That's because the higher tax rate nean larger govt, whereas HK govt is relatively small. Therefore, fewer resources allocated to checks and balances.
That's because the higher tax rate nean larger govt, whereas HK govt is relatively small. Therefore, fewer resources allocated to checks and balances.
That's an interesting assertion. Do you have any data to support it?
Some basic stats:
Hong Kong: population about 7M, civil servants about 145,000
UK: population about 60M, civil servants about 500,000
Now obviously what constitutes a "civil servant" will vary, but prima facie Hong Kong appears to have nearly 3 times as many civil servants per head as the UK.
Very true. But I view the increased number of civil servants in HK as a cultural difference. It is not just the public sector that is bloated and overstaffed in HK, it is the private sector as well. Everywhere I go in HK I see redundancy...I have two people at my clubs front desk that could easily get by with one. I have two lifequards at my pool that is rarely used.
Perhaps its the 'manager' in me, but everywhere I go here I see potential future labor cuts that could easily be made. Hong Kong has low unemployment because they hire two people to do jobs that one person easily could do.
Well, Where I am from, I make a very good living. In fact, I am within Obama "need to pay your fair share" camp. However, once I cut my income by 35%, I really cannot afford anything that once could call a movable house. Oh rue, i can afford a flat in BFE that looks at a mountain and give me enough room to sleep and store my coats and shoes, but nothing recognizable as an apartment in the real world sense. My view is that unless you have at least US$1 million to spend (40% deposit), then you are destined to live in a shoe box…what makes me question….why am I here anyway?
In Holland everyone who has a mortgage gets the tax deduction (Hypotheek Rente Aftrek). Income tax for highest income is 54% thus highest income keep having a mortgage next to an insured savings account 'product' in which they pay of the mortgage.
Social housing in the big four cities is more then 50%. Waiting list can extend to 20+ years. If you aren't a single divorced mother with no job, you have to wait that long. Btw student housing for Amsterdam is 30k units higher then there is supply. Rents are almost fixed for years and because of that many low income people aren't that bad off in the end. Subsidy plus low rent means a lot spending money.
Most people who live in houses they own are having interest only mortgages. In other words they rent from a bank instead of a landlord.
Only around 10-20% of total people live in houses they outright own without a mortgage. Most of them are the older generations.
Prices of land and property are virtually being kept up by local governments as their main source of income is property tax (ozb +woz). As all their taxes are directed by the property value they keep land supply very low with almost no possibilities for an individual to buy undeveloped land from a farmer.
As a result 40% of outstanding mortgage holders are paying for loss on their property. Although few in number, execution sales has sprung up 40%.
Property for sales is at an all time high. Next January new mortgage laws fall Into place where people can only get (I believe) 102% of prop value. Still ridiculous compared to the rest of the world but this number used to be 116%.
Housing policies are the best tools for any gov to keep their population under control.
Interesting - I always have had the impression that HK Govt is fairly small. It would be interesting to find out what those 145k staff do.
Looking strictly at number of employees is imprecise as the govt can substitute capital for labour (eg add more computers and reduce clerical jobs or outsource work to private contractors). Also, we have to ensure the UK stats include govts at all levels not just the national level.
Another way to look at govt size is to look at expenditure. According to NationMaster.com, general govt final consumption expenditure (per capita) = USD7951.9 per person for UK and USD2246.8 per person for HK. General govt final consumption expenditure include all payments for purchase of goods and services (including employee compensation)
Last edited by threelittlepigs; 10-09-2012 at 03:26 PM.
It would seem the current administration would like all of Hong Kong to believe that it is in there best interests if
- Swathes of NT near Shenzhen are sold off to developers
- Kuk members are handsomely rewarded rest are well rewarded
- Lots of high end large flats ideal for commuting to Shenzhen with ghettos tucked away for the poor to live in rabbit hutches (similar to Tung Chung)
- Property developers will be certain to make big gains
What is really in the public interest in the above list? The land tax revenues taken from Mainlanders?
I haven't looked at the link, but...
1- it supported people who couldn't afford to save up enough to put a down payment on a flat but who were otherwise eligible for a mortgage;
2- it wasn't restricted to new homes; and,
3- the scheme was introduced before the handover.
I don't get the part where money was funnelled into the pockets of developers. They seem to be doing okay without the scheme.
Actually, it was this one http://www.hkhs.com/eng/business/sand_class.asp