No subsidy in HDB, just a discount
-
i've always been unhappy about the renting masqueraded as buying system in singapore and even the freehold places can be aquired easily by the government for prices that are up to them.
-
Yes, our government has the power to re-acquire land using brute force. And there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.Originally posted by hisoka:i've always been unhappy about the renting masqueraded as buying system in singapore and even the freehold places can be aquired easily by the government for prices that are up to them.
And they wonder why many singaporeans have no sense of participation or sense of ownership in this 'country' -
Originally posted by a_splash:
Yes! In Japan houses are freehold too.
HDB is getting smaller and expensive.....do they still give loan at low interest? or now all taken over by Banks?
[b]by the way this thing about govt housing....so surprise in Penang, they get to pay 25yrs and own them as freehold....
poor us pay and pay and only can pass on less than 99yrs....haizzzzzz
poor us.....[/b]
-
Susidy in sg gov= anything below market value of the flats,
If the cost of a flat is S$100,000 they sold it at S$200,000 but market value is S$300.000 hence sg gov subsidises Sillyporean at S$100000 instead of saying they make a profit of S $100,000.
Hahaha!!!!
"subsidy" is defined as money that a gov pays to help with the COST of something. which means if the flat is sold at S$50,000 then they can claim gov subsidises S$50,000 to Sillyporean,anything sold at above S$100,000 but below S$ 300,000 is termed as discount!!!!
This sg gov is just to khow how to cheat Siiyporeans with words but not in real worth!! -
Already said they're retarded by greed to not know why many don't feel ownership.Originally posted by av98m:And they wonder why many singaporeans have no sense of participation or sense of ownership in this 'country' -
Actually from HDB replies, it is a foregone conclusion that HDB flats are discounted at market price and not subsidised at cost price.Originally posted by foomwee88:Susidy in sg gov= anything below market value of the flats,
If the cost of a flat is S$100,000 they sold it at S$200,000 but market value is S$300.000 hence sg gov subsidises Sillyporean at S$100000 instead of saying they make a profit of S $100,000.
Hahaha!!!!
"subsidy" is defined as money that a gov pays to help with the COST of something. which means if the flat is sold at S$50,000 then they can claim gov subsidises S$50,000 to Sillyporean,anything sold at above S$100,000 but below S$ 300,000 is termed as discount!!!!
This sg gov is just to khow how to cheat Siiyporeans with words but not in real worth!!
The next immediate question is how big is the profit margin?
It is one thing to sell to cover costs and perhaps make a small profit.
It is another to make use of a monopoly to generate obscene profits. -
These are questions you will never know the answers to.Originally posted by ObviousMan:Actually from HDB replies, it is a foregone conclusion that HDB flats are discounted at market price and not subsidised at cost price.
The next immediate question is how big is the profit margin?
It is one thing to sell to cover costs and perhaps make a small profit.
It is another to make use of a monopoly to generate obscene profits.
Really. -
Govt subsidizes $2B for HDB housing programme over the last 5 years.
_______________________________________________________________
This is the same misguided bitch that keeps mouthing HDB propaganda sentences. Like the people are so stupid, they cannot see thru it.
<
In the first place, values of housing in Tampines were already inflated to begin with. The fishing ponds and kampongs that used to be there were expropriated for a few cents on the dollar. If they want to use market value, than they should use what they actually paid for the land. If they had done this, each Tampines flat would have cost around $50,000 and not the $250,000 they sold to the public. So, its all inflated. I used to live around Tampines, and I can tell you they moved out all the villagers into flats and paid them pennies on the dollar.
<
Don't dare to reveal it, just say so lah.
<
Someone forgot to give this bitch a basic lesson in econs. The input costs of land and building is a major deciding factor on the market value of the end product. No builder in his right mind will dare sell you a flat at the "market" value if he did not know his own costs. What if the market is down for that year? A developer selling his units at "market" value in a down year could easily suffer losses. The input costs are totally relevant to his calculation if the breakeven.
<
As the HDB controls 90% of the residential market, there is therefore no"open" market. If the land in S'pore were divided up among 50 developers, than maybe there might be an open market.
<
If this subsidy is not real, why should many flat buyers choose to buy new flats from HDB instead of resale flats in the open market using the CPF Housing Grant?<<
The subsidy is not real because the cost of the land was marked up many hundreds of percent. A true subsidy would be to base the cost of the flat on the cost of what they actually paid for the land. In any case, if she is confident that they is a subsidy, than lets open up the books and see what the real costs are.
<
Its all a numbers game.The HDB was a huge cash cow for the PAP for decades, and now suddenly running into red ink. The presence of red ink in their estimation means that there is a subsidy. What bullshit. The financial statements were audited by the Auditor general of S'pore, another civil servant, and not by a big accounting firm. I fail to see how it can be impartial. -
The way she explains it, it sounds to me like "invisible money is considered subsidy".
Fine, whatever she wants to say.
Just show us the cost of building one flat, or one block or the breakdown cost for the materials used.
Is that so hard to do? Will it take 52 man years also? -
5 millions to construct an estate in term of material and contractors
10 millions in salaries and bonus to HDB personnels in charge of developing such a world class housing
SG_son
As long as HDB refuses to categorically give the Public the TRUE AND DETAIL COST OF Flats built....We the Public will not believe one bit of what they say.
Wah I govt very smart, to maximise our subsidy, they alway sell land at the peak and lock on the prices. They never sell land during recessions.
New flats are subsidised as they are being sold at prices that are lower than what they would otherwise fetch in the open market.
If this subsidy is not real, why should many flat buyers choose to buy new flats from HDB instead of resale flats in the open market using the CPF Housing Grant? :::::
Infallible logic!!!
Second, Mr Leong asked HDB to reveal its land and construction costs to prove that HDB flats are subsidised. He has missed the point.
To understand the full extent of public-housing subsidy for new HDB flats, one should be comparing the market value of the flats with the sale prices charged by HDB, rather than look at the input costs of land and building.
New flats are subsidised as they are being sold at prices that are lower than what they would otherwise fetch in the open market.
>>
Ms Kee is the one that has missed the point and has confused the definition of subsidy.
sub·si·dy [suhb-si-dee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -dies.
1. a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.
2. a sum paid, often in accordance with a treaty, by one government to another to secure some service in return.
3. a grant or contribution of money.
4. money formerly granted by the English Parliament to the crown for special needs. -
Based on the std design of HDB flats and they used a so called Std Schedule Of Rates format to call for tenders,the construction cost is usually 30% lower than private development, normally we can take it at about S$110-S$120 per sq feet for the construction cost of the HDB flats.hence, the total cost of a 4 rooms flat of a 4 rooms flat measuring about 900sq feet at Puggol is about S$ 100,000 to S$110,000 for the land cost is negligible when the sg gov acquired the land divided by the numbers of unit housed in a block.Originally posted by ObviousMan:Actually from HDB replies, it is a foregone conclusion that HDB flats are discounted at market price and not subsidised at cost price.
The next immediate question is how big is the profit margin?
It is one thing to sell to cover costs and perhaps make a small profit.
It is another to make use of a monopoly to generate obscene profits.
Sg gov thus makes about S$70,000 per a 4 rooms HDB (S$175,000 selling price per unit)flat x 120 unit in a block, Gross profit is S$8,400,000 per block if it is fully booked for occupation. -
If the sg gov shows the figures to u!!! all sillyporeans would lost trust to this blood sucker Paid n Paid!!!!!and then Spore will become sinkgapore!!!!!Originally posted by Lowclassman:The way she explains it, it sounds to me like "invisible money is considered subsidy".
Fine, whatever she wants to say.
Just show us the cost of building one flat, or one block or the breakdown cost for the materials used.
Is that so hard to do? Will it take 52 man years also? -
By the way, Mr Nigam was the former Chairman of HDB. The recent reply from HDB seem to suggest that Mr Nigam has no idea how land is priced in Singapore. Strange isn't it ???Originally posted by orwell76:For continuity sake, I posted the original letter in question dated on 1/1/07.
I REFER to the letter, 'Why sale of state land is done at market price' by Ms Kee Lay Cheng of the Housing and Development Board (ST, Dec 28 ).
Mr Ngiam Tong Dow has a very interesting thing to say about land pricing in Singapore in his book: A Mandarin And The Making Of Public Policy, on page 153:
'Sadly the clarity of thought shown by Dr Goh Keng Swee in pricing land has been lacking in more recent years. Relying on the concept of opportunity cost, the Chief Valuer, at the behest of either the Ministry of National Development or the Ministry of Trade and Industry (I am not sure which), has valued land across Singapore using Raffles Place land as the benchmark. The assumption is that every square metre of land in any part of Singapore has the potential to be Raffles Place.'
Would the HDB like to comment how this has affected the pricing and allocation of subsidy of new HDB flats?
Viktor Ye Kok Kheong -
The govt seemed to be taking advantages on us!!!
-
Originally posted by SevenEleven:
All i can say is that her answers are not sound.
[b]A Reply by HDB in Straits Time Forum 10 Jan 2007
I REFER to the letters from Mr Viktor Ye Kok Kheong and Mr Leong Sze Hian (ST, Jan 1 and 2, respectively) pertaining to the subsidy for new HDB flats.
First, Mr Ye asked if it is true that the Chief Valuer values all land in Singapore using Raffles Place as the benchmark. We wish to state that it is not so.
It is a fundamental valuation principle that lands are valued based on the specific attributes of the site, such as location, the permitted use of the land, and tenure.
The Chief Valuer's valuation has to be supported by comparative land-sales evidence.
It is simply not tenable to benchmark every plot of land to Raffles Place pricing, as this would drive property prices beyond the reach of most Singaporeans.
For example, state land alienated by the Singapore Land Authority for housing in Tampines will be valued taking into account the market values of housing in Tampines, while state land for industrial use in Tuas will take into account industrial- land values in Tuas, etc.
Second, Mr Leong asked HDB to reveal its land and construction costs to prove that HDB flats are subsidised. He has missed the point.
To understand the full extent of public-housing subsidy for new HDB flats, one should be comparing the market value of the flats with the sale prices charged by HDB, rather than look at the input costs of land and building.
New flats are subsidised as they are being sold at prices that are lower than what they would otherwise fetch in the open market.
If this subsidy is not real, why should many flat buyers choose to buy new flats from HDB instead of resale flats in the open market using the CPF Housing Grant?
Third, Mr Leong asserted that HDB has not kept up with the standards of disclosure in the private sector. He is wrong.
HDB's financial statements are prepared in accordance with the Financial Reporting Standards, audited by the Auditor-General and tabled in Parliament for information.
HDB's standards of disclosure and governance are no less than those required of publicly listed companies and real-estate investment trusts in Singapore.
Overall, HDB is unable to recover the development cost of new flats that it offers to the public, and has incurred a deficit averaging $390 million in its home-ownership programme in the last five years. These figures are reported in HDB's audited financial statements, which are publicly available for inspection and scrutiny.
Kee Lay Cheng (Ms)
Deputy Director
(Marketing & Projects)
For Director (Estate Administration & Property)
Housing & Development Board
[/b]Second, Mr Leong asked HDB to reveal its land and construction costs to prove that HDB flats are subsidised. He has missed the point.
It is beyond condescending to claim a person was pursuing the wrong line of argument when one has hardly stated their own case. Despite Mr Leong's demand that HDB 'show hand', Ms Kee deflects the argument with a weak salvo and a poor one-line explanation that the flats are indeed 'subsidised'; in effect simply reiterating her earlier point, without providing new substantial evidence to back it up.If this subsidy is not real, why should many flat buyers choose to buy new flats from HDB instead of resale flats in the open market using the CPF Housing Grant?
Singaporeans will obviously go for the one option that can provide a line of credit to avoid the maximum amount of debt. Coupled by the fact that resale flats are always more costly than new flats, her response completely lacks substance. Why on earth is this even considered an answer?