舖租平，是否賣的東西也就額外便宜呢？
審計署的最新報告提供了一個另類角度，探求實情。
根據報告，過萬個政府街市檔位中，只有一成半在交市值租金，整體檔租僅及市值的六成。其中約一成檔口月付少於500元，比新界由農地改成的停車場月租還要平，部分更低至112元! 如要加至市值租，即要加租105倍。(審計報告指牛頭角一街市濕貨檔位，租金為112元，僅是市值租金11,900元的1%。)
如此相宜舖租，本應人人開心(當然除了平白受損的納稅人)，但審計署卻揭示平租背後的故事。話說由於檔租遠低於市值水平，檔主把檔位分租，大有可為。審計署抽查在大約50個檔位，即發現近六成的生意，根本並非由租戶自己經營。部分空置檔位更公然張貼告示，招攬經營者。有傳媒致電查詢，檔主也不諱言原租僅幾百塊錢，現索價「合作費」幾千元，讓出位置予有心人。租平，加上近乎世襲式的續租，誘使人分租圖利，坐享其成； 只及市值百分之一的低租，就如這不見得光的勾當一樣，並不會反映在貨品價格上。而納稅人卻為街市營運每年賠上1.6億！
龐大租金補貼，究竟掉進哪個口袋? 小市民又可有受惠於這過億元補貼呢？
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
關於我自己
標籤
- 中國 (9)
- 互聯網 (2)
- 公帑 (4)
- 公磅 (1)
- 反吸毒 (1)
- 立法會 (10)
- 地震 (6)
- 投資 (1)
- 私隱 (2)
- 亞視 (4)
- 法官 (1)
- 社會 (32)
- 社會，高官 (1)
- 青少年 (3)
- 政府 (53)
- 政客 (13)
- 毒奶粉 (5)
- 紀律部隊 (1)
- 美國 (1)
- 特首 (2)
- 高官 (31)
- 教育 (1)
- 淫審處 (1)
- 通識 (1)
- 殘奧會 (1)
- 街巿 (1)
- 街市 (1)
- 傳媒 (45)
- 傳媒，社會 (1)
- 傳媒，高官 (1)
- 奧運 (12)
- 網絡欺凌 (1)
- 樓市 (1)
- 學校 (2)
- 澳門 (1)
- 親子 (13)
- 警隊 (1)
- 警察 (2)
- 議員 (1)
- Paralympics (2)
發表文章
7 則留言:
One of the few "amazing discoveries" I have made shortly after I joined the company. It is rather elementary economics that when something is sold on the market at below market price, market forces will push it back up. It is just where the surplus goes.
To push this concept further, the rental savings tenants get do not necessarily make goods sold by tenants cheaper.
The Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development had said that because the businessmen are cunning, that's why she didn't want to get into the business world. If this issue is a reflection of the officials' understanding in business, then they really won't qualify to be in the business worl..
To Norman：
這是一個典型租值消散問題，人性自私，查實做官一早會想得到。
所以不必要的政府規管或人為干預，不值得鼓勵，因為不只事倍功半這麼簡單，而是根本事與願為。
我自己在博客中做了補充解說，獻醜了：http://martinoei.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/%E8%91%97%E6%95%B8%E8%A2%8B%E5%92%97%E5%85%A5%E9%82%8A%E5%80%8B%E4%BA%BA%E5%80%8B%E8%A2%8B/
你在這個平台留這些說話，不太尊重自己。
何必呢??
我覺得世紀佳緣的做法，已經去到過火程度。
To Rachel:
I didn't actually see those comments but it is really not too hard to guess. Really feel sorry that you had to put up with these.
To Martin:
Interesting read. I think the Government did it not because they want to benefit the housing estate customers (they know they cannot do so indirectly as seen with gas stations) rather, they did it with the intention of helping people to start small businesses. It never occur to them that these business owners would lay back and get the sub-leting income instead.
It's also too bad that tenants turn around and use higher rent as an excuse for not offering cheaper goods to housing estate customers, and making it more political.
As for intervention and regulation,I take a different view in that sometimes it could be beneficial to intervene and regulate. It would however be incomplete without including politics into economic discussions, so will wait for maybe an appropriate topic to discuss later.
小姐, 發覺你blog內的sidebar兩個tap都係"街市", 唔知係唔係有bug呢? 妳有時間自己check下啦!
張貼留言