| 摘要註: |
擁有一棟自己的房屋對於台灣傳統觀念來說是人生中一件必要的事情,然而台灣自1989年起開始有無殼蝸年社會運動並持續延伸到2014年的巢運,都大大顯示居住正義在台灣並未落實到公平。在台灣,房屋價格與所得比例仍然高居不下,2014年台北市與新北市的房價所得比分別為15.19倍與12.81倍,相較於國際標準7-8倍而言,比例非常的高。歸究其原因,除了景氣循環之外,自2009年全球金融海嘯後,由於諸多政策因素影響,導致台灣市場上資金氾濫,進而影響台灣房屋市場價格,也因而造成房屋價格持續飆漲,讓社會大眾對於房屋價格仍只能望屋興嘆,年輕族群對於買房一事,更像是一個夢想。有鑑於此,政府自2010年起分別提出諸多政策作為抑制房價之對策,然而,雖然有許多政策試圖抑制房價,其效果卻因為政策的遺漏以及房產投資人、仲介業者或是該產業相關人士的操作,而讓政策未能完全發揮效用。因此,本研究利用政策論證架構,針對選擇性信用管制、高級住宅加價課徵房屋稅(豪宅稅)、特種貨物及勞務稅條例(奢侈稅)、實價登錄這四項政策作探討。透過相關利害關係人的訪談以及網路新聞報導兩種管道蒐集第一.二手資料,以作為本論證之佐證參考依據,期望透過本論證架構,找出造成上述四項法規效果不彰的原因與不足,並提供相關產業人員或是政策制定者建議以及相關管理意涵。本研究提出四項建議供政府作為參考(一)多方諮詢(二)資訊整合與透明化(三)與時俱進(四)因地制宜。唯有透過不斷地改良與調整,才能達到抑制房價的效果。 In Taiwanese traditional concept, it is necessary to own a private house is one’s life time. However, there was a social movement for the high and unaffordable price of house called “Non -homeowner movement” since 1989 and still held on 2014. These kinds of Non -homeowner movements revealed that house justice were not well done and not fair in Taiwan for a long time.In Taiwan, the ratio of house price and income remains high. In 2014, this ratio was 15.19 in Taipei City, capital of Taiwan, and was 12.81 in New Taipei city, the city next to Taipei. Compared to the average ratio of international, the ratio should be about 7-8. Hence, all we can learn how steep of the house price in Taiwan. The reasons of the high price of house were so diverse that we could not list here. But the primary reason was too much funds on the free market and then funds owner purchase more than one house for the investment and then leading to the high price of house.In attempt to curbing the house price, Taiwan government released many policies since 2010, but still not got a significant effect due to some cheating behaviors from some investors or someone in the house industry and some flaws in policies. For these reasons, this study tried to find out flaws in policies and to inference any possible solution to high house price via policy argumentation. According to this study, there were some flaws like (1) legal behavior but make house price raise (2) illegal behavior that government did not be aware .This study gave some advice to government including (1)consult from different sources (2)integrate information and open to public (3)redirect policies on time (4) different policies to different location. Government should reference these four advices and curb house price more effective. |