顯示具有 Housing 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章
顯示具有 Housing 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章

2015年3月24日

解租屋亂象 陳節如提租賃專法

不知道立委為什麼現在才想到。台灣的租屋完全沒有在管理,什麼樣的房子都可以租,房東也完全不需負任何法律責任或義務。如果參考英國的規定:

- (蘇格蘭)租屋要向市政府登記。未登記就出租房屋是「犯罪行為」
- 房屋必須符合政府訂的瓦斯和電氣安全規定,所以房東通常每年會請人來檢查一次瓦斯、電氣和電線是否安全
- 家具和裝潢必須「防火」
- 房東必須加入政府核准的「押金保障機制」。如果有爭議,押金保障機構會先墊付押金給房客,再向房東求償
- 房客可以上「押金保障機構」的網站查詢房東是否以前就有爭議
- 租約內容、租約長度和租金調整都有規定

這些都可以在英國政府網站上找到:https://www.gov.uk/renting-out-a-property/landlord-responsibilities或 https://www.gov.uk/renting-out-your-property-scotland

立委加油吧!
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cna.com.tw/news/aipl/201503210174-1.aspx

解租屋亂象 陳節如提租賃專法

字級:  
發稿時間:2015/03/21 15:31 最新更新:2015/03/21 15:40
民進黨籍立委陳節如(左2)等人21日在立法院召開記
者會,主張欲解決租屋亂象,應將出租3戶以上的房東
視為營業行為立即適用消保法,並訂住宅租賃專法。
中央社記者溫貴香攝 104年3月21日

民進黨籍立委陳節如(左2)等人21日在立法院召開記 者會,主張欲解決租屋亂象,應將出租3戶以上的房東 視為營業行為立即適用消保法,並訂住宅租賃專法。 中央社記者溫貴香攝 104年3月21日

(中央社記者溫貴香台北21日電)民進黨籍立委陳節如等人今天主張,解決租屋亂象,應將出租3戶以上的房東視為營業行為立即適用消保法,並訂住宅租賃專法。

媒體報導,張姓房東事件戳破租屋市場的險惡瘡疤,陳節如、崔媽媽基金會執行長呂秉怡、德明財經科技大學不動產投資與經營學位學程副教授花敬群等人上午在立法院召開記者會,要求制定住宅租賃專法保障租屋雙方權益,輔導租屋市場正向發展。

花敬群說,租屋市場因政府長期忽視,淪為被政府、產業等不重視的黑市,台灣租屋市場每年創造的產業價值約新台幣1000億元左右,是非常大的產業,卻淪為黑市,在沒有法制化、專業化的經營管理下,這個體系是經濟學所稱劣等財的一個市場。

陳節如建議,出租3戶以上的房東視為營業行為,立即適用消費者保護法,從大專院校周邊優先查核;檢討修訂民國91年制定的租屋定型化契約,明定應記載和不得記載事項。

在制定「住宅租賃專法」部分,陳節如說,法案應完整規範租賃雙方權利義務關係、訂立出租住宅最低屋況品質水準、租屋資訊納入登錄及揭露,並建立房屋履歷制度可公開查詢,針對好房東、好房客、好房屋機型評鑑及推薦。

其他內容部分包括研定糾紛快速處理機制及專責機構,縮短處理時程、相關專業服務與行業扶植,相關證照與行業管理。1040321

2013年3月30日

Empty home owners' council tax shock

原本「非主要自用房屋」(second home)和「空屋」的房地稅(council tax) 是可以打五折的,但現在市場上空屋太多,很多人買不起房子也租不起,因此許多地方政府打算要取消打折,並針對非主要自用房屋和空屋額外加徵 50% 的房屋稅!

這也許可以作為政府規劃房屋稅、地價稅及「空屋稅」的參考!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Men renovating a house Concessions on empty homes and second homes are being removed in England

A million home owners who do not live full time in their property could see their council tax rocket in April, as most automatic discounts are to end.

The change, which will affect second homes and empty properties in England, could see bills for 2013-14 rise by 200%.

Previously, such properties had benefited from a 50% discount.

The new rules give councils more freedom to raise money locally and bring empty homes into use.

Councils do not have to increase taxes on second homes and empty property. But the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation (IRRV) says early evidence suggests most of them are doing so.

Speaking on Radio 4's Money Box programme IRRV chief executive David Magor said financial need was forcing them to take advantage of the new rules.

"The government is trying to get a greater yield from council tax to keep the overall level down. And it is trying to encourage the occupation of empty homes.

"But sitting behind this is the funding of the council tax reduction scheme. Councils have had to adopt these provisions to find the money to finance those schemes."
Current exemptions
Altogether they must find more than £400m to fund the reduction scheme for low-income families. And the 710,000 empty homes and 250,000 second homes are an easy target.

“Start Quote
If they'd told us a year ago maybe I could've pushed and got it finished”
End Quote Katrina Empty property owner

Empty properties without furniture are currently exempt for six months in England and then get a 50% discount. In future the council can decide to charge the full payment from the start.

Similar changes apply to vacant properties which are undergoing major repairs or alterations. An automatic 12-month exemption ends in April and many councils are charging the full amount.

Once a property has been empty for two years they can charge a premium of 50% on top of full council tax.

Katrina bought a property in Rotherham to renovate while she still lived with her mother. Her council tax will rise from just under £50 a month to almost £150 as a 50% reduction becomes a 50% premium.

"There is no law against taking a long time to get it renovated. If they'd told us a year ago maybe I could've pushed and got it finished. But I've been given less than a month's notice."

Rotherham Council said it had consulted on the changes in the autumn.

"We had to make these very big changes because by abolishing the previous national Council Tax Benefit scheme the government left Rotherham with a huge shortfall that was previously used to help those vulnerable and most in need across Rotherham."

Landlords too will find their costs go up. At the moment they get six months free of council tax between lettings of unfurnished property. But from April that will end.

Adrian Thompson, Director of the Guild of Residential Landlords rents many properties out in the North of England. He says rents will have to rise.

"I can see no choice in the matter, Returns are very low anyway. I can't see any choice."

And he says it does not help that councils are all making different decisions.

"Harrogate are giving one week instead of six months. But Sedgefield is three months. And Leeds 20 miles away is zero, not even a day. It's a nightmare. "

Communities Minister Baroness Hanham defended the changes. "Localisation will give local authorities the flexibility to design council tax support schemes for working age claimants in their area. Many are delivering savings using their local flexibilities and discretion"

2012年3月30日

Sharing the burden: top houses v top people


英國的「豪宅稅」

人可以搬走,但房子不行

英國打算針對價值在台幣一億以上的豪宅,課徵 1% 的豪宅稅,用來取代所得稅最高級距 50%,並維持所得稅最高級距在 40%


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sharing the burden: top houses v top people

People can move. Houses, by and large cannot.

That's one good reason economists would give for removing the 50p tax rate on Britain's highest earners - and taxing its most expensive houses instead.

Another good argument would be that land is taxed relatively lightly in the UK, whereas labour income is taxed a lot.

That's the theory. The reality - economic and political - is, naturally, more complicated.

The Treasury reckons that it will take in £2.8bn more in income tax in the coming fiscal year with a 50p top rate, than if the ceiling were still at 40%.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies believes that could well be an over-estimate. In fact, it has suggested that it might not raise any money at all - because high earners will find ways to avoid it.

This is what the IFS's Mirrless Review of the UK tax system had to say on the matter: "There are numerous ways in which people might reduce their taxable incomes in response to higher tax rates; at some point, increasing tax rates starts to cost money instead of raising it.

"The question is, where is that point?

"Brewer, Saez, and Shephard (2010) addressed precisely this question for the highest-income 1%. Their central estimate is that the taxable income elasticity for this group is 0.46, which implies a revenue-maximizing tax rate on earned income of 56%.

"This in turn (accounting for NICs and indirect taxes) corresponds to an income tax rate of 40%. So, according to these estimates, the introduction of the 50% rate would actually reduce revenue."

'Big difference'

In opposition, both David Cameron and the Chancellor George Osborne suggested more or less the same thing.

It's safe to say that a mansion tax on houses worth more than £2m would raise more than nothing. Again, we move house, not the other way around. But how much more it would raise is a matter for lively debate.

At the time of the election, the Liberal Democrats reckoned that a 1% tax on the value of houses above £2m would raise about £1.7bn.

At the time, that struck many as on the high side.

Knight Frank, the estate agency, reckons there are about 45,000 homes in England and Wales worth more than £2m, more than 80% of them in London.

You might be surprised to hear that 40% of them are in Kensington and Chelsea alone. Then again, you might not be.

We don't know whether the average value of those 45,000 homes is a lot more than £2m, or not much more at all. That would make a big difference to overall take.

However, on the World at One on Tuesday, the IFS expert on this, Stuart Adam said £1.7bn was probably "in the right ballpark."

If the 50p rate ends up raising as much as the Treasury first thought, it's looks as though a mansion tax raising £1.5bn to £2bn would not fill the gap.

However, it might be enough to let the government cut the top rate from 50 to 45%.

Those same Treasury estimates suggest that change would only cost the chancellor about £1.1bn next year. If that's true, the Inland Revenue could even come out ahead.

That might sound attractive to George Osborne. But he would then be raising a large amount - from an even smaller number of households.

Raising even £1bn from 45,000 properties means an average extra tax bill, for each of those houses, every year, of more than £22,000.

Britain's top earners may not like paying the 50p rate. But there are a lot more of them - about 275,000, according to the Treasury. (Or at least, that's how many they hoped there would be, after the new top rate had been introduced.)

So, even when it comes to the very wealthiest taxpayers, Mr Osborne may need to decide how much he wants to share the pain.

He may also discover first hand why Britain had traditionally taxed residential property so much less than economists would like - seriously distorting our economy, in the process.

No-one likes chancellors who raise taxes. But British people seem to particularly dislike the chancellors who tax them where they live.

This blog post was first published on Tuesday 6 March 2012. Because of a technical problem, it had to be republished with a new timestamp.

2012年1月2日

Q&A: Mortgage lending rules

FSA (英國的「金管會」)在一份關於改革房貸制度的研究文件中提到:「我們注意到,輕鬆可得的貸款對某些族群,例如首次購屋者,不盡然是好事。寬鬆供給的貸款是,藉由導致房價大幅上升,致使首次購屋者因無力承擔而退出市場的因素之一。」

我們台灣的金管會,什麼時候才能摸摸良心,告訴馬英九和吳敦義這個顯而易見、不容抹滅的事實?請他們停止用納稅人的錢,供應各種低利貸款?


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q&A: Mortgage lending rules

By Ian Pollock
Personal finance reporter, BBC News


The chief City regulator, the Financial Services Authority (FSA), has moved a step closer towards tighter regulation of mortgage lending.

By the summer of 2013 it wants new rules to be in place to prevent a return of the reckless lending seen in the middle of the last decade.

This will involve much closer scrutiny of a borrower's ability to repay.

The riskiest loans, worth more than the current value of the property being bought, will be banned outright.

Lenders will have to assume in their calculations that interest rates are higher than they are now when decide how much to lend.

The FSA says: "We are concerned that, as money returns to the market, firms will come under increasing pressure to consider riskier lending and will focus more on market share than maintaining lending standards.

"We need to learn the lessons of the past and act to stop poor lending practices re-emerging in the future," the FSA adds.

Who will all this affect?

At the moment, very few people. Strict mortgage rationing, due to a lack of funds, has been in force since 2008 anyway. So home sales have been roughly halved since then. The slightest blemish on a credit score can see an application for a mortgage being turned down. So, the FSA estimates that just 2.5% of current new borrowers would be affected by the more stringent lending rules it is proposing. And, assuming they are not watered down in some way as a result of the continuing consultation, they will not come into effect until 2013 at the earliest.
So what is this all about then?

This is all about stopping a new boom in mortgage lending, and house prices, in the future if lenders start lending too much money to home buyers who cannot really afford to repay their loans. That is what happened in the middle years of the last decade. Were it not for the extraordinarily low level of interest rates we have been experiencing, the FSA fears that tens, or even hundreds, of thousands more borrowers would now be in arrears and facing repossession.

Even if the boom conditions seen a few years ago returned, the new approach laid down by the FSA would, on its estimate, restrict lending to about 11% of prospective borrowers.
Sounds like not much will change for most people?

Not quite. Firstly, the widespread use of so-called self-certified mortgages (known to some as liars' mortgages) are now ruled out. They accounted for a very high proportion of new lending a few years ago. People will no longer be able to claim - with no evidence - that their income is big enough to justify a mortgage loan when in reality it is not.

For other applicants, even if lenders find they have more money to lend, they will have to scrutinise the finances of their borrowers much more thoroughly, to show they really can afford to re-pay. And lenders will have to assume that interest rates are noticeably higher than they are today.

Will my mortgage deal be renewed?

If you took out a mortgage a few years ago on rather optimistic assumptions, your lenders will not be forced to dump you if, as a brand new borrower, you might not pass the new lending criteria.

Whether you get the same deal is another matter though. If the value of your home has fallen in the meantime, any new mortgage may be much more expensive than it was before.

Will my interest-only mortgage be affected?

Yes, if you want to renew it in its current form. A new part of the FSA's continuing consultation proposes telling lenders to assess the affordability of interest-only loans as if the borrower were taking out a more expensive repayment mortgage. So in the future, if you have an interest-only loan, and want to re-new it, you may have to show that your finances are sufficiently robust, or that you have other "credible" sources of cash to pay off the mortgage in due course.
I would like to buy my first home, but cannot obtain a mortgage.

Will this help me?

In the long run yes, because it may help suppress artificial house price booms that lock out first-time buyers. The FSA puts the matter very clearly in its consultation document:

"Easy mortgage credit availability is not necessarily a force for good for groups such as first-time buyers. The easy supply of credit was a factor which, by generating significant house price appreciation, contributed to the declining role of first-time buyers within the market, squeezed by affordability problems."

2011年3月3日

How warm is your home?

Now I know that average the room temperature of a British home is at 17.5C. This reminds me two things: the first is that I had to sleep with my sweater and jacket on when I was in a home stay in London because it was so cold. The room temperature was at about 12C. That really surprised me, and froze me as well; the second is when health visitors came to my flat to see how my son is taken care of soon after he was born, they were surprised that we kept the room temperature at above 20C. Their official suggestion is to keep room temperature at 17-18C to prevent SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrom). Well, I don't think any family in Taiwan is able to keep room temperature well below 20C and SIDS is not that common in Taiwan. Maybe that's just another myth.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

3 March 2011 Last updated at 02:34 GMT

How warm is your home?
By Megan Lane

Our homes are getting warmer just as the powers-that-be are asking us to turn our thermostats down. How cool is too cool for a house?
Spring is in the air in the UK, but it will be weeks - if not months - before the nation's radiators switch off.

The average indoor temperatures of British houses are creeping up now central heating is the norm, and double glazing and insulation are added to older, draughtier homes.

In the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change's new online modelling tool My 2050, users can decide what they want the UK to be like in 39 years' time. The only caveat? Carbon emissions must drop 80% while keeping the lights on.

It shows that hitting this target requires more than extra wind turbines or nuclear power stations. How many cars should be electric? Should international shipping grow or shrink?

Continue reading the main story Government drive My 2050 is web application for Department of Energy and Climate ChangeThey want to cut emissions by 80%Design your own virual future with My 2050
And, most immediate to personal comfort, should the average indoor temperature of British houses continue to rise, stay roughly the same at 17.5C (63.5F), or fall?

Dropping it to 16C - the lowest setting in this virtual world - only shaves 7% off carbon emissions. Even if we all get in the habit of wearing woollies inside, this will still feel chillier than usual to most people.

David MacKay, the DECC's chief scientific adviser, practises what he preaches in his once draughty semi-detached 1940s house. As well as double glazing and insulation, he has turned the heating right down.

"When I'm at home, my normal thermostat settings are roughly 13C, but lower when I am out, and 15C, briefly, at getting-up time in the morning. One important additional rule is that whenever I feel cold, I turn the thermostat up as high as I like. The automatic thermostat control then turns it back to the normal settings a few hours later."

He hopes that insulating more homes, smarter thermostats and "the promotion of sweater-wearing by sexy personalities" will encourage more people to follow suit.

Wrap up warm to get cosy
But to many, a thermostat set in the low teens may sound unconscionably frugal - especially when the range of numbers commonly goes from 10 to 30C.

Comfort cannot be defined absolutely, but the World Health Organization's standard for warmth is 21C (70F) in a living room and 18C (64F) elsewhere.

Our expectations of thermal comfort have been raised by central heating at home and at work, and because we are more sedentary at home and at work. Those sitting still - in front of the TV or at a computer - feel the cold quicker than someone moving about.

"A human's perception of whether they feel warm depends on what they are doing, and what they've been doing for the past hour or so," says Dr MacKay in his book Sustainable Energy - Without The Hot Air.

According to one widely quoted model, devised in 2008 by the Building Research Establishment and used in My 2050, average indoor temperatures have risen from 12C in 1970 to about 17.5C (63.5F) today.

But, says Michelle Shipworth of the UCL Energy Institute, this model assumes we are turning our thermostats up, to explain why energy use hasn't gone down as homes have become more energy efficient.

What has happened, she says, is that we now heat more rooms, and for longer.

Continue reading the main story Living room temperatures18-21C - comfortable temperature9-12 or 24+C: Risk of stroke and heart attack21-24C or 16-18C - some discomfort12-16C - risk of respiratory diseaseLess than 9C - risk of hypothermiaSource: Study by housing expert Richard Moore
Forty years ago, few houses had central heating, and chilly hallways and spare rooms dragged the average temperature down. Radiators now warm rooms that previous generations wouldn't have heated - corridors, bedrooms, and bathrooms.

The last comprehensive set of measured home indoor temperatures is from 1996, when the English House Condition Survey found that although living room temperatures in winter remained relatively stable, the nation's hallways were getting warmer - up from 16.3C in 1986 to 17.9C.

"And for bedrooms, you'll be far more comfortable while you're asleep if it is about 14 or 15C," says Shipworth.

Dr Lucy Worsley, chief curator of the Royal Historic Palaces, agrees. "My grandmother wouldn't sleep in a heated bedroom, and would always have a window open. You can't imagine many people today feel the same."

In our enthusiasm for cosy homes, she says many of us are like the profligate Georgians.

Continue reading the main story “Start QuoteFair houses so full of glass that one cannot tell where to become to be out of the sun or cold”
End Quote Sir Francis Bacon on 16th Century fashion for huge windows
"A warm living room showed you were a good host and a generous person. They thought an element of wastefulness showed you had enough cash to be generous," says Worsley, presenter of BBC Four's If Only Walls Could Talk, a history of our homes to be broadcast in April.

"In medieval times, heating your home was akin to burning money. There was a 16th Century saying, 'the game's not worth the candle' - a task was only worth doing if it justified the expense of illumination.

"But when people began to have more spare time and spare money, considerations of waste became less important."

With energy bills soaring in recent years, and more people aware of energy consumption, she expects frugality to be thrust upon us once more.

"I do think the future will be medieval, when the big bang comes and we run out of oil. Small windows, shutters on the outside, a chimney for natural ventilation."

Learning to operate a smart thermostat takes time
And expectations can be adjusted down as well as up. In Japan, there is a move away from super-cooling and over-heating office buildings. Government officials are encouraged to abandon jackets and ties in summer, and some local authorities have workers wrapped in blankets at their desks in winter.

"In 2005, Prime Minister Koizumi decreed that no government building should be heated above 20C or cooled below 28C," says Professor Michael Kelly of Cambridge University.

"That had quite an energy saving, but no drop-off in worker productivity. Compare that to London, where the expectation is that buildings will be within a few degrees of 22C year-round."

So will smart thermostats and radiator valves help, allowing homeowners to target heat where it's needed at different times in the day?

Experts say technology can do only half the job. A smart thermostat is only as smart as the person operating it.

2010年6月25日

G20: Why we all want to be Canadian now

加拿大的銀行,房貸貸款額度如果超過七成五,貸款人要自己出錢買保險。萬一還不出錢來,保險公司要賠銀行。

-----------------------------------------------------------

G20: Why we all want to be Canadian now
Page last updated at 07:40 GMT, Friday, 25 June 2010 08:40 UK
By Caroline Hepker BBC World Business Report, Ottawa

Even on a rainy weekday at Ottawa's By Ward market, Canadian shoppers are cheery.

As Americans and Europeans face deficits and drastic government cuts, Canada's economy is recovering from only a mild recession.

Sheltering near the maple syrup stall, local restaurant promoter Melissa Grecco says Canada escaped the fate of the US.

"We felt the effects on corporate bookings, companies not spending money on staff or booking on a limited budget. But we didn't feel it as much as the US. And within the last couple of months our business has exploded."

Painful reforms

So Canada is now one of the top performing industrialised economies. How did they manage it?

For a start, painful reforms in the 1980s and early 1990s.

Canada's government, based in the stone neo-gothic Parliament building in Ottawa, along with individual provinces, were able to afford an economic stimulus package.

Whilst other nations borrowed, Canada had a budget surplus for over a decade.

According to James Flaherty, Canada's jaunty finance minister, it was also down to a more cautious approach.

"The Canadian character is relatively fiscally conservative. Canadians themselves are relatively prudent, I think, in terms of how much they are prepared to borrow and the risks they are prepared to take."

Safe as houses

Certainly, fewer risks are allowed in the housing market.

Canadian home values have held fairly steady according to Pierre de Varennes, a real estate broker in Ottawa, with 350 employees.

He says stricter standards for homebuyers meant no housing boom and bust in Canada:

"In Canada, you cannot over-mortgage your property. In fact if you are financing more than 75% of the value, you have to get insurance. Not for you but for the bank."

With that protection, Canadian banks have done well from mortgages. And with less exposure to toxic sub-prime mortgages in the US, Canada's six biggest financial institutions, headquartered on Bay Street in Toronto, survived the financial crisis disaster free.

'Big stick'

The Toronto skyline that Gordon Nixon, the President of Royal Bank of Canada, can see from his office on Bay Street not only looks very different to Manhattan. It is run differently, too.

"The structure of our marketplace in Canada is very different," he says.

"Most mortgages are held on the balance sheet of banks. The terms are more conservative and there is not as aggressive a marketplace.

"Sub-prime lending is very limited in the Canadian marketplace. What was the weakest asset class in the US and spread to the balance sheets of many banks was one of the strongest in Canada."

But Canada has also been happy to wield a bigger stick when it comes to financial regulation.

Banking superintendent Julie Dickson credits Canadian firms with better risk management.

But banks must also adhere to more stringent standards. What's more, her office is within walking distance.

"We spent a lot of time looking at what they are doing on a day-to-day basis. We also had good rules when it comes to capital and leverage. And the industry is of a size that it is easier for the regulator to get their arms around it."

Canada's financial sector is smaller and perhaps more insulated than in the US.

Critics add that Canadian banks are less innovative, with higher costs for consumers. Talking to Canadians, they seem to shrug off those arguments, happy with the results of a more prudent and, some argue, less greedy economic philosophy.

Puzzle solved

The G8 and G20 is a crucial opportunity for Canadian policy makers, eager to vaunt their successes to leaders gathered in Toronto.

And Canada need only point to growing businesses like Magmic. The Canadian IT firm makes games for the Blackberry, Apple's iPhone and iPad.

John Criswick, who founded in the firm in 2002, says the recession was painful but the odds have been tipped in his favour because he is in Canada.

"The recession definitely had an impact on us. We are half the size we used to be. But we are growing out of that and being in Canada has aided us in that recovery. It is pushing us beyond what our competition are doing in the US."

John's most profitable game? The iconic US brand the New York Times Crossword - currently the top selling gaming app on the iPhone.

The Canadians, it seems, have answers for even the toughest puzzles and they are keen to share their strategies with the rest of the world. Why in this economy, we all want to be Canadian.

2010年6月14日

倫敦的房子有多貴: Commutefrom.com告訴你

台灣某些建商喜歡拿台北的房價與國際大都市,特別是倫敦比較。他們認為與國際大都市相較,台北的房價偏低,所以台北房價還有上漲空間。

現在我們來看看倫敦市郊一般的房子大概要多少錢。

英國有很多網站協助初次搬到倫敦工作需要找房子的人。只要你在網站上輸入你上班地點最近的地鐵站,還有你希望每天通勤的時間,就可以幫你找出符合你通勤條件的地鐵站或電車站。

網站上還會列入由英國地政機關 (Registry of Land) 所統計當地房屋平均交易價格,和各類房地產價格。有的網站還有有房地產仲介的廣告,可以直接點進去看目前出售中的房屋。

在此介紹兩個功能類似的網站:

Commutefrom.com

Where can I live

首先先介紹 Commutfrom.com:

1. 首先輸入你預計上班地點:先假設以倫敦金融區 (City)最主要的地鐵站 Bank 為上班地點,在這裡上班的多半是荷包滿滿年薪台幣千萬起跳的投資銀行家,相信他們不會住不起豪宅。

預設通勤時間為搭通勤電車或捷運 40 到 50 分鐘,如果加上從家裡走路到車站 10 分鐘,再從 Bank 地鐵站走到公司 10 分鐘,通勤時間總共一小時。

2. 然後 「go」,網站上就會列出符合你的條件的地鐵站或火車站。在剛剛設定的條件下,總共有 155 個地鐵站或火車站符合條件!



3. 隨便點一個車站,看看當地的相關資料:


4. 自己隨便點一點其他車站,看看通勤時間 40 到 50 分鐘內的房屋價格到底是多少?記得英國人的收入是台灣人的三倍。

5. 如果不相信這個網站上的價格,就往該車站的價格資訊點下去,會引導到 BBC 的房屋價格統計網站,這裏的資料是英國的地政機關 (Registry of Land) 提供的成交價格資料。

2010年5月30日

房市透明化 學者籲政府擔責任

不動產交易應該是依據「土地登記規則」辦理。「土地登記規則」裡,也只說要填寫登記申請書,並沒有規定「登記申請書」裡面應該要有什麼欄位。要買賣雙方申報交易價格,只要在「登記申請書」裡,增加一個「交易價格」欄位就可以了。

就算說要修改「土地登記規則」,「土地登記規則」是內政部的行政規則。這應該只要內政部一個行政命令,經總統公佈施行就好,也不需要經過立法院同意...

價格公開的部分,之前有看到新聞說有法務部解釋,只要不涉及揭露買賣雙方姓名、身分證字號等訊息,單獨揭露交易價格與房屋屬性,並非個人資料保護法所限制之範圍。

如此看來,只要內政部修改「登記申請書」的內容,增加登記「交易價格」,就可以公開不動產交易價格,何以需要修法?

提供交易價格算是登載公文書,作假會觸犯刑法第 214 條「使公務員登載不實罪」:

「明知為不實之事項,而使公務員登載於職務上所掌之公文書,足以生損害於公眾或他人者, 處三年以下有期徒刑、拘役或五百元以下罰金」

作假申報是要坐牢的!何以地政司官員認為「如果只是修改行政命令,恐怕無法達到得知真實價格的效果」?

只要規定要求買賣雙方於移轉登記時,申報交易價格並提供契約影本。這樣買賣雙方都有法律責任誠實申報。這樣就可以加諸買賣雙方揭露交易價格的法律義務,當然可以得知真實交易價格。

---------------------------------

房市透明化 學者籲政府擔責任
20100528 17:57:48

(中央社記者何孟奎台北28日電)為推動房屋交易資訊透明化,多名學者與無殼蝸牛聯盟今天在立院呼籲,推動不動產交易價格資訊透明是政府責任,內政部地政司應修改土地登記規則相關規定,讓民眾知道真實價格。

民進黨立委陳節如下午舉辦「落實不動產交易價格資訊透明」公聽會,包括政治大學地政系教授張金鶚、玄奘大學財金系副教授花敬群、無殼蝸牛聯盟發言人彭揚凱、內政部地政司官員、經建會官員以及房仲業者都與會。

陳節如表示,美國民眾買房之前,可輕易查到歷次交易價格,美國政府對資料查詢與蒐集也訂定規範,讓業者、民眾可付費取得完整資料庫。可見透過修改土地登記規則,由政府直接掌握交易資訊,才能真正解決資訊公開的問題。

張金鶚說,中央銀行總裁彭淮南日前曾指出,許多地段高房價都是假象,可見台灣不動產交易價格資訊有多麼不透明;要讓房屋交易資訊透明化有許多管道,最簡單的就是修改土地登記規則土地登記買賣價格,而非公告價格。

張金鶚認為,房屋交易資訊透明化沒有侵犯隱私權的問題,「現在土地謄本都調得到,都是可揭露的資訊。」他強調,不動產交易價格資訊要透明化,「政府部門要去做,只要求民間是不足的。」

彭揚凱指出,房屋交易資訊透明化是政府的責任,如果要求房仲業者自律,是推托責任的做法;政府應訂定明確的規範,讓民眾有所依據,地政司應修改土地登記規則,用行政命令就可解決此一問題,不要再推給其他機關。

內政部地政司官員回應表示,要推動不動產交易價格資訊透明化,土地登記也是一個方向,地政司不會推托責任;但如果只是修改行政命令,恐怕無法達到得知真實價格的效果,最好回到法律層面,研究如何修法。990528

2010年5月27日

財政部長的良知呢?

在這次英國國會大選獲勝的保守黨新政府,計畫提高個人資本利得稅稅率,使與個人所得稅稅率稅率一致。目前營利事業所得稅稅率是 28%,個人所得稅稅率是 20%、40% 及最高級距的 50%。但是個人資本利得稅稅率只有 18%。

在目前的稅法下,出售供自己居住使用、且自己主要居住所在的住宅(main home)免資本利得稅,但個人出售投資目的房地產或其他較少居住使用的住宅(second home)則適用 18% 的資本利得稅稅率。

因為資本利得稅稅率差異,許多高所得者投入大筆資金投資房地產,享受出售房地產所得只需要繳 18% 的資本利得稅,規避自己原本應該適用的 40% 或 50% 個人所得稅稅率級距。

現在保守黨政府打算提高資本利得稅稅率,使與個人所得稅稅率一致。

但此項計畫受到年輕議員的反對。

對於年輕議員的異議,新上任的商務部長 Cable 反駁如下:

"At present it is quite wrong and it is an open invitation to tax avoidance to have people taxed at 40% or potentially 50% on their income, but only taxed at 18% on capital gains; it leads to large scale tax avoidance so for reasons of fairness and practicality, we have agreed that the capital gains tax system needs to be fundamentally reformed."

「現在的作法不但有錯,而且等於公開邀請民眾規避 40% 或 50% 的所得稅,然後只繳 18% 的所得稅;這會導致大規模的逃稅,因此為了公平起見並就實務上考量,我們同意資本利得稅系統需要大規模改革。」

其他議員又說這樣會懲罰辛苦工作存錢,投資房地產做退休金用的藍領階級 (working class)。

商務部長又反駁:

"I don't accept the way he puts it. I don't think there are terribly many people who he describes as working class who get very large capital gains."

「我不同意他的說法。我認為只有少數他指稱的「藍領階級」有很高的資本利得。」

關於資本利得稅,我們的財政部長說了什麼?


------------------------------------

No split on capital gains - Cable

Business Secretary Vincent Cable has insisted the coalition government is not split over planned increases to non-business capital gains tax.

The move could see second home sales taxed at a rate of 40% or 50%.

Senior Tory MPs have attacked it as a tax on the middle classes and a betrayal of Conservative values.

But Mr Cable told BBC News it was a "key" part of the coalition deal and there was no disagreement over it between the Lib Dem and Tory partners.

Mr Cable, who has stood down as Lib Dem deputy leader, said the changes to capital gains tax would help to fulfil the Lib Dem aim of bringing more "fairness" to the tax system.

He told the BBC: "It's very important that we have wealth taxed in the same way as income.
"At present it is quite wrong and it is an open invitation to tax avoidance to have people taxed at 40% or potentially 50% on their income, but only taxed at 18% on capital gains; it leads to large scale tax avoidance so for reasons of fairness and practicality, we have agreed that the capital gains tax system needs to be fundamentally reformed."

'Punishing the virtuous'

Businesses must pay capital gains tax when they sell assets, such as buildings or shares. Non-business capital gains tax is levied on individuals who come into a windfall through the sale of property or shares.

“ Far from taxing the rich, it will simply tax the elderly at their point of maximum vulnerability - when they enter retirement ” David Davis, Conservative MP

It is set at a lower rate than income tax to encourage entrepreneurs - but many individuals have used it to invest in buy-to-let properties and other assets to plan for their retirement.

And it is these people that senior Conservative backbenchers, such as David Davis and John Redwood, say would be hit by the proposed changes.

In an article for the Daily Mail, Mr Davis said increasing the tax risked "punishing the virtuous" and "destroying aspiration".

"It will penalise hard work and saving. Far from taxing the rich, it will simply tax the elderly at their point of maximum vulnerability - when they enter retirement," wrote the former shadow home secretary.

Critics also claim that increasing non-business capital gains tax (CGT) too much will actually lead to a reduction in tax receipts as people put their money into other kinds of investment or find ways of avoiding it.

"Unless it is very carefully designed, the plan to increase CGT will not only fail to raise the money needed, it will cost money," added Mr Davis - citing evidence from the US.

But Mr Cable dismissed Mr Davis's argument, saying: "I don't accept the way he puts it. I don't think there are terribly many people who he describes as working class who get very large capital gains."

Cameron's message

And he insisted there was no real disagreement at the top of government over the changes, which will be announced by Chancellor George Osborne in next month's budget.

"It's not actually an argument between the coalition partners, as I understand it, it's an argument between a few Conservative backbenchers and others," he added.

He also dismissed John Redwood's proposal to make the tax much lower if an asset has been held for a long time, saying that would be a return to a system that had to be abandoned by the previous Labour government "because it didn't work".

Prime Minister David Cameron urged backbench critics to wait for the budget on 22 June and insisted all of their arguments were being taken into account.

He said a higher rate was needed to raise the "modest" sums needed to pay for income tax cuts for low and middle earners as part of the coalition deal with the Liberal Democrats.

He refused to be drawn on whether the changes would include safeguards to protect people who had invested for their retirement but he stressed that entrepreneurs would be protected, telling BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "We need a country that really fires up entrepreneurship."

Story from BBC NEWS:

2010年4月27日

真的無法可管嗎?

現在央行公布了投資客的標準,我們來看看金管會主委兩天前的說法好了....

其實只是不想管!!什麼無法強制!

想想看當初連動債怎麼停賣的就好了。連動債什麼時候可以賣,什麼時候不能賣,可以賣給誰,不能買給誰,當初都是按照央行訂定的行政規則「特定金錢信託業務投資國外有價證券之種類及範圍」決定。後來央行廢止「特定金錢信託業務投資國外有價證券之種類及範圍」,連動債就只能先停賣;等到金管會訂定「境外結構型商品管理規則」以後,連動債才又開始可以賣。

按照金管會關於「境外結構型商品管理規則」的新聞稿:「其主要規範除將增訂結構型商品審查機制及加強銷售門檻之限制外,並研議客戶分類制度,未來銀行對於高風險複雜之金融商品,僅得銷售予專業投資人,不得銷售予一般投資人」

連動債是一種金融商品,房屋貸款也是一種金融商品。金管會可以對連動債訂定行政規則,規定要怎麼賣,當然也可以訂定行政規則,規定房屋貸款要怎麼賣。

陳沖只是在推卸責任而已。

金管會如果訂了行政規定,訂定投資客和豪宅的定義,定義投資客和豪宅貸款貸款成數和利率要加碼多少,所有的銀行都得照做,沒什麼無法規範民營銀行的道理。只是看有沒有膽量、願不願意做。

-----------------------------------------------------

取消投資客房貸寬限期?陳沖:無法強制

( 2010/03/10 14:36 中廣新聞網 )

投資客買房子,最在意貸款成數、利率,同時利用「只繳利息、不繳本金」的「寬限期」,儘量壓低投資的初期成本。立委要求金管會下令所有銀行,凡是投資客房貸,一律取消寬限。金管會主委陳沖說,持有第三戶,以及三戶以上的房子,可以對銀行宣導,但無法強制。(張雅惠報導)

央行和金管會限期金融機構繳交一般房貸戶和投資房貸戶的資料,包括利率、貸款成數、寬限期、以及負債比等,資料最快這幾天就會收到。立委賴士葆建議,直接取消投資客房貸的寬限期,降低房市週轉率。金管會主委陳沖說,可以對銀行道德勸說。

「陳:第一棟房屋沒有寬限期是不合理的;第二棟房屋,也很難講,如果有位南部的立委,他到北部來,也想買一棟房屋,這也有第二棟。賴:那從第三棟房屋做起?陳:如果有這樣的要求,我想只能透過像我們對總經理座談的時候宣導,法律上,很難強制銀行這樣做」

壽險業賣的是長年期保單,為了有固定收益,法律規定壽險業可以投資房地產,但銀行不行,銀行買房地產只限自有行舍使用,和房地產有關的是,銀行法規定,銀行的土地建築融資、以及房貸的放款上限,不得超過存款和發行金融債的三成。

陳沖說,到一月底為止,購置住宅貸款餘額四點八兆多元,只占存款和金融債的兩成一,距離三成的法定上限還有二點二兆元的額度,逾放比百分之零點九三、不到百分之一,低於平均逾放比一點一三,房貸目前並沒有過度擴張。

------------------------------------------------

2010年3月29日

台灣社會仇富嗎?

這兩篇文章值得擺在一起看...就不用多做批評了。

台灣就是有很多這類「專家學者」在為富人說話,媒體也被財團操縱,讓很多中低階層都以為減稅一定會減到自己,加稅一定會加到自己。所以支持減稅、反對加稅,卻不曉得這些都是為富人設計的減稅管道。

真正對中低階層有幫助的租稅改革,反而都被放棄了。


--------------------------------------------------
仇富反知 「民粹裹脅」馬能扭轉?
【聯合報╱林建山/環球經濟社社長(台北市)】
2010.03.25 01:42 am

今天在台灣,竟令人驚詫地在短短的廿年之間,讓「財富」成為社會上的原罪,讓「知識」成為社會上的不值與隱形。擁有財富的投資人或企業家,成為被排斥的「無祖國的外人」;知識成為無謂的廉價物件,知識分子也珍稀絕跡。

尤其是在國家大機器運轉中,任何激勵社會活力的誘因措施,或矯正市場失靈的補救措施,乃至新租稅制度的架構,或行政規範的檢討、採購法的實施,都必須優先設定排富條款、反商機制,以至揚棄專業、毋須知識,乃算得是符合「民粹政治」、「庶民經濟」的社會正確(當然也是一種政治正確)。在今天全球先進社會中,已經很難找得到類似台灣這般反知反商、敵學敵富的國家社會了。

對財富的不尊重,表現在對於擁有財富者的不尊重,也表現在對於有能力創造財富者,或有可能致富的不尊重,連帶引申對於投資與消費的不在乎。

對知識的不尊重,顯見於知識消費態度上,到處可見直觀上認定知識不值錢:第一、凡事只計算硬體要素成本及工程費用,軟體知識與服務不能列計為值錢的價格成分,服務品質與加值,早已成為無謂的東西,尤其在絕大多數政府採購競標場合;第二、知識移轉不能計費:在社會上豈敢有人向紡織工廠要求免費送一件襯衫?但卻處處可見大剌剌開口要求知識勞動者,免費盤托「訣竅」與「取決行動對錯的知識」;第三、對知識傳播者不願給予恰當的「市場價格」:學者專家諮詢出席費廿五年不變。

當中國崛起,邀請學者專家出席會議,一次至少人民幣一千元,在台灣則仍一如舊慣只給新台幣二千元;公務人員訓練講座每小時教授鐘點費,在中國已經人民幣二千元,台灣還是廿五年前的新台幣一千六百元,而且沒有知識新舊與高低層次差別,這也難怪迄今有二千五百多位台灣教授已經轉檯到中國任職授課。這般反知反商,也正是台灣經濟魅力與國家競爭力兩皆頹落的重要根源。

在敵知識仇財富的社會,投資勢必不會增加,消費無法進步,社會糾錯機制早已壓凌社會發展機制,終致必須鎖國自保,封閉而自我感覺良好。於是,曾經是經濟強盛、產業創新優越、企業家精神(中小企業)昌旺活潑的台灣,因為民粹政治與庶民經濟無限上綱,而在國際市場上漸趨衰敗。

過去五百年的歷史告訴我們,鄙視資本價值或否定私有財產的極端社會主義的社會,都是貧窮落後的社會,而尊重資本價值或肯定私有財產的社會,則無一不是文明有禮,經濟輝耀。中國大陸的變化發展,從一個社會倒懸,經濟退化的落魄國家,在短短二十年內,翻轉成為直逼美國的經濟強權,其實就是最為鮮明、反差極大的近例典型。

引人杞憂的是,在中國大陸六十年極端不尊重財富與知識的情境中,只要當家領導的一念之變,就能夠立時乾坤逆轉,局勢大開;但是當前台灣淪陷的死胡同,卻越發在既缺乏有膽有敢的勇者領導,又必須承受鋪天蓋地的民粹裹脅之下,看不出會有什麼特效機制或何方高人,可以驚天一力有效轍轉?真的要祈願天佑台灣了!

--------------------------------------------------

財政不能這樣玩
【經濟日報╱社論】
2010.03.28 02:27 am

最近提出了很多加稅或提高費率的方案,但幾乎全受到批評,連較少受批評的房屋稅分級課稅辦法,吳揆也擔心被認為是要加稅而決定暫緩。提高稅費這麼困難,除了選舉的考量之外,下述案例也顯示,各項政策都缺研究和整體規劃,所以理不直氣不壯。

馬政府剛上台就設立賦改會要做全面稅制改革,但結果卻幾乎和其中的學者不歡而散。政府沒照整體規劃的理想進行稅改,反而急著大降遺產稅,甚至想讓證交稅減半。這種先獨厚富人的做法,當然使目前要對一般人加稅的政策被認為是很不公平。

政府現在即使要對富人加稅,也因缺乏其他減稅的方案來做交換的籌碼,而不易得到富人的支持。而且現在對富人零星加稅也已難被一般人認為足夠公平。例如,政府想課豪宅稅或對高價的房屋課較高的房屋稅,表面上雖是對富人加稅,但所加的不過是公告房價的千分之四甚至千分之一;而降遺產稅的政策卻一口氣降了房價的百分之四十。換言之,一次遺產稅省下的稅金夠納新增的房屋稅一百年甚至四百年,怎麼算也對富人很有利。而我們也曾指出,豪宅稅並無助於平抑房價。因此一般人很難認為政府在努力追求租稅公平。

台北市政府提出的景觀稅和三角窗房屋加稅,則因不講道理且不可行而難被接受。各種廣告設施破壞景觀的程度不一,有些甚至還算美觀或成為都市特色,因此很難客觀公平課稅。而比大部分廣告設施更破壞市容的違章建築和公共建設工地卻不必課稅,也很不公平。三角窗店面的價值並不在房屋,而在地點,也就是土地,但政府已對三角窗土地核定較高地價而課較多地價稅。政府若認為不夠,應該再調高地價,而不是便宜行事而調高三角窗房屋的房屋稅。

健保費調漲的問題在一番辭職風波之後,以政府補貼低收入者來打圓場。但這種用政府補貼使帳面上虧損減少的做法,一方面是掩耳盜鈴來隱藏實際上由政府承擔的虧損,以致使人民更感受不到健保該改革的壓力。另一方面,這每年121億的補貼,也將成為一部分人的既得利益,未來的改革若不將這補貼持續下去,也將更難得到足夠的民意支持。所以一個顧全高官面子的草率政策,不只擴大長期的政府赤字,也使未來健保更難合理改革。至於費率調漲的負擔都落在薪資所得的不公平性,雖然我們一再批評,政府卻像完全聽不見。

加稅費既然困難,政府就想到要賣祖產。朱立倫副院長日前說,國有地有194萬公頃,市值達21兆,這些土地若好好開發將創造很大利益。政府確有一些土地可以利用,但朱副院長講的這些國有地占全國土地一半以上,朱副院長應該知道其中很多是不能開發利用的山林河川地,或已當道路和機關用地,甚至是畸零地,真正可以在短期內開發變賣的不多。朱副院長若誤以為政府還有21兆土地可支持財政,不只低估以後執政者變賣祖產的意願和能力,也將誤導政府和人民進入無法承擔的政府赤字與負債。

朱副院長也不當地主張成立公共建設基金,不受政府舉債上限而拿郵儲等四大基金的資金,來從事有還本來源的公共建設。若有那麼多公共建設可以真有自償性,以前的政府為何不做?民間為何不投資?政府又為何無法由以後大量公共建設取得收入來還債?馬政府已多次想用不當的方法逃避法律明定的政府舉債上限,並要挪用人民儲蓄的四大基金。有會計背景的朱副院長豈可跟著拿虛構的自償性來支持這種會讓財政甚至四大基金崩潰的做法!

2010年1月27日

Affordable? Housing

先不講倫敦的好野人,一般受薪階級好了

英國銀行房貸,最多貸款到年薪的 3 到 4 倍,還要 10% to 15% 的頭期款。

大學畢業生,倫敦的薪水比較高,假設年薪三萬英鎊,可以買到 30,000*3.5/0.85=123,529,大概 12 萬英鎊的 One-bedroom flat,房間裡面有一間臥室、客廳、廚房和一個衛浴,室內空間會比台灣的小套房大。價格大約新台幣 6 百萬。

工作幾年以後結婚了,假設夫妻年薪都在四萬英鎊左右,通常會買 80,000*3.5/.85=329,411,大約 30 萬英鎊的 Two-bedroom flat,有兩間臥室,客廳、廚房和一或兩個衛浴,室內空間大概在 20 到 30 坪之間。價格以新台幣換算大約一千五百萬。

有小孩以後,通常會搬到郊區的 House,獨棟的「別墅」,前後有花園,價格通常也在 30 萬英鎊以上,看大小還有房間數。

以上所有的公寓和「別墅」,都在往市區交通時間 45 分鐘的距離內。一般來說大概走路加等車 10 到 15 分鐘,搭車(火車、捷運或公車)加上轉車 20 到 30 分鐘,離開車站再走10 到 15 分鐘到上班地點。

----------------------------------------------------------

台灣的大學畢業生,假設在台北,月薪三萬,年薪 40 萬,以英國的房貸標準,可以買 40*3.5/.85= 164,705,大概 160 萬的「套房」。

工作幾年結婚了,假設夫妻加起來年薪 100 萬,可以買 100*3.5/.85 = 411,764, 大概 400 萬的兩房公寓。

有小孩以後,在距離市區交通時間 45 分鐘以內的距離,買六百萬以內的「別墅」。

請問以上有沒有可能發生在台北?距離市區交通時間 45 分鐘以內的地區?

------------------------------------------------------

台北市或台北縣當然還有這種價格的舊公寓,只不過市區的屋況比較不好;郊區屋況比較好的,數量上也談不是「主流」。但是在倫敦,這上述這些價格的房子,是市場上的主流,市場上絕大多數的產品都是這些,狀況也不會太差。

不可能的原因除了房價以外,還有都市規劃和交通建設。台北市區搭捷運或火車 20 分鐘(假設扣掉市區轉車時間)可以到的地方?淡水線、中和線捷運班次比較密集,但是房價已經很貴,不在上面講的合理範圍內了。還在蓋的新莊線沿線房價也早超過了。台鐵沿線的話可能還有機會,但是房屋的數量還談不上是市區主流。而且倫敦通勤電車路線很多,不像台北只有一條鐵路,通勤範圍只能在這一條鐵路沿線步行範圍內。在倫敦,在同一個郊區火車站,有到不同市區火車站的火車,通勤範圍擴大很多。用比喻的方式來說,在樹林火車站搭車,不是只能到台北火車站或松山而已,還可以直接搭到北投、三重或新店,不用轉車。

還有一點要說的是,以上所講的公寓(flat),很少是大樓。倫敦很少大樓。像台灣這麼多大樓,棟距又超近,客廳看出去可以看別人的客廳,對他們來說是相當不可思議的。

2010年1月23日

Buy to Let Mortgage

英國的一般的銀行房屋貸款分為下面三種:


  • 首購自用住宅貸款 (FTB: First Time Buyer)

  • 一般自用住宅貸款

  • 「包租公」住宅貸款 (BTL: Buy to Let)

FTB 和一般的自用住宅貸款,貸款成數可以到 85% 到 90%;「包租公」(BTL) 住宅貸款,最多只到 60%。也就是說,包租公想買房投資,最少得拿出 40% 的自備款。「包租公」(BTL)貸款利率也比自用住宅貸款利率要高。

英國的房屋登記似乎沒有像台灣一樣,要向政府登記為自用住宅之用。但是如果想要申請首購或一般自用住宅貸款,在貸款人跟銀行的合約上,必須聲明房屋係作為自用住宅之用。如果買來以後出租給別人,不論是分租或是整戶出租,都算是違約。可能會依合約被罰款,或被銀行要求立即償還所有貸款,強制轉為「包租公」(BTL) 貸款,甚至被銀行法拍。

投資客想申請「包租公」(BTL) 貸款也沒那麼容易。基本上銀行會把投資客當作企業經營者評估,投資標的的租金收入是核貸的關鍵因素。因此,投資客必須有「營運計畫」,說明未來打算收多少租金、每個月花多少錢維護和管理所購買的房屋、在房屋未出租期間,投資客如何負擔每個月還款本金和利息,還有如何以租金收入償還銀行貸款 ,例如通常會要求每月租金收入至少要在利息收入的 125% 以上;銀行也會以當地的房價和租金水準評估房東的「營運計畫」是否合理。 英國政府對於房東的法律要求也很高,要買包租公(BTL)保險,定期維護水電瓦斯,還要出具水電瓦斯安全無疑的證明。

跟台灣的銀行相較之下,英國的銀行非常注意對於貸款人的還款能力。貸款購買自用住宅的,銀行放款最多不會超過貸款人年薪的 3 倍到 4 倍;在最近經濟衰退、失業率大幅上升的情況下,有些銀行還會要求貸款人每個月提供薪資條,證明還在職且有還款能力。對於投資客,,除了貸款金額一樣不能超過年收入 3 倍 (如果還有其他貸款未清償會更低),也要證明來自所購買房屋的租金收入,足以支應維護管理房屋的支出和銀行貸款。

台灣的銀行放款,一直過於偏重擔保品(房屋)的價值。在房屋和土地價格持續上升的狀況下,投資客賺到價差,也有錢可以提前償還貸款。皆大歡喜。可是如果房價下跌,運用人頭戶購買的投資客斷頭,銀行拿到的只是一堆市價低於貸款的房屋,賠一屁股。

如果台灣的銀行承作房屋貸款,是按照英國的方式分為上面三種,並限制放款不得超過貸款人年薪的 4 倍,投資客就不會像現在這樣有這麼多的「發揮空間」。基本上以台灣的租金水準,不可能負擔的起銀行貸款;以年租金收入換算的租金收入報酬率,一直都比貸款利率低。更不用說不可能一整年 12 個月都租得出去。投資客申請「包租公」(BTL) 貸款,就不可能過關。

就算投資客不在乎租金收入,申辦自用住宅貸款買來閒置轉差價。在台灣的戶籍登記制度下,登記為自用住宅必須要有直系親屬把戶籍登記在房屋內。父母和配偶的父母、成年子女,一個投資客能有多少的直系親屬可以用?就算用人頭申辦自用住宅貸款,在辦理貸款時,人頭的年收入也會影響貸款的額度。

如果申請自用住宅貸款,登記為自用住宅,但是私下出租使用?這就要靠銀行持續追蹤房屋的狀況了。不過台灣的銀行都把貸款當「當鋪」來經營,只要擔保品價值超過貸款,就不怎麼管的情況下,就很難說了。但是能登記為自用住宅的房屋有限,投資客或多或少還是會受到限制。

2010年1月22日

不動產交易價格 將透明化

不知道未來要求仲介提供交易價格算不算登載公文書。但是如果這算是公文書的話,作假會觸犯刑法第 214 條「使公務員登載不實罪」:

「明知為不實之事項,而使公務員登載於職務上所掌之公文書,足以生損害於公眾或他人者,處三年以下有期徒刑、拘役或五百元以下罰金」

作假申報是要坐牢的!

最好的方法是規定要求買賣雙方於移轉登記時,申報交易價格並提供契約影本。這樣買賣雙方都有法律責任誠實申報。

----------------------------------------

不動產交易價格 將透明化


自由時報╱自由時報 2010-01-09 06:00 〔記者林美芬、黃宣弼/台北報導〕根據最新出爐的不動產經紀業管理條例修正草案,未來透過不動產經紀人買賣交易成功的案件,都會登錄到相關單位的資料庫中,建立透明的不動產交易資訊,也就是,若修法成功,台灣不動產交易價格將全面透明化,建立台灣不動產交易的新里程碑。

內政部地政司昨舉辦不動產經紀業管理條例修正草案公聽會,希望將來所有房地產交易,都能將成交案件資訊登錄至政府的不動產資訊系統,以促進房價資訊透明化,公聽會由地政司長羅光宗主持,全台房仲公會、代銷公會及建築開發公會都派員出席,各個有備而來,群起反對這項交易資訊公開化的修法。

業者指出,不動產交易的個別差異性大,沒有標準價格,很可能登錄了一些假資料,引發更多錯誤訊息,且不動產經紀業者無權透露客戶的財產訊息,尤其是代銷業者,只是受建商委託而銷售,資訊擁有者是建商而非代銷,卻要代銷填價格資料,讓代銷及房仲都有難以承受的道德壓力。

業者︰恐涉個資保密爭議

與會的不動產業者更認為,國人對購置不動產認為屬重要隱私,如強制業者提供或登錄成交價格,恐引致個人資料保密爭議,易造成當事人不安,且買方在交易價格方面通常會比低不比高,將影響賣方權益及經紀業銷售上的困難度,因此反對立法強制規範;並公開向羅光宗嗆聲,如果硬要通過這項修法版本,當中絕對沒有業者的贊同部分,他們不會為這個版本背書。

而與會的玄奘大學財金系副教授花敬群表示,房地產價格不透明,不僅對消費者沒有保障,對銀行端來說,也會擔心貸款額度高於擔保品的價值;另外消費者疑慮降低,能加快交易速度,等於也降低了業者的成本,應可創造消費者與業者雙贏的局面。

與會學者的說法,並不能獲得業者認同,業者搶著發言,反對這項修法草案內容。

即使業者同聲反對,但羅光宗在會後受訪時表示,這項草案溝通很久了,業者態度一向強硬反對,但消費者的保護還是要兼顧,地政司除了繼續溝通之外,原有修正草案版本還是會送到行政院審議,但在條文文字上會做部分修正,以求更圓滿。

地政司與業者對立的條文重點,就是修正條文第四章有關業務及責任的部分,經營仲介業務者,應在委託案件成交後十五日內,向中央主管機關或其委託之機關(構)或團體辦理資訊登錄,以建立不動產資訊系統,經營代銷業務者,應於委託代銷契約屆滿十五日內,將成交案件依前項規定辦理資訊登錄。

2010年1月21日

Find sold house prices in your area

英國房屋交易,產權移轉登記時,必須向地政機關申報交易價格。

不動產說明書裡,賣方必須註明前次買進時間及價格。亂寫會有法律責任。

英格蘭 (England) 的房屋交易價格沒有在地政機關 (Land Regitry) 的網站公開,不過很多房屋網站都向地政機關買使用執照,所以上網站就可以查。只要在網站上輸入你家的郵遞區號,就可以看到你那條街上,那個門牌號碼什麼時間賣掉,用多少錢賣掉:

http://www.nethouseprices.com/index.php

蘇格蘭 (Scotland) 的地政機關 (Registers of Scotland) 則有公開房價,一樣輸入自家的郵遞區號或地址,就可以到看那條街上所有房屋在查詢期間內出售的價格和日期,連門牌號碼都有:

http://www.ros.gov.uk/

BBC 網站上可以查到各城市鄉鎮每季的平均房價和交易件數:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/uk_house_prices/html/houses.stm

大概只有台灣最不透明吧!

How much will you pay to live in a castle?

DSC_0402

上圖中像古堡的建築物,是 1870 年興建的愛丁堡皇家醫院 (Royal Infirmary Edinburgh)。RIE 搬遷到愛丁堡郊區以後,這些舊病房就被開發商買下來,改建成高級住宅和辦公室。外觀看起來就是非常漂亮的古建築物,裡面卻是全新的現代化設備。兩房的公寓,網站上開價要 37 萬到 50 萬英鎊之間,大概是新台幣 1850 萬到 2500 萬之間。

英國市區公寓主要都是兩房,如果有超過兩房以上的需求,大概都會搬到郊區買獨棟的 House。這個地段非常的好,往南五百公尺有一個大安森林公園兩倍大的超大公園,從窗戶看出去就可以看到,中間除了樹林沒有其他建築物;往北不到五百公尺,就是愛丁堡最熱鬧的觀光景點 Edinburgh Castle 和 Royal Mile 和百貨公司商店區 Princes Street。如果這個案子擺到台北,大概建商會開價每坪三百萬吧!

這個房子每坪大概多貴?以這個開價 43 萬英鎊的兩房公寓來看。每個房間,包括廚房和客廳,都有標示室內的尺寸,完全不含雨遮、公設和水泥牆,計算出來的淨室內面積,是 17.1 坪。以淨室內面積來算,每坪大概是台幣 126 萬。如果按台灣的算法,假設公設加上雨遮加上水泥牆壁的厚度有 40%,那「銷售面積」就是 28.4 坪,每坪價格是台幣 75 萬。貴嗎?

這個建案地點好,建築物又是百年古蹟,價格以台北的標準來講又不貴,英國人的年收入又比台灣人高,大學一畢業年薪至少百萬台幣 (2 萬英鎊),應該賣得很好吧?

錯了,賣得很差。這個價錢對英國人來說,非常非常的貴。英國的房屋買賣,通常要 10% 到 15 % 的頭期款,剩下的部分貸款。不過這裏的銀行貸款遠比台灣謹慎,貸款的額度和房屋的價值雖然有關,但是絕對不會超過年薪的 3.5 倍到 4 倍。一般剛畢業開始工作沒幾年的人,年薪通常不會超過 3 萬英鎊,購買的住宅也不會超過 10 萬磅;結婚以後生了小孩,考慮要買的人,才負擔得起 20 萬英鎊的房子。不過有能力出得起 30 萬英鎊的人,大多數都直接搬去郊區買獨棟的 House,不會考慮在市區買間又貴又小的公寓。

前幾年開發商還跑去北京,打算把這些英國人不想買的房子,賣給愛炒房地產的中國人。

2010年1月7日

Home Information Pack

英國對於不動產交易資訊,也有跟台灣「不動產說明書」類似的規定,稱之為 Home Information Pack:

1. 除了少數類型之交易外,無論其是否經由仲介交易,所有「住宅」出售時均需備妥 Home Information Pack;
2. Home Information Pack 自房屋開始公開銷售日起生效;
3. 有興趣的買方可向仲介或賣方索取 Home Information Pack ,賣方或仲介可免費或酌量收取影印及郵寄等費用,但不得拒絕提供;Home Information Pack 應於有興趣之買方提出要求內 14 天內提供;除非賣方認為買方1)無足夠財力購買此住宅、2)並非確實對此住宅有購買意願或3)買方並非賣方願意交易之對象。如果買方認為受到歧視或理由不夠充分,可以向當地 trading office (類似公平交易委員會)申訴。

還沒有看 Home Information Pack 的內容,與內政部訂定之「不動產說明書應記載及不得記載事項」是否有所不同(因為 www.direct.gov.uk 上面的 Sample Home Information Pack 就長達 60 幾頁;內政部地政司的「不動產說明書應記載及不得記載事項」也不過就兩頁而已」)。但就這幾點來看,英國的買方受到更多的保護:至少在簽約之前,就可以看到不動產說明書,而且還可以帶回去研究;而仲介或賣方也沒有理由拒絕提供。