Hong Kong is known for having low taxes.  So why does the government want to introduce Goods & Services Tax (GST)?  It certainly doesn’t seem to be popular (take two stories just from today’s SCMP, for example, or older stories in The Standard that are freely available).

First of all, are taxes really low in Hong Kong?  Well, yes, up to a point.  What is easily overlooked is that because the government owns all the land in Hong Kong (apart from St Johns Cathedral) and can charge land premiums when developers want to built apartments, offices, shopping malls (or basically anything at all), we are all paying a hidden tax.  Well – you are if you buy a property or if you rent in the private sector, but if you live in public housing you not only avoid paying this tax but also have your rent subsidised by the government.

So at the bottom end you are OK – rents are low and you probably aren’t paying income tax either. At the top end, the very rich benefit from the low rates of profits tax and salaries tax – and the fact that capital gains and dividends are not taxed, and nor is anything you earn abroad. The problems come largely for the "middle classes", who struggle to buy property and have difficulty finding somewhere affordable to rent in the private sector.  To a large extent this is because of this hidden tax and the way that development is controlled (in order to maximise government revenues).

Lately the government has become concerned that the revenue from land sales and premiums is highly cyclical.  Property developers generally have large land banks and are willing to wait to start a new project until they can negotiate a price that suits them.  This can leave a large hole in government revenues.   

So you might think that the government would want to do something about these problems.

Not really – although they do recognize that the tax base is too narrow, and revenue can be highly cyclical, they are not actually going to do much about it.  They say that there are two possible solutions – either cut personal allowances so that more people pay salaries tax, or introduce a Goods & Services Tax (GST).

The argument about cyclical revenue appears to be a red herring – if these changes are introduced the government will be just as reliant on land sales and land premiums as ever, and anyway Hong Kong has huge reserves that can be used to fill the gaps when revenues are low. If the government was serious about solving this problem then more radical measures would be needed, but instead they seem to have ducked that issue altogether.

So what we have here is simply a switch from direct to indirect taxation. It achieves the government’s stated aim of widening the tax base, by getting those on lower incomes (and visitors) to pay more tax. Correspondingly, the tax burden for those on higher incomes should fall because direct taxes will be reduced (but the government has been vague on the details).

It will also mean (in theory at least) that if you buy goods outside Hong Kong you would have to pay GST when bringing them into Hong Kong – well, good luck with enforcing that at Lo Wu, chaps. As well as the extra civil servants need to collect and enforce this tax, there will be additional costs for private firms to administer and forward the tax to the authorities – and you can bet that these costs will be passed on to consumers. In addition, exporters will need to pay GST and then claim it back.

So why bother with making this change? The Economist offers one plausible explanation:

Indirect taxation has become increasingly popular with politicians because it may be less noticeable to people paying it than income tax and is harder to avoid paying.

However, Hong Kong already has the taxes on land and development that meet the same criteria (they are difficult to avoid and most people aren’t even aware of them).

The government say that it’s not about raising extra tax revenue, but the more cynical amongst us wonder if maybe it is – perhaps in 5 years time the rate of GST will be increased from 5%. Frankly, I can’t think of any other logical explanation for introducing GST. Why make things more complicated for everyone unless the government needs the revenue?

BWG has an online petition if you think that that sort of thing does any good.

[Update: Phil’s on the case, but BWG has pulled his petition]

Posted in

18 responses to “GST”

  1. gunlaw avatar
    gunlaw

    Nitpick Numero Uno:
    St. John’s Cathedral’s freehold title was handed back to the government years ago in exchange for moolah. I was there.
    Nitpick Numero Duo:
    GST is now planned to be forced through LegCo. This is because, to the civil service’s way of thinking, it is an absolute necessity and overriding priority, to secure civil servants’ pensions.
    For many years, the civil service pension fund has been nothing more than a giant promise to pay. Land premiums are unstable cannot guarantee stable civil service pensions but a GST would provide that guarantee.
    Be very clear on it that GST has nothing to do with providing extra services to the public. The public exists merely to provide money which is to be extracted compulsorily to pay for the civil service which says it knows what it is doing and asks only to be left alone.

    Like

  2. Chris avatar

    Well, I never knew that about St John’s Cathedral. Neither do most people – if you search in Google for St. John’s Cathedral freehold Hong Kong you could certainly be forgiven for believing that it was true.
    Details please! When was the dirty deed done?

    Like

  3. gunlaw avatar
    gunlaw

    As a part of the entire programme of the Sino-British Land Commission pre-1997, namely: to consolidate all land rights in the HK government, squatters were evicted, usually abandoning their villages by simply walking out leaving food and toys and clothing where they were a few minutes beforehand; in exchange for new flats in the New Territories (for free); or occasionally, money if they were emigrating to the mainland and wanted a home there. The whole squatter-eviction programme cost a huge amount of money and effort.
    Not being content with evicting squatters, the Chinese side belatedly found it inconceivable that anyone such as HKU or St. John’s could actually own land rights (freehold) rather than have them granted on licence (leasehold) as they do in the PRC.
    So they insisted that both HKU and St. John’s give back their freeholds.
    HKU being full of pre-1997 terrified and instant-mix patriots did so in about 3 minutes without any money changing hands.
    St. John’s however had a gweilo-weighted Synod massively unimpressed with the Commission, the Lands Department and Chris Patten (although his Catholicism was never held against him) especially since the Basic Law expressly preserved existing land rights.
    In other words, the Basic Law drafting committee negotiators actually forgot about HKU and St. John’s in 1988. They buggered it up, because HKU and St. John’s were so politically outre so far as the committee was concerned that no one thought about them. The buggeration factor actually occurred in 1986 in that pretty-pretty villa beside the old Kennedy School site along from the Union Church on Kennedy Road when smoothies from both sides negotiated land rights protection. The Chinese side thought that the Brits would just trouser government reserves and sell land rights and keep the proceeds, because that is exactly what the Chinese would have done had they been in charge. That was why they invented the Commission: to hang onto the moolah. St. John’s was mentioned but only in that context: ripping off the reserves and since it would never be sold and wasn’t owned by the government the negotiators went on to more interesting topics: tons of money in the reserves and land right sales proceeds.
    Post-1997 Synod saw their chance on the freehold: vot a pisness, vot a pisness, you sell it, you still got it, vot a pisness. Or at least Synod was most fortunate to have one of HK best legal minds available to it, pro bono. So millions and millions of $ later, the Lands Department having avoided LegCo, granted a perpetual lease and The Trustees of the Church of England in the Diocese of Victoria in Hong Kong, acting in pursuance of the Church of England Trust Ordinance of 18th January 1930, Chapter 1014, Laws of Hong Kong, surrendered the freehold. The whole job was done in about two weeks mid-1998.
    The Sino-British Land Commission’s office door was just a Christmas champagne cork’s flight down the corridor from mine at the time. So I used to invite everyone along to become flushed and relaxed. They did.

    Like

  4. dave avatar

    Not to cast asparagus at gunlaw, but I just emailed the Dean of St. John’s and he assures me that it is a freehold. Perhap’s he confusing ‘perpetual lease’ with freehold.

    Like

  5. Chris avatar

    From a Legco document:

    6. The Bill proposes to adapt “Crown” to “Government” in section 6(1) of the Church of England Trust Ordinance (Cap. 1014) in relation to the reversion of Saint John’s Cathedral Church and the precincts thereof.

    Like

  6. gunlaw avatar
    gunlaw

    The Bill you mention is actually the legal resolution of, and this is rich, the fact that the Queen is head of the Church of England.
    So when Hong Kong Island + Kowloon to Boundary Street was ceded by the Queen as outright owner (under British law) to the SAR Government in 1997, St. John’s stayed behind, still, um, belonging, um, well not quite outright, but freehold to, um, the Queen. Um. Bugger. British law ceased to apply in Hong Kong but the Queen stayed on….sort of thing.

    Like

  7. Xi Hu avatar
    Xi Hu

    I can always count on coming in here once in a while, read you Gweilo’s posts and get a good laugh. As usual, the Gweilo are making a mountain out of a molehill just trying to relive your glory days.
    Get over it, HK is no longer under “British law”, not too many places are these days. In HK, we call you people, “taking off your pants to fart”. You probably have never heard of this Cantonese saying/expression, none of you Gweilo understand much Cantonese anyway. But it describes Gweilo perfectly.
    Xi Hu.

    Like

  8. fumier avatar

    Actually, XH, Hong Kong is partially still bound by UK (English) law. I am sure gunlaw will give a better analysis than me, but my understanding is that UK case law still binds Hong Kong provided that the legislation which the cases are intepreting is the same in both the UK and in Hong Kong.

    Like

  9. Xi Hu avatar
    Xi Hu

    To Fumier, the self-appointed HK Gweilo traffic policeman:
    What analysis? Gunlaw writes in such a way as if he’s trying to impress someone. I don’t know who, my wild guess is some Chinese woman like overbearing BWG’s wife, White chicks usually couldn’t care less about what he was bragging about. Maybe he just tried to impress all you Gweilo in general. Not us. Not anymore. Why “take off your pants to fart”, if you don’t have to? 8^)
    Gunlaw was talking about a church — for God’s sake! And the site of HKU is so tiny, many university libraries in other parts of the world are more than twice as big as its entire campus. If you listen to him, for a second, you’d think he single-handedly had outmaneuvered China and made those stupid Chinese in Beijing hand HK back to the Brits, or something like that. 8^)
    Be nice driving your expensive fancy car around, one day some rich Chinese in his even more expensive car may run you off the road if you’re not careful. 8^)
    That day is coming faster than you think. Then, BWG will have to take his Chinese wife back to Canada and be just an OWG and will have no one to make fun of, except his wife.
    Xi Hu.

    Like

  10. Chris avatar

    I think that gunlaw was amused that the civil servants (both British and Chinese) had overlooked the problems of St John’s Cathedral and HKU.
    What’s interesting about the whole “1997” thing is that Hong Kong is virtually unchanged since the Handover, contrary to the many doom-laden predictions. Your fanciful prediction that all foreigners will soon be driven out of Hong Kong is as absurd as the fears that led so many Hong Kong people to emigrate to Canada or elsewhere in the 80s and 90s. They came back and the foreigners are here to stay, and in both cases it’s good news for the Hong Kong economy.

    Like

  11. Xi Hu avatar
    Xi Hu

    To Chris, the Ordinary Gweilo:
    Personally, I have no problem letting you foreigners to stay, even though most of you are like leaches with a bad attitude(not all). My post was written with some exaggeration for an effect. In Cantonese we call it “adding salt and vinegar” to make it flavourful and make a point.
    While most things remind the same since the Handover in 1997, I must say you Gweilo’s attitude has changed, you people in general are much less sassy than before. Reality is slowly sinking in.
    Chris, be nice to me, there is a possibility that I might become your one and only HK Chinese male friend. 8^)
    Xi Hu.

    Like

  12. Chris avatar

    Yes, of course, because I’m a Gweilo I spend all my time hanging out in Lan Kwai Fong with other foreigners, and the only Chinese people I meet are the taxi drivers who drive me home at 3 am.

    Like

  13. fumier avatar

    XH – I’m flattered that you should have visited my humble site. But what do you really think of the facts, firstly, that Hong Kong is still bound by British case law, including new case law, contrary to your desire and assertions, and, secondly, that the ability of Hongkies to purchase “expensive fancy cars” is far greater than their ability to drive them? It’s a bit embarrassing, surely? Running before they can walk, if you will.
    But you’re right about one thing: the possibility of being run off the road by someone on the phone, reading the horse racing news, or just blessed with a complete lack either of peripheral vision or of physical coordination is indeed a real one.
    Feel free to pop over for a description of the latest Hong Kong driving fashion, the two-in-one signal.

    Like

  14. gunlaw avatar
    gunlaw

    GST is the heading of your post. Toimpose GST to pay civil service pensions is pernicious.
    I apologise that my incidental Nitpick on the historic typing error about HKU & St. John’s should have engendered such feeling, such hatred, such outburst.
    Anyhow I especially like the gorgeous comment “Gunlaw was talking about a church — for God’s sake.” Indeed.
    I seem to have touched a nerve.

    Like

  15. Xi Hu avatar
    Xi Hu

    Fumier,
    Bound by British case law or not, it’s such a petty issue anyway. Next time you go to court, see what flag is flying there on the top of the building.
    If you can have it your way, I’m sure you’ll ban the Chinese from driving in HK. Too bad you born a little too late. One thing you forget is that this is our land, our country, our home. You certainly do not want me going into your flat and tell you how you should walk or what to do in your own home. The bottom line is this: if you don’t like the way we drive or anything that makes you dislike about living here, you can always leave. It’s entirely your prerogative. If someone violated a traffic law or any law for that matter, let the police handle it. It’s none of your business, nor mine. You, Gunlaw and BWG ought to get together with your Chinese wives or girlfriends, I’m sure you all have a great deal in common and a lot to talk about(talk ABOUT the Chinese but not “talk” WITH them). I have no doubt that the HK you live in is quite different than mine—socially, not geographically. 8^)
    Chris,
    Have you been to Lan Kwai Fong lately? Go take a look, not everything stays the same since the Handover as you said. There are less and less people there looking like you, and more and more looking like me. 8^)
    Gunlaw,
    Stop writing your legalese here. Write normally like Chris, you’re not in court, for God’s sake. We’re impressed that you’re an attorney and can write in codes, OK? 8^)
    I can assure you that you have not touched anyone’s nerve here. You’re a nonentity to me. Your sense of self-importance is greatly exaggerated(by yourself). 8^)
    Xi Hu.

    Like

  16. fumier avatar

    XH – If I had my way, I would indeed have bad drivers banned, whether expat or local. A good way to do this would be to have a driving test you could actually fail.
    If you read the posts on my site carefully, you will find two things. One -I rarely specify the ethnicity of the drivers I comment on. Two – on the very rare occasions that I do, it is usually to specify that it is an expat driver. Indded, a fair proportion of the drivers commented on are expats. On my blog, I am commenting on Hong Kong driving, not on the driving of Hongkies. Do you see the difference? I am not sure where this leaves you.
    On the other hand, if the cap fits … and my comment above about the intelligence to be able to create wealth not always being matched by the intelligence to use its trappings property still stands.
    As with your comment that that “the HK you live in is quite different than [sic] mine”, you are making assumptions – doubtless with the laudable aim of stirring up Mr. O. Gweilo’s very fine organ. Keep up the good work!
    As for the police doing their job – as a tax payer, I think I have the right to comment on how my taxes are being spent. While I think the police here are indeed Asia’s Finest, as far as traffic goes the fact is that this is regarded as not the route to advancement within the force and this means, I am afraid to say, that the traffic police underperform to the detriment of us all. Perhaps you will change your tune when your mother gets run over by a boy racer in his souped up Japanese saloon or by an expat wife racing to get to her tennis lesson.
    Feel free to pop over and see my update on Hong Kong traffic signals (later today).

    Like

  17. gunlaw avatar
    gunlaw

    Limited interests or preoccupation with a subject to the exclusion of other activities;
    Repetitive behaviors or rituals;
    Peculiarities in speech and language;
    Socially and emotionally inappropriate behavior and interpersonal interaction;
    Problems with nonverbal communication; and
    Clumsy and uncoordinated motor movements.
    Asperger’s Syndrome.

    Like

Leave a reply to Fai Mao Cancel reply