1. For the so-called "subsidy", HDB imposes onerous conditions on the buyers (min occupation period, racial quotas, who you can rent your flats to, etc). If a private developer were to impose the same conditions on its buyers, I'm pretty sure they would have to price their condos at a substantial "discount" to the market price.
So I view HDB's so-called subsidy as a compensation for my acceptance of their onerous conditions rather than a "subsidy".
2. How does really subsidising HDB flats distort the market? Because if such actions will completely distort the market, then subsidies cannot be justified at all, since the functioning of a market economy will be impaired. Yey the govt subsidises education (from primary school thru NUS/NTU) and healthcare. Have the healthcare and education markets been completely distorted? Do you see prices in the private education sector, clinics and hospitals collapsing because of govt schools, clinics and hospitals.
I can tell you the healthcare market in Singapore is in fact very distorted.
Kindly substantiate this statement - why and how is it distorted?
3. How does the govt prevent people from being cheated by selling items at market price? How does selling things below market price to citizens who fulfill a particular criteria rob all future Singaporeans? Because if it does, then what the govt did many years ago, when they sold flats at a real subsidy to get poor Singaporeans to move from the kampongs to HDB flats, must have been a real terrible mistake that shortchanged you and cheated you and wronged you.
As a taxpaying citizen of this country, I expect our g-ment bodies to be responsible custodians of our national assets. That is, we need to get a reasonable return on what we have. There is a cost to heavily subsidising (and again, I am talking market subsidy) property. It may be worth the cost, but we need to look at it carefully.
4. You claim that I can realise my "subsidy" by turning it around and making a 20% profit. Ha! Why don't you try that? HDB will tell you to come back in 5 years, minimum. And suppose the market falls in 5 years, I don't make any money when I sell-- so where is my so-called "subsidy"? I take the risk, right? But you, Mr HDB, have already made a profit on your sale to me.
Well, > 80% of families live in HDB. If no subsidy existed, I suppose they would be just as well off buying private property, right? Another myth busted by reality on the ground.
So where is the so-called "subsidy"?
Private property has other advantages which you pay for - see WL's above post on restrictions of HDB flats.
Also, the term subsidy implies actual payment of money, not "market subsidy". Try using the word "market subsidy" outside of Singapore and see if anyone understands you. Many Singaporeans don't even understand the concept to begin with.
5. You may think that it's a good idea for govt agencies to make profits. I don't agree. The purpose of government is to provide services (security, education, defence, healthcare, etc.) for the people. To provide services, they have to raise revenues in the form of taxes. Govt revenues (whether from taxes, sale of land, investments, etc) are thus meant to cover the cost of providing services to the people, not to raise huge profits for the govt.
Taxes and other government fees and charges (incl. HDB flat prices) are a burden on the people, but a necessary one, so that the govt can function. This is an issue in mature democracies, where in fact many countries strive to balance the budget because tax revenues aren't sufficient.
Making profits in government, particularly huge profits, has been sold by our media as a wonderful thing because it adds to our "national" surpluses. Well, that's good propaganda, but the reality is that we are paying too much for our government services.
The principle is that a govt should strive for a balanced budget, so that it does not have to borrow, but neither does it have to over-burden the people.
Lets get this clear-- the govt should not make big profits, neither should it make huge losses. Anything else is cheating the people. The former is cheating the present generation, the latter is cheating the future generation.
I disagree. You ask them to walk a tight line. So in years of surplus, they should subsidise housing more, and in years of recession, subsidise less? Where is the price stability and fairness? Illogical
When the Governemnt has been posting huge surpluses for XXX years running, you still think there is stability and fairness? Isn't it lopsided?
6. On transparency, it's very simple. When asked to state the cost of constructing a flat, state it. No ifs, no buts, no "it's not relevant to the pricing of a flat", no making a state secret of it. Why so evasive, Mr HDB?
I disagree. They have stated it is market based. That is the true cost, and they have not hidden it.
Market price and selling price is not the "true cost". There is a clear difference between "cost price" and "selling price", with the difference between the two called "profit".
To set "cost price" based on other people's "selling price" is a weird concept to begin with. To base your selling price on other people's selling price is fine. Do note the distinction.
And you disagree because HDB has posted the "cost price" before? I don't recall seeing any figures to date, simply because they are unwiling to for the reasons stated by WL earlier in the thread.
Please get the difference between "Cost price" and "selling Price" before replying further.