【新唐人2013年04月04日讯】香港媒体报导说，中国大陆各地方出台的“新国五条”细则不痛不痒，是因为各界包括利益集团，都以楼价是否会受遏止，来衡量习、李新中央的政治能量，令各个利益集团更加纠缠，并影响习、李改革步伐。因此习、李遏制楼价，预料不会手软。
香港《经济日报》报导，中共中央能否有效遏楼价，被各界作为透视习、李施政能量的指标。
然而，虽然中央雷厉风行在两会前祭出“新国五条”，要求各地方上个月底出台政策细则，但各地方不但观望拖延到最后一刻，而且除了天子脚下的北京外，其余都有敷衍了事之态。例如深圳、大连等不少地方表明，新建住房楼价增幅，须低于人均可支配收入实际增幅，换句话说，就是楼价仍可再涨；而上海、济南等地则没有列出限购措施；武汉、合肥等，更提也不提20%转让所得税。
“中央民族大学”哲学和宗教学系教授赵士林指出，中国大陆地方和中央之间，在楼市房价上，肯定将展开激烈博弈。为什么呢？赵士林说，这要追溯到朱镕基时代，当时制定了地方财政和中央财政的“分税政策”。
中央民族大学哲学和宗教学系教授赵士林：“地方财政来源主要靠土地财政，如果地方房地产受到遏制的话，土地财政就没有了。地方政府的一大财源就消失了。所以说，对他们来讲是至关重要的，因此想尽办法要和中央博弈。所以说，目前这个政策的问题就在于，他在出台这个政策的时候没有想到，中国这个财税结构，中央和地方的利益分配是不是合理？”
那么要如何从根本上解决房价飙升的问题呢？赵士林认为，财税体制要理顺，中央和地方的利益分配要合理，经济结构要转型，不能依靠土地财政。根本解决之道就是“土地所有制”改革。
赵士林：“土地要允许商业化，不能把在政府手里边，成为财政的一个重要来源，这是推高房价的重要原因。所以造成严重的社会问题。因此要对所有制进行改革，土地你要放开，要允许农民拥有土地的转让权，甚至买卖权利。农村的收入问题，农村的改革问题，农民的权益问题，就都能保障了，很多强征、强拆的问题也都解决了。”
至于地方政府财政的出路问题，赵士林认为，应该和中央协调起来解决，一方面，要使财政透明化，另一方面，要以硬性约束遏制“三公消费”，降低行政成本。
赵士林说，英国、美国、日本的行政成本，差不多是6%到9%，最多是10%，而中国的行政成本是20%几，甚至达到28%。
那么，在目前的这场地方和中央的博弈当中，谁将取胜呢？
赵士林：“肯定中央要取胜。在我们中国的政治体制，中央还是强势政府，大权在中央手里，不听话可以撤掉你。当然没有这么简单，很多利益集团在博弈，在掣肘。不外乎两块，一块是国企、央企垄断；一块是官员的权益、官员的特定利益。这两块肯定是最难动的。”
赵士林又指出，中央的“国五条”虽然短时间内能解决房价的一些问题，但是因为不符合市场规律，所以可能造成更深层问题。比如，中央和地方的关系更加紧张，地方财政出现危机，未来房价伺机反弹报复性疯涨，形成一种恶性循环。
不过，赵士林认为，土地所有制涉及政治体制，牵涉国家制度问题，阻力更大。
《经济日报》还表示，北京当局日前出台“国五条”细则，明令禁止单身人士在京购买第二套房，原意是要堵塞利用“假离婚”购房的漏洞，但又有可能引爆“假结婚”潮，民众利用假婚姻，博取购房资格。
舆论揶揄官方的楼控政策只是头痛医头，“调控”楼市变成了“调戏”婚姻。
采访编辑/秦雪 后制/葛雷
China’s Local Governments Resist Property Prices Curbing
Hong Kong media reported that the newly introduced policy
of national five rules in Mainland China is rather superficial.
People from all walks of life, including interests groups,
will judge Xi-Li’s political skills by property prices curbing.
The various interests groups are intertwined,
which affects the pace of Xi-Li’s reform.
Therefore, they cannot afford to be soft
in dealing with this issue.
Hong Kong Economic Times reported, whether China’s
Central Committee can effectively curb property prices will be an indicator of Xi-Li’s political capability.
The policy was introduced late last month,
and it requires local governments to put it into practice.
Yet, local governments take the “wait and see” approach,
and delay actions until the last minute; except Beijing.
In cities like Shenzhen and Dalian officials said,
increase of housing prices must be kept below the increase of disposable income per capita.
In other words they say,
there is still a room for the prices to go up.
Shanghai and Jinan show no taking of purchase measures;
In Wuhan and Hefei the 20% of property transfer tax is not even mentioned.
Zhao Shilin, professor of Philosophy and Religion points out,
controlling property prices will be a fierce game between local and central governments.
Even in Zhu Rongji era, there was a tax policy
regarding the local and the central finance.
Prof. Zhao Shilin: “Local revenues are mainly land related.
If you curb the local real estate prices, local revenues will go.
So, this is crucial for the local governments.
They have to fight.
The problem is that no one thought of the revenue sharing
before this policy was set up.
Is this tax structure fair for both,
the local and the central governments?”
Zhao Shilin believes, they need to straighten out
the revenue’ and the taxation’ systems.
There must be a reasonable central and local distribution
of benefits, and economic structure transformation.
One cannot rely only on revenues from the land.
The fundamental solution is the reform of land ownership.
Zhao Shilin: ”The land needs to be commercialized. It can’t
be in the government’s hands and be a key revenue source.
That is a serious social problem, and a reason
for the high housing prices. Everything needs a reform.
Once you let go of the land, peasants will own the land.
They will have the rights to transfer, buy and sell their land.
If rural income improves,
rural reform and farmers’ interests are protected.
The issues of forced appropriation of land,
and of demolition will be resolved.”
Zhao Shilin says, the revenue issue for local governments
needs to be resolved jointly by both sides.
In addition, finances need transparency; using public funds
for traveling, dining, and transportation should be abolished.
Zhao comments, in the UK, the US, and Japan,
administrative costs amount to 6-10% of total revenues.
Yet in China, it accounts for more than 20%,
and can go as high as 28%.
In the battle of interests between local and central government,
Who will be the winner?
Prof. Zhao: “Of course, the winner is the central government.
It has the power to remove you. It’s quite a complex game.
Many interests groups are competing
and interfering with each other.
The hardest things to change are state-owned enterprises’
monopoly and the officials’ power and benefits.”
Zhao Shilin also points out that the new policy can resolve
some problems, but it does not comply with the market laws.
It may create deeper problems. For example, it may strain
the relationship between central and local governments, deepen local revenue crisis, and affect the future prices.
Thus, it can form a vicious cycle.
Zhao Shilin believes that the resistance will be even stronger
because land ownership involves the political system and affects the whole country.
The Economic Times also said that Beijing authorities
have recently introduced five new property ownership rules.
These rules ban a single person from buying a second house,
in order to plug the loophole of fake divorces.
However, that can also create sham marriages
for people who want to buy a house.
The public opinion says, regulations of the housing market
can eliminate symptoms but not cure the disease.
Thus this type of controlling the housing market
seems to be more of a teaser for marriages.
