Originally posted by TooFree:
Ok. That is one of the way for sure. But I personally view it as a short term measure to counter any downward drop in property market and most importantly, how long can this boom substain? The height of the issue here should be on are we facing a property crisis now? If not, how about having others policy to lure buyers instead? Also, I do not see much difference between 99 and 120 except for stimulating the market. If your counter-arguement is on bankers' lending policy, then why don't we work on that instead. Lastly, in Singapore, I believe that the stance on housing is not so on luring investors but more to provide a roof for all Singaporeans.
The government has probably recognized that people need asset enrichments and appreciation in order to carry on with retirements. So it has recently come up with new systems to allow retirees to cash out of their properties and continue to live in smaller studio flats.
This is only one way for sure. Government through MRT and in time to come IR will also tap on new potential to enrich its coffers in order to continue to enjoy future surpluses through various land-sale schemes.
Whether the solutions to people's economy vibrancy is through real hard works of earning as much wages or possible or through property booms, it may attract different schools of thought but in the real world, IR will push up land values around towns and citizens living close by such areas and MRT will continue to enjoy some benefit.
I think solutions to our economic competitiveness should be multi-pronged, with real estates being the primary factor and government should continue to support this factor to allow citizens to continue to live from any appreciations of property values.