New HDB flats to become cheaper

[Big Toe]

HDB flats subsidized? By who?
The government. Who funds the government in the first place?

The job of the government is to utilize our tax revenue in an
acceptable, prudent, fair manner to the common good of the population in general.

The more acceptable and popular argument is that since the land is already allocated to building public flats,
the land cost should not be factored into the final cost. Much like the reserves we have with the government, the land belongs to the people in the first place.

Real subsidies in the true sense of the word are for those living in rental flats, where the monthly rental barely covers anything.

[corydorus]

Not sure why the process of being allocated can we eliminate the cost. Is still a cost. So tracking them isn't prudent and fair ?

Let's not forget the 20% who also fund the gov and likely disproportionately in taxes to the Gov.
Aren't they helping to subsidies ?

[Big Toe]

Let's put it in another way.
If ALL land parcels allocated to building HDB flats are being auctioned to private developers.
And the private developers are to develop exactly the same physical units as the HDBs, only difference is that they are private now.

What would be the pricing like? Due to the much higher supply, prices of private apartment would fall but probably not to the level of new HDB flats. So there is this gap in pricing. So we can term it as subsidy. As $ is clearly demonstrated.

BUT in that scenario, we would not have the restrictions laid down by the HDB, which is a consideration.
Taken as a whole, the subsidy is there(if you want to put it that way) but is more financial engineering than anything else.

Public flats CAN be made cheaper, it's a matter of whether the cheaper flats will upset the stability in prices build up over the years. Also a depreciating asset(HDB) can be detrimental to the overall economy, much like a depreciating Singapore dollar.

[specuvestor]

Not sure why the process of being allocated can we eliminate the cost. Is still a cost. So tracking them isn't prudent and fair ?

Let's not forget the 20% who also fund the gov and likely disproportionately in taxes to the Gov.
Aren't they helping to subsidies ?

There is no such thing as fair when dealing with common interest. Even simple lift upgrading is not fair as others who do not benefit are inconvenienced

Key is whether is it optimised for common interest. The 20% paying 80% income tax are not stupid. There are other reasons why they chose to be here. How is building a park economical?

Not providing adequate and affordable housing to the next generation is a car crash like HK waiting to happen.

[opmi]

Not sure we are deviating from topic. Here's the link i found. Maybe it still boils down to $ as a concern.

http://www.stproperty.sg/articles-proper...-compare/7

The comparison never included Asian Financial Crisis. That's when a lot of property investors 'up lorry'

[corydorus]

Not sure why the process of being allocated can we eliminate the cost. Is still a cost. So tracking them isn't prudent and fair ?

Let's not forget the 20% who also fund the gov and likely disproportionately in taxes to the Gov.
Aren't they helping to subsidies ?

There is no such thing as fair when dealing with common interest. Even simple lift upgrading is not fair as others who do not benefit are inconvenienced

Key is whether is it optimised for common interest. The 20% paying 80% income tax are not stupid. There are other reasons why they chose to be here. How is building a park economical?

Not providing adequate and affordable housing to the next generation is a car crash like HK waiting to happen.

Not sure your point. The discussion is whether there are subsidy in HDB.
I am all for continuation of cheaper HDB as it makes singapore unique and well.

[corydorus]

Not sure we are deviating from topic. Here's the link i found. Maybe it still boils down to $ as a concern.

http://www.stproperty.sg/articles-proper...-compare/7

The comparison never included Asian Financial Crisis. That's when a lot of property investors 'up lorry'

Is reply link to CCUV question whether FH or leasehold better, for him to derive himself. i have not thought about it myself.
Not sure how's it related to your remark. Neither am I an agent or property investor. Equity man here ...

[opmi]

Not sure we are deviating from topic. Here's the link i found. Maybe it still boils down to $ as a concern.

http://www.stproperty.sg/articles-proper...-compare/7

The comparison never included Asian Financial Crisis. That's when a lot of property investors 'up lorry'

Is reply link to CCUV question whether FH or leasehold better, for him to derive himself. i have not thought about it myself.
Not sure how's it related to your remark. Neither am I an agent or property investor. Equity man here ...

I was referring to the diagram in the link below.

http://www.stproperty.sg/articles-proper...-compare/7

[corydorus]

Not sure we are deviating from topic. Here's the link i found. Maybe it still boils down to $ as a concern.

http://www.stproperty.sg/articles-proper...-compare/7

The comparison never included Asian Financial Crisis. That's when a lot of property investors 'up lorry'

Is reply link to CCUV question whether FH or leasehold better, for him to derive himself. i have not thought about it myself.
Not sure how's it related to your remark. Neither am I an agent or property investor. Equity man here ...

I was referring to the diagram in the link below.

http://www.stproperty.sg/articles-proper...-compare/7

Yes which is why I lost you. Isn't the chart about comparison between Lease hold and Freehold ?

[specuvestor]

Not sure why the process of being allocated can we eliminate the cost. Is still a cost. So tracking them isn't prudent and fair ?

Let's not forget the 20% who also fund the gov and likely disproportionately in taxes to the Gov.
Aren't they helping to subsidies ?

There is no such thing as fair when dealing with common interest. Even simple lift upgrading is not fair as others who do not benefit are inconvenienced

Key is whether is it optimised for common interest. The 20% paying 80% income tax are not stupid. There are other reasons why they chose to be here. How is building a park economical?

Not providing adequate and affordable housing to the next generation is a car crash like HK waiting to happen.

Not sure your point. The discussion is whether there are subsidy in HDB.
I am all for continuation of cheaper HDB as it makes singapore unique and well.

Tracking them is prudent, but "fair " doesn't come into the picture of national policy making for common interest.

Govt should continue to transfer land to HDB at market prices ie "opportunity cost for building otherwise", so as to be transparent. It is good stewardship and not right-pocket-to left-pocket as some deemed, though on a consolidated basis there is no difference. Like I always say, neither is there a difference between 1000-999 and 2-1 but there are important information that will be lost

The issue arises, for those old enough to remember Chiam-Goh debate, because before HDB privatisation HDB run at a "loss" effectively because they revalue the stock at market price and then sell at discount to people. That effective means their PnL is always negative post the markup to the tune of around $300m a year IIRC, but cashflow wise is very healthy for a $6b(?) reserve built up over the years. Post privatisation all these figures are "transferred" away. I've been amazed why the old SDP don't have finance people to understand this?

BTW, the subsidy I was referring to was specifically the subsidy from CPF for buying primary homes, though this discount is also a type of "subsidy"