Rental Increases?!!?! :(

Discuss about where to live, renting a property, tenancy issues, property trend and property investment in Singapore.
Post Reply
jockney
Regular
Regular
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 3:25 am
Location: grange road

Post by jockney » Sat, 01 Sep 2007 10:19 pm

people in the uk want more and more....things...houses...4 wheel drives, hence driving the house price upwards.
we live in the most deprived area of scotland and the house price is astronomical....because the government says indirectly, we should all be on the housing ladder??? and us like wee sheep followwhat they say!
the ego is there in the uk as people strive to beat their neighbours house, car, school for kids....maybe same happening here????
not having a go at anyone in general, but government has a big part to play in all this...they are cleverand do it indirectly and we cnt see it till it is too late and are in debt upto our eyeballs or have to downsize??

Singapore Property Search

 

gmail
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:31 am

Post by gmail » Sun, 02 Sep 2007 12:32 pm

sprite wrote:
jockney wrote:my company pays a certain amount and i put my ego aside and got an apartment within the budget,suitable for my wife and son.
I could have paid a lot more, fed my ego, kept up with the other ego trippers, but chose not too.
remember you are living in a vibrant city, that is safe, healthy,prosperous and you wont get that cheap anywhere>???
I am a londoner....now that is expensive!
bottom line is i am comfortable with myself, so dont need to furnish my life with things to try and boost my ego and give me a lift and pretend to be something i am not..
Uk has fell into a trap(materialistic society), sothat in itself will force prices up as sellers no buyers want it??
My company pays a housing allowance as well. We looked around, found a place within our budget and moved in. Did we have a big ego when we lived within our housing allowance? Now with outrageous rental increases, we might have to downsize considerably -- so it's our big egos that find that a little unfair? My family has to move into 1/2 the place just two years later, that's ridiculous. I don't know why you keep refering to ego. It makes no sense in this context.

Gmail, of course we can move from Singapore if it gets too expensive, but I'm not sure that is in the best interest of the economy? Don't they need our expat dollrs?
Hi Sprite,

A friend of mine taught at an International School here. With her housing allowance, she paid X$ for a 2 bedroom apartment near Orchard road because she love that place. Now she paidthe same X$ for a studio because she still want to remain in the same area. So the botton line is are you willing to move to a new location?. As for expat dollars, sorry for being blunt, i think it had to work both ways dollar versus job. Let's side track for a while from greedy LL and look at the international school here which i understand are also charging pretty high fees. why? Based on my understanding, the international school like SAS or AIS do not take-in local student except on special case. The waiting list is long and the school is trying their best to add more classes and as a result, cost went up. There are parents who are not comfortable with placing their child in a local school becuase of the fear for singlish which is understandable. Look, whether it is a rental or school issue, it is simply a case of demand vs supply. You have the choice of condo vs HDB or International vs local school. This is the same situation others are facing in Hong Kong. By the way, has anyone of you know why the rental control act was abolished a few years ago. Care to share?

May your stay be happier.

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 39562
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 1:26 pm
Answers: 10
Location: Retired on the Little Red Dot

Post by sundaymorningstaple » Sun, 02 Sep 2007 7:45 pm

You asked.......

This viewpoint from a political activist blog:
http://melvintansg.blogspot.com/2001_02_01_archive.html

From the URA. (Urban Redevelopment Authority):
MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
PRESS STATEMENT
THE CONTROL OF RENT (ABOLITION) BILL 2001

The Minister for National Development, Mr Mah Bow Tan, introduced the Control of Rent (Abolition) Bill 2001 for its first reading in Parliament on 23 Feb 2001. The Bill seeks to provide for the abolition of rent control.

Rent Control was introduced in 1947 to restrict a landlord's right to increase the rent of or remove the tenant from a rent controlled property. This was to protect tenants from unscrupulous landlords during the housing shortage of post-war years. The current Control of Rent Act was enacted in 1953.

As the reach of the public housing programme progressed, the need for rent control has decreased. Thus, the Controlled Premises (Special Provisions) Act was introduced in 1970 to allow a landlord to recover his rent-controlled property for purposes of redevelopment by compensating the tenants for vacating the premises. To do so, the landlord has to first apply to the Tenants' Compensation Board to recover the rent controlled property. The Board may require the landlord to compensate his tenants and occupiers if they are eligible for such compensation. At the same time, the government had also provided avenues for tenants to seek alternative public housing.

With this in place, the Government had announced on 3 April 1997 that rent control would be abolished on 1 April 2001.

Hence, the Control of Rent (Abolition) Bill 2001 is introduced to deal with the abolition of rent control in 3 stages:

1. Firstly, the Bill repeals the Control of Rent Act with effect from 1 April 2001 and thus, immediately abolishes rent control in Singapore.


2. Secondly, the Controlled Premises (Special Provisions) Act will remain in effect but the Bill will amend the Act to make it clear that the Tenants' Compensation Board will continue to function only for the purpose of settling its outstanding matters (e.g. outstanding part determined applications, reviews and enforcement of its Orders).


3. Thirdly, the Bill will repeal the Controlled Premises (Special Provisions) Act on a date to be determined by the Minister, after the Tenants' Compensation Board has settled its outstanding matters. The Tenants' Compensation Board will be dissolved with the repeal of the Act.

The second and third readings of the Control of Rent (Abolition) Bill 2001 will be read in March 2001.
Economic development and the distribution of land rents in Singapore: a Georgist implementation
The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Oct 1996 by Sock-Yong Phang

I

The Ideas of Henry George and the Policies of Singapore

Henry George is not a name which is generally known to policy makers in Singapore. However, a comparison of his ideas and Singapore's economic policies reveals fundamental similarities, as well as some areas of differences.

Henry George made a strong case for the taxation of rents from land, claiming that this would abolish poverty and economic crises, the latter being simply the result of speculation in land values. While the target of land taxation - the present landowner - may have paid a market price reflective of the capitalized value, George was of the view that it was not unfair for the state to take these capitalized values from the landowner.(1) He was an ardent advocate of free trade and a critic of too centralized government management of the means of production - socialism - as it would destroy spontaneous coordination. He did not believe in government handouts as a solution to poverty but in incentives and rewards. Singapore's success formula has included large doses of the above Georgist elements.

Singapore is a small island city state with a total land area of 640 square kilometers and a population of three million. It was founded as a British trading post in 1819 and remained a British colony until 1959 when it achieved internal self-government. The People's Action Party which was elected in 1959 has been returned at every election since. Singapore joined the then newly formed Federation of Malaysia in 1963 but withdrew in 1965 when it became an independent republic. At the time of its independence, the Singapore government was confronted with a host of political and economic problems soon compounded by the closure of British military bases in Singapore. Rapid population growth, a severe housing shortage evidenced by chronic overcrowding in dilapidated buildings and squatter slums, and the need for employment creation topped the list of problems.

Three decades later, Singapore has become a model for economic development. It has enjoyed growth rates in GNP per capita which averaged 7 percent annually and per capita income is presently in excess of US$20,000 (The World Bank, 1995). There is virtually no unemployment and approximately one fifth of the labor force is comprised of foreigners. The national savings rate is 51 percent while the home ownership rate is 92 percent. Many authors have attempted analysis of the factors behind rapid growth in Singapore and in the other East Asian countries. In a recently published book, The East Asian Miracle, the World Bank concludes that there is no single East Asian model and that ". . . high performing Asian economies have used different and changing sets of policies to achieve rapid growth with equity" (1993, 347). This paper represents an attempt to demonstrate that the Singapore model of economic growth encompasses key policy prescriptions of Henry George.

Section 2 of this paper describes the process by which land rents in an extremely land scarce country were captured. Section 3 highlights the importance of this exercise for international competitiveness and hence for the export-led growth which Singapore has enjoyed. In Section 4, the massive public housing program, through which the benefits of land value capture were redistributed, is described. Section 5 looks at the effects of land rent capture on the government budget. The philosophy of the Singapore government with regard to incentives and rewards, as reflected in its fiscal and social security policies, is also described. Section 6, entitled "Wipeouts and Windfalls," examines the distributional impact of certain land related policies. Section 7 concludes by highlighting areas of policy concern.

II

Land Value Capture

There is no hint of George's policies if one is to examine the property tax system in Singapore. This is especially true in that no attempt is made to separate site value from the improvements on land. A flat rate of 12 percent on the estimated annual rental value of property applies. There is a concessionary tax rate of 4 percent for owner-occupied residential properties. Unlike other East Asian countries such as South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan, there is no capital gains tax on private sector real estate transactions.(2) The Singapore government has, instead, relied on the process of nationalization of land on a selective basis to effect the process of land value capture.

This section describes the process through which land value capture has been effected in Singapore. The general planning powers which have enabled the government to capture land rents and to implement urban development in Singapore are contained principally in three pieces of legislation.(3) These are: (1) the Planning Act, (2) the Land Acquisition Act and (3) the Control of Land Rent Act. Another land-related class of policies involved those pertaining to the taxation of motor vehicle ownership and usage. To the extent that road usage rights represent rights to the use of a land related resource, the taxation of that right is completely in line with George's prescription for land related taxation.

A related piece of legislation which further depressed land prices for acquired land was the Control of Rent Act. Rent control was introduced in Singapore in 1947 by the British colonial government in the aftermath of World War II to protect tenants at a time when there was a severe housing shortage. The statutory rent was set at the rates which existed on Aug. 1, 1939 and affected private owned premises built on or before Sep. 7, 1947. It remained generally in effect for the next 40 years. Block decontrol for 32 hectares of prime land located in the central business district was introduced in 1969. Vacant decontrol was introduced in 1980 and rent control is being phased out in stages beginning in 1988. The government was able to acquire controlled premises (under the Land Acquisition Act which overrides the Control of Rent Act) for public sector projects at 1973 prices (prior to 1987) - set prices which had been depressed by rent control.

In 1960, the state already owned 44 percent of the land in Singapore. By 1985, the proportion of land under state ownership had increased to 76 percent. Some 18,000 hectares of land were acquired by various government agencies between 1959 (internal self-government) and 1984. This exercise wiped out land rent increases for affected landowners, some of whom suffered actual losses, having purchased their land at prices above the 1973 price. Some such landowners even had to carry on with loan repayments for land which had already been acquired by the government.
Advertisement

This apparent disregard for losses incurred by unfortunate landowners is completely in line with George's uncompromising stand that rents paid to individual landowners were unfair even if capitalized in the purchase price. However, the Singapore means of land value capture differed in three fundamental respects from George's prescriptions. First, George did not advocate nationalization of land, simply the taxation of the site or location value of land. The developmental objectives of the state in Singapore however, necessitated the nationalization of large parcels of land for industrial and housing estates - land which was previously often under fragmented ownership. Secondly, nationalization was enforced on a selective basis, thus violating the principle of horizontal equity. Thirdly, the process involved a one-time capture of land rents on a selective basis. A system for the perpetual capture of all land rents was not instituted. However despite what (to George and many others) would have been considered shortcomings of this partial land value capture process, the Singapore government managed to capture a significant amount of land rents via its imperfect system, relative to the situations of governments elsewhere.
Okay, data overload....... :cool:
SOME PEOPLE TRY TO TURN BACK THEIR ODOMETERS. NOT ME. I WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW WHY I LOOK THIS WAY. I'VE TRAVELED A LONG WAY, AND SOME OF THE ROADS WEREN'T PAVED. ~ Will Rogers

sprite
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 7:12 pm

Post by sprite » Sun, 02 Sep 2007 8:08 pm

gmail wrote:
sprite wrote:
jockney wrote:my company pays a certain amount and i put my ego aside and got an apartment within the budget,suitable for my wife and son.
I could have paid a lot more, fed my ego, kept up with the other ego trippers, but chose not too.
remember you are living in a vibrant city, that is safe, healthy,prosperous and you wont get that cheap anywhere>???
I am a londoner....now that is expensive!
bottom line is i am comfortable with myself, so dont need to furnish my life with things to try and boost my ego and give me a lift and pretend to be something i am not..
Uk has fell into a trap(materialistic society), sothat in itself will force prices up as sellers no buyers want it??
My company pays a housing allowance as well. We looked around, found a place within our budget and moved in. Did we have a big ego when we lived within our housing allowance? Now with outrageous rental increases, we might have to downsize considerably -- so it's our big egos that find that a little unfair? My family has to move into 1/2 the place just two years later, that's ridiculous. I don't know why you keep refering to ego. It makes no sense in this context.

Gmail, of course we can move from Singapore if it gets too expensive, but I'm not sure that is in the best interest of the economy? Don't they need our expat dollrs?
Hi Sprite,

A friend of mine taught at an International School here. With her housing allowance, she paid X$ for a 2 bedroom apartment near Orchard road because she love that place. Now she paidthe same X$ for a studio because she still want to remain in the same area. So the botton line is are you willing to move to a new location?. As for expat dollars, sorry for being blunt, i think it had to work both ways dollar versus job. Let's side track for a while from greedy LL and look at the international school here which i understand are also charging pretty high fees. why? Based on my understanding, the international school like SAS or AIS do not take-in local student except on special case. The waiting list is long and the school is trying their best to add more classes and as a result, cost went up. There are parents who are not comfortable with placing their child in a local school becuase of the fear for singlish which is understandable. Look, whether it is a rental or school issue, it is simply a case of demand vs supply. You have the choice of condo vs HDB or International vs local school. This is the same situation others are facing in Hong Kong. By the way, has anyone of you know why the rental control act was abolished a few years ago. Care to share?

May your stay be happier.
gmail,

thanks for the response but I think you misunderstand my point. I don't care about the why, or about the supply and demand, or any of the economics really -- all I'm saying is that a tenant has a right to feel the situation is a bit unfair. That's all. If that doesn't make sense , then I guess you don't know a lot of families who have been forced to move.

User avatar
k1w1
Reporter
Reporter
Posts: 680
Joined: Mon, 30 May 2005 8:20 pm

Post by k1w1 » Wed, 05 Sep 2007 8:16 pm

gmail wrote:
sprite wrote:
jockney wrote:my company pays a certain amount and i put my ego aside and got an apartment within the budget,suitable for my wife and son.
I could have paid a lot more, fed my ego, kept up with the other ego trippers, but chose not too.
remember you are living in a vibrant city, that is safe, healthy,prosperous and you wont get that cheap anywhere>???
I am a londoner....now that is expensive!
bottom line is i am comfortable with myself, so dont need to furnish my life with things to try and boost my ego and give me a lift and pretend to be something i am not..
Uk has fell into a trap(materialistic society), sothat in itself will force prices up as sellers no buyers want it??
My company pays a housing allowance as well. We looked around, found a place within our budget and moved in. Did we have a big ego when we lived within our housing allowance? Now with outrageous rental increases, we might have to downsize considerably -- so it's our big egos that find that a little unfair? My family has to move into 1/2 the place just two years later, that's ridiculous. I don't know why you keep refering to ego. It makes no sense in this context.

Gmail, of course we can move from Singapore if it gets too expensive, but I'm not sure that is in the best interest of the economy? Don't they need our expat dollrs?
Hi Sprite,

A friend of mine taught at an International School here. With her housing allowance, she paid X$ for a 2 bedroom apartment near Orchard road because she love that place. Now she paidthe same X$ for a studio because she still want to remain in the same area. So the botton line is are you willing to move to a new location?. As for expat dollars, sorry for being blunt, i think it had to work both ways dollar versus job. Let's side track for a while from greedy LL and look at the international school here which i understand are also charging pretty high fees. why? Based on my understanding, the international school like SAS or AIS do not take-in local student except on special case. The waiting list is long and the school is trying their best to add more classes and as a result, cost went up. There are parents who are not comfortable with placing their child in a local school becuase of the fear for singlish which is understandable. Look, whether it is a rental or school issue, it is simply a case of demand vs supply. You have the choice of condo vs HDB or International vs local school. This is the same situation others are facing in Hong Kong. By the way, has anyone of you know why the rental control act was abolished a few years ago. Care to share?

May your stay be happier.
Gmail, International Schools are NOT ALLOWED to enrol local students. This is a government regulation. There are loopholes, but kids who get through it have to prove the reasons they can't get what they need in a local school. These schools charge so much money for a few reasons: Every thing that is used by the school has to come from fees. They're not supported by any government or company. Every teacher's salary, every computer, library book and pottle of glue comes from the school fees. Secondly, every private company has to have local directors. These people are not going to do this for the love. Many of them are nothing short of money-sucking scoundrels.

Don't even start me on the rental stupidity. I recently saw that the newest developments in Singapore are asking more per sq foot than prime property in areas facing the Eiffel Tower in Paris. Yeah, this is all going to hold up real tight!! (Orchard Road vs Paris!!!) :lol: :roll:

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 39562
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 1:26 pm
Answers: 10
Location: Retired on the Little Red Dot

Post by sundaymorningstaple » Wed, 05 Sep 2007 9:37 pm

k1w1 wrote:I recently saw that the newest developments in Singapore are asking more per sq foot than prime property in areas facing the Eiffel Tower in Paris. Yeah, this is all going to hold up real tight!! (Orchard Road vs Paris!!!) :lol: :roll:
Hi k1w1!

Been a while. The reason for the prices being higher than Paris is easy. The eiffel tower is in need of renovation and upgrading! :P
SOME PEOPLE TRY TO TURN BACK THEIR ODOMETERS. NOT ME. I WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW WHY I LOOK THIS WAY. I'VE TRAVELED A LONG WAY, AND SOME OF THE ROADS WEREN'T PAVED. ~ Will Rogers

User avatar
MblSH
Regular
Regular
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 2:12 pm
Location: Simei
Contact:

Post by MblSH » Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:00 am

k1w1 wrote:Yeah, this is all going to hold up real tight!! (Orchard Road vs Paris!!!) :lol: :roll:
Eiffel Tower vs. Orchard Towers :)

jockney
Regular
Regular
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 3:25 am
Location: grange road

Post by jockney » Thu, 06 Sep 2007 7:54 am

you can always say no...dont pay the prices and live somewhere cheaper...if you want to stay in the same area, you will have to pay the increase, but as i say...no is a key word??
If they build and you are willing to pay.....they will keep on building and charging?? :wink:

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 39562
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 1:26 pm
Answers: 10
Location: Retired on the Little Red Dot

Post by sundaymorningstaple » Thu, 06 Sep 2007 9:23 am

jockney,

That's what I always find funny in these discussions. If people are willing to pay to live in the prime districts then there is still a market for those kinds of property. Additionally, "Expats" are just that. They are not PR's or Citizens so they have the ability to pack up and leave just like that. They also can determine whether or not the convenience is worth the price.

However, having said that, these boards would be kinda bare and not much fun if everybody accepted the facts would they! :wink:
SOME PEOPLE TRY TO TURN BACK THEIR ODOMETERS. NOT ME. I WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW WHY I LOOK THIS WAY. I'VE TRAVELED A LONG WAY, AND SOME OF THE ROADS WEREN'T PAVED. ~ Will Rogers

sprite
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 7:12 pm

Post by sprite » Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:21 am

jockney wrote:you can always say no...dont pay the prices and live somewhere cheaper...if you want to stay in the same area, you will have to pay the increase, but as i say...no is a key word??
If they build and you are willing to pay.....they will keep on building and charging?? :wink:
Yes, Jockney, we understand, we have the right to say 'no.' Did you think we didn't get it the first three times?

Sunday,

I don't know too many expats that can pick up and leave just because rents got high. They are bound by schooling, employment contracts, the cost of repatriation. A lot of things.

I know lots of sad stories of people who had to move because their rent doubled, and they lived no where near a 'prime district'.

I think a lot of you are secretly happy and smug at this situation because the rich folks now know what we poor working class schlubs must feel like. It sure sounds that way anyway.

jockney
Regular
Regular
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 3:25 am
Location: grange road

Post by jockney » Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:58 am

I dont for one minute feel smug at the situation.
This situation is created by people who want more and more.
I feel expats are driving the prices up, because they can not say no...i dont mean leave job and singapore, but they wont even move to a cheaper apartment for whatever reason...so the landlords can really do what they like?
I am from the Uk and talk from experience...our society is materialistically driven and moving to a less celubrious area, a smaller car maybe, a cheaper school, does not come into the equation....people are driven to this style of living by a government who think it is ok!
People come over here and think they have arrived...live in maids,private schools and all the other wee extras and thats what half the population in the UK would love to live like...sad eh?
I for one like this place and do wish the goverment would go a little further to protect locals as far as renting property goes, but if expats want to keep forcing their own rents up...so be it.
I wish to be happy...i dont wish to appear to be happy!

jockney
Regular
Regular
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 3:25 am
Location: grange road

Post by jockney » Thu, 06 Sep 2007 11:53 am

Sad stories for me are people starving because of lack of food and dying because of lack of medicine.
Someone having to move apartment is unfortunate maybe, but sad I find difficult to believe?

sprite
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 7:12 pm

Post by sprite » Thu, 06 Sep 2007 11:56 am

I have completely stopped listening to you Johnny One Note.

jockney
Regular
Regular
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 3:25 am
Location: grange road

Post by jockney » Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:05 pm

apologies for offending if you are touch, I thought forums were for peoples views and opinions...how wrong I must be. sorry :wink:

User avatar
Superglide
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 2:56 pm
Location: In a spacious appartment

Post by Superglide » Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:17 pm

sprite wrote:I have completely stopped listening to you Johnny One Note.
Huh? Can you hear him type?

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Property Talk, Housing & Rental”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests