S$2.03B p.a. naughty business.

hotS$2.03B p.a. private tax exemption, a 'donation' to the rich?

For equitable wealth distribution, Govt's outdated tax concessions for rich must end.

Background; statement of intent:
1) SLA's formula [link] for calculating land value states that the land value of a new 99year leasehold property is equal to 96% of its land value should it be a free hold property.
2) MBT [22Jul07]: "The development charge is to take some of that increase in (land) value to go and improve the infrastructure... when you increase the plot ratio - build more, higher flats - you need to provide the infrastructure. So that's what the DC is. You could say it's a tax on the increase in the value as a result of government action."
- SG govt has correctly adjusted DC rates to reflect costs of gov intervention in providing for increased infrastructural needs coinciding with increased land development intensity.
- However, a $2.03B p.a. glaring tax concession exists (that only the rich enjoy). The $2.03B pa is an estimate value of the exemption from LH lease extensions that FH properties enjoy annually (2007 provisional figure). In and age of high living costs, high maintenance, defence costs; can Singapore afford to frivolously maintain this inappropriate yet perpetual tax concession?
3) The inadequate and unusual method of calculating residential property taxes is another contention which further proves govt favouritism/ inadequacy in its administration of tax laws.
4) The current budget challenges in SG mandates a closer look at national tax collection principles and revenue use. Proposed legislature: compulsory annuity schemes, hospital means testing may be delayed by streamlining outdated and inappropriate tax coincessions.
5) In terms of recuperating land infrastructural maintenance costs- despite almost similar land values when new, that SG govt by continuing to administer freehold titles, is giving gross and inappropriate tax concessions to the rich in Singapore. My calculation (as follows) estimates this unnecessary concession to costs the govt $2.03B pa.- not a small sum considering total govt expenditure (2006) to be $23.463B, and that on healthcare to be $1.764B.


---The calculation---
BT 6Sep07: En bloc sales slow to a trickle, may pick up later:
"the first seven months of 2007 saw a total of 62 collective sale transactions worth about $11.86 billion"
[ http://www.sghousing.com/2007/09/06/en-bloc-sales-slow-to-a-trickle-may-pick-up-later/ ]
*(it is unknown if 62CSAs include commercial units beside pte residential ones)*
---
ST 2Sept07: Storeys of dust and noise:
"It is a similar story islandwide with … 10,000 flats - sold in collective deals since the start of 2006, according to CB Richard Ellis".
[ http://www.sghousing.com/2007/09/02/storeys-of-dust-and-noise/ ]
-> Average no. 'old' flats per collective sale = 10k flats/(70+62)Dvps= 75.8Units/Development.
---
BT 2Aug07: En bloc sales have peaked:
"70 older apartment developments were sold (2006) for S$8.1 billion… data from Knight Frank".
[ http://www.expatsingapore.com/forum/index.php/topic,5525.msg1313903.html#msg1313903 ]


==> Assuming consistent data, 'normally distributed':
-> Each collective sale transactions is therefore worth ~ $115.71M (2006), $191.29M (2007); and each 'old' flat costs:
2006= $115.71/75.8U per dvp= $1.53M per unit; 2007: $2.52M per unit (65% rise cf 2006). [Or average value per 'old' unit over 19mth period = $1.996M/ flat].

Okay I may have over estimated value of the flats bc maybe commercial properties were enblocked too (not incl in 10K units report of ST2Sept), possibly making the total count 25%more: say= 13.3k units, that would still make the 2007 figure = $2.52M / 1.33 = $1.89M per 'old flat'.
-----
Generously assuming that the 2007 $1.89M/flat is value of full 99yr leasehold(LH) land that the flats stand on, (resulting in exemption from DC charges payable for lease hold extensions)- Note that 99 Leasehold(LH) land is valued at 96% FH value: see SLA LeaseholdTable: [ http://www.sla.gov.sg/faq/land_sales/LeaseholdTable.doc]
- Assuming that % land value depreciation is proportionate over 99yrs, (SLA table is Disproportionate!!); then ave. per unit annual value depreciation= $1.89M/ 99yr= $19.09K p.a.
-----

1999SPEECH BY LAW MINISTER: "5,560 units (account for) 7% of the total (freehold) units".
[ http://app9.internet.gov.sg/scripts/minlaw/hq/newswatch/read.cgi?1,1-224 ]
-> Therefore total number of strata titled freehold units = 79,429 units.

Singstats: "(1996): 149,114 PTE residential properties (PRPs) exists in SG; 2006: 233,364PRPs".
[ http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/reference/yos/statsT-construction.pdf]
-> Therefore such properties increase at approx 5.65% p.a. (non- compound, cf 1996 figures)- So by approx: in 1999 there were~ 174,389.00 PRPs.
-> 79,429 as a ratio of 174,389 is 45.5% ~ (I assume that 45.5% of all strata titles are freehold @1999 and for later calcs).
------

In 2006: 233,364PRPs exists in SG, which suggests the existence of 106,181 freehold units in SG (@45.5% ratio).
Given that each 99yrLH flat depreciates proportionately @ $19.09k (1%)p.a, govt has lost revenue (p.a.) worth= 106,181 x $19.09k = $2,026,988,035.8 ($2.03B) by retaining the 45.5% of all private property is 'freehold' policy.

-----
Key:
cf: compared to
p.a.: per annum.
"Collective deal"= "enblock sale"
Private residential properties: PRPs
SG: Singapore.
SLA: Singapore Land Authority
ERP: electronic road pricing.
MBT: Mah Bow Tan (National Development Minister)
GCB: Good class bungalows.
Words 'flat' and 'unit' are terms used interchangeably.
DC: development charge. [Latest rates= http://app.sprinter.gov.sg/data/pr/20070831980.pdf ]
DP: Development premium (see knowledge page for details: http://www.sla.gov.sg/faq/differential_premium.pdf )
------

Notes on calculation method:

- General:
1. Many big assumptions are made: the 1999 figure of 174,389 PRPs, 45.5% freehold proportion, assuming all collective deals to be of equal value- these rough values can result in wide margins of error; however I believe that these calculations serve their intent, spurring discussion (and accurate calculations) on the long term consequence of acknowledging freeholds in a land scarce and human resource dependent country, (with an >$11b annual defence budget), in accommodating further loss of potential revenue; and its impact in perpetuating the rich poor divide.
2. As the focus of this study is limited to residential properties, the revenue loss from commercial and industrial properties though significant is unascertained due to unavailable data.

- Possible Overestimate:
1. 45.5% being freehold is minister's 1999 figure, may have decreased by 2007 given possibly more 99yr LH devps.
2. The 2007 $1.89M per unit figure is 65% increase over 2006 due to enbloc fever and current strong economy property prices, such sentiments may not be sustained. A figure 65% less then $2.03b would have resulted if 2006 figures were instead used.
3. $1.89M/ unit fig may be an over estimate of property value as developers usually offer 30+% above individual valuation to obtain 80% consensus towards a collective deal. Over confidence in the economy may also cause developers to bid generously to cash in on the rising economy.
4. There is a current inbuilt DC discount of 30%; this would impact actual collections even if freeholds were abolished.

- Possible Underestimate:
1. The actual land value of a 99yr lease hold property may be more as developers still have to pay top up lease (DP charges) to 99yr on the lease shortfall and fees to increase land use intensity. The 'collective sale transaction price' doesn't include such extra costs to the developer.
2. $1.89M/ unit would underestimate the value of good class bungalows, in view of their min floor areas of >1,399 sqMtrs.
[ http://realty-united.blogspot.com/2007/03/demand-for-gcbs-set-to-stay-high.html]- The $2.03b fig would thus be an under estimate if GCBs were under-represented in the '10k units' sold.
3. GCBs number 2,000 to 2,500 across the island: the majority of which I'm sure are FH and would yield lots of $ for leasehold extensions, however their proportion cf 233K current PRPs is not that great.
4. If the 10K fig was indeed accurate [http://www.sghousing.com/2007/09/02/storeys-of-dust-and-noise/ ], making the 25% reduction unnecessary: then the $2.03b deficit would likewise be corrected to $2.7B.



Discussion:
- The SG gov sells land, extends land leases based on leasehold tables, (currently, the value of new 99 yr LH land is valued at 96% of FH land). If SG gov realizes the cost to society of continually acknowledging FH titles (HDB dwellers and most pte property owners do NOT enjoy such privileges)- that unnecessarily costs the govt $2.03B pa, then SG govt would want to convert all FH titles to LH ones as soon as possible, into 104yr leaseholds.

This is necessary for the long term stability of the island republic as:
- Like ERP- property (a limited commodity) should be free from speculation and according to value, raise certain taxes for the local government from e.g. lease hold extensions.
- Reduced property speculation and fair taxing of property would in turn stabilize the economy through stable property pricing and rentals.
- National productivity improves under a competent and meritocratic govt.
- SG military budget is >$11B per year, freeholders, like >92.5% of SG population/ foreigners ought to be taxed for the safe environment they enjoy and the upkeep costs of the infrastructure around them.
- if SG gov stays true to its own specifications, then it should seriously consider the consequence of such inequalities existing in our society. Is an excess of privilege being given to those living in FH properties? Why retain the 'FH' concept instead of the LH one; e.g. infrastructure like roads are pay per use, no one besides govt vehicles on duty should evade ERP, COE, road tax, charges.
- Should a distinct group of Singaporeans be excused from paying leasehold extensions in perpetuity, enjoying for little such status and luxury, in oblivion of the fact that in 2006 $11b was spent on national security to directly safeguard their properties.
- Does the $2b (or more) loss revenue result in cutbacks in healthcare, education, or social spending?
- Can the $2b+ defer compulsory annuities, increasing GST further and other budget (health, MCYS) cutbacks.
- A stratified pay per use system should differentiate property taxes upon the basis of FH/ LH property taxes, not upon 'owner occupancy' basis. Those who rent are often expatriates/ poor who cannot afford to buy; progressive as this existing method might seem, $2.03B is an omission no adequate govt should overlook. The following suggestion of an improved 'pay per use system' serves to stabilize property prices and attract international talents to relocate here, ultimately safeguarding the security and prosperity of Singapore and its constiutuents.
- One way out of this situation is to give current FH 2 options:
1) Agree to immediate raise of property tax from current base (of 4-10%) to 33.3%(*) plus base LH property tax rate (shouldn't exceed 3%).
2) Accept conversion to a 104.17yr leasehold with immediate effect.
*The basis of (1)"33.3%" being that annual(rental) value of a property is often in excess of 0.96% of the original property value [this is a gross estimate subject to further debate].
- From my research into the FH/ LH system, it was adopted almost whole sale from UK laws, which seem to be currently giving significant legislative problems. Singapore has in fact been studied by UK for solutions. (see p25>"7.Termination and insolvency" [http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2001/rp01-115.pdf] ), UK parliamentary sittings do seem excessively nebulous, & we had better not follow a country with growing illiteracy! [url: http://groups.google.com.sg/group/soc.culture.singapore/msg/165db64f8eeceb4d?hl=en& ]
- for some u'standing of nebulous LH/FH issues in UK: [http://www.lease-advice.org/levamain.htm#Introduction].
- So instead of perpetuating the increasing rich-poor divide with stupid legislature, creating more bodies/tribunals e.g. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leasehold_valuation_tribunal] just crap FHs and let LH extensions be a constant source of revenue!

- Make the fat cats work!

Next: Estate duties, LH extensions... I'll ramble my miseries if I have to...


Other Bibliography:
- UK ancient and crappy laws: The origins of residential leasehold reform [ http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/buyingselling/residentialleasehold/origins/ ]
- 8Sept07: 21% of UK wealth is owned by the richest 1% : http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2919533.ece ;
- "the richest 10 per cent of the population control more than half the wealth (53 per cent) of the country"



Notice:
The author disclaims all legally enforceable liability with regard to the use of presented information.
Any form of use/ reference to, of this production requires explicit written agreement by the author.