关系产生作用。这种公租房、廉租房，建再多也不会对商品房房价产生影响。至于经济适用房也是一样道理，从1998年到2009年，这部分房屋无论是从投资规模、销售面积还是竣工面积，占整个房地产市场的比例都没有超过5%。就凭5%的经济适用房、限价房就想改变整个房地产市场，这是不可能的。
From early December 2009 to early January 2010, just one month, the Chinese central government has regulated and adjusted the real estate market five times. Chen Quansheng, State Department counselor, economist, answered questions on real estate issues.
Q: 2010 was known as the real estate control year, but many real estate companies have achieved a historic sales and earnings growth, do you think the real estate macro control is ineffective?
A: Using metaphor, real estate sales last year was 5, without any control, this figure is probably 10, do you still think that the macro-control is ineffective? The ultimate goal of macro-control shouldn’t depress sales or bring down the price, but to solve the problem that China’s real estate industry is dependent too much on two traditional paths.
Q: Which are the two traditional paths that China’s real estate mainly relies on?
A: The first path dependence is the real estate mainly focus on selling, from the beginning of housing system reform, all properties are for sale. When the welfare houses and restructured houses sold out, the commodity properties are ready to sell. All the issued policies all move around the buying and selling of homes which is biased.The second one is the assessment of land and GDP fiscal path dependence. The 70-year land use rights and the 5-year term of the government system means the first government uses the money of all the 13 following governments, because the unequal of the policy power and financial power. By means of selling land, the land sales revenue has a direct relation with GDP. This living beyond the land is a major financial system defects.
Q: What shall we do to be less dependent on the traditional path?
A: Currently, rental tax is 30% more than property sales tax, meaning that the cost of leasing is more expensive than the house transaction, which is to encourage the property sales and depress the rental market. As a result, this created a huge system defect. Government should encourage buying houses, curbing selling houses and rewarding house rental incentives to establish and improve the rental market; meanwhile, improve the rental market laws, regulations and economic policies. This system is more important than cracking down commodity housing market.
Q: Many analysts believe that a large number of security rooms in market will divert demand thus to play a regulatory function of housing price. What do you think?
A: This logic is problematic, in fact, even if the government increases land supply and reduce the unreasonable demand, there will always be a large number of low-income residents and people who entering city from rural area which make the housing problem difficult to solve by means of marketization. They can’t even afford renting, let alone buying. They have nothing to do with the commodity housing market and will not affect the supply and demand. Therefore, no matter how many of the public rental and low-cost rental houses have been built, it won’t influence the commodity housing market. Economic and suitable housing apply the same theory, from 1998 to 2009, this part of the housing either from the scale of investment, sales area or completion of an area, the total proportion of the real estate market did not exceed 5%. Consequently, it’s impossible to change the entire real estate market with only 5% of the affordable housing.
从2009年12月初到2010年1月初，短短1个月内，中央政府5次调控房地产市场。国务院参事、经济学家陈全生回答了关于房地产调控的问题。
问：中国房地产主要依赖哪两个传统路径呢？
答：第一个就是房地产以卖为主的传统路径依赖，从住房体制改革开始，所有房屋都以卖为主，福利房、房改房卖完了，商品房继续卖，无论是出台什么政策，都是在围绕房屋买卖做文章，这是有失偏颇的。第二个就是土地财政和GDP考核的路径依赖。以70年的土地使用权和5年一届政府来算，等于第一任政府就用了后面13任政府的钱，因为它的事权和财权不对等，必须卖地，而且卖地收入还和GDP考核直接挂钩。这种寅吃卯粮的土地财政也是一个重大制度弊端。
问：应该如何解决这两种路径依赖？
答：现在房屋出租的税收要比卖房的税收多30%，等于说租赁的成本比交易的成本更高，这就是在鼓励买卖房屋而压抑了租赁市场，这就造成了一个巨大的制度缺陷。政府应该鼓励买房、抑制卖房、奖励租房，建立健全租赁市场，完善租赁市场的法律法规和经济政策，这一套制度要比打击商品房市场更加重要。
问：不少分析人士认为，保障房的大量投入市场将会有效分流商品房的需求，从而对房价起到调控的作用。你如何看待这种观点？
答：这个逻辑是有问题的，事实上，不管政府如何增加土地供给和减少不合理需求，总会有一部分中低收入和从农村进城的群众住房题难以通过市场化手段解决，他们不仅不能买房，甚至连普通房都租不起，他们本来就没有能力影响商品房市场，他们从根本上就不会对商品房的供求关系产生作用。这种公租房、廉租房，建再多也不会对商品房房价产生影响。至于经济适用房也是一样道理，从1998年到2009年，这部分房屋无论是从投资规模、销售面积还是竣工面积，占整个房地产市场的比例都没有超过5%。就凭5%的经济适用房、限价房就想改变整个房地产市场，这是不可能的。
From early December 2009 to early January 2010, just one month, the Chinese central government has regulated and adjusted the real estate market five times. Chen Quansheng, State Department counselor, economist, answered questions on real estate issues.
Q: 2010 was known as the real estate control year, but many real estate companies have achieved a historic sales and earnings growth, do you think the real estate macro control is ineffective?
A: Using metaphor, real estate sales last year was 5, without any control, this figure is probably 10, do you still think that the macro-control is ineffective? The ultimate goal of macro-control shouldn’t depress sales or bring down the price, but to solve the problem that China’s real estate industry is dependent too much on two traditional paths.
Q: Which are the two traditional paths that China’s real estate mainly relies on?
A: The first path dependence is the real estate mainly focus on selling, from the beginning of housing system reform, all properties are for sale. When the welfare houses and restructured houses sold out, the commodity properties are ready to sell. All the issued policies all move around the buying and selling of homes which is biased.The second one is the assessment of land and GDP fiscal path dependence. The 70-year land use rights and the 5-year term of the government system means the first government uses the money of all the 13 following governments, because the unequal of the policy power and financial power. By means of selling land, the land sales revenue has a direct relation with GDP. This living beyond the land is a major financial system defects.
Q: What shall we do to be less dependent on the traditional path?
A: Currently, rental tax is 30% more than property sales tax, meaning that the cost of leasing is more expensive than the house transaction, which is to encourage the property sales and depress the rental market. As a result, this created a huge system defect. Government should encourage buying houses, curbing selling houses and rewarding house rental incentives to establish and improve the rental market; meanwhile, improve the rental market laws, regulations and economic policies. This system is more important than cracking down commodity housing market.
Q: Many analysts believe that a large number of security rooms in market will divert demand thus to play a regulatory function of housing price. What do you think?
A: This logic is problematic, in fact, even if the government increases land supply and reduce the unreasonable demand, there will always be a large number of low-income residents and people who entering city from rural area which make the housing problem difficult to solve by means of marketization. They can’t even afford renting, let alone buying. They have nothing to do with the commodity housing market and will not affect the supply and demand. Therefore, no matter how many of the public rental and low-cost rental houses have been built, it won’t influence the commodity housing market. Economic and suitable housing apply the same theory, from 1998 to 2009, this part of the housing either from the scale of investment, sales area or completion of an area, the total proportion of the real estate market did not exceed 5%. Consequently, it’s impossible to change the entire real estate market with only 5% of the affordable housing.