Regarding the tax rate of real estate tax, it is a very technical quantitative value, how to reasonably form this parameter, the big premise in front of it is very critical. According to international experience, I think there are several considerations that can now be said to have certainty, one is to do real estate tax reform, now called the mainland real estate tax pilot, it should adhere to the market appraisal price as the tax base. In the Shanghai plan, because it only moves the increment, does not move the stock, so all its increments are the price level formed under the market environment, and there is no need to make another assessment. Chongqing is not the same, the Chongqing plan involves high-end stock, independent villa high-end stock may be found more than ten years ago, twenty years ago independent villa transaction price, and the current price difference is obvious, then there must be a tax base assessment of the pre-link. In the future pilot expansion, I think in principle, we should insist on market assessment prices, and I think that after a new round of pilot launches, we should give more consideration to Chongqing's experience, at least involving high-end stocks. Therefore, adhering to such a tax base concept should be in line with the objective needs of system construction and be certain. However, because each place allows for differentiated program design, it is difficult to say what kinds of additional adjustments will be made. Further down, before considering this tax rate, generally after the assessment price or the formation of the tax base, according to international experience, a psychological comforting treatment should be given, that is, a 70% discount, or a 60% discount, I think this experience can also be used as a reference and has certain value. After considering these two points with certainty, for each place, it should be given a rough floating space for tax rates. The experience of the United States is like this, it actually forms a tax rate space of no more than 2.5% at the local local level, not more than 2% in most states, and only a few tenths of a percent in many places - this range is still relatively generous and relatively flexible. In fact, the general method of collection in the United States is through the annual budget procedure at the local level, first of all other incomes are laid out, and then the expenditure arrangements that must be made in the year are also laid out, and then the income gap formed is calculated as a specific real estate tax rate, which will fall below 2.5%, and generally will not exceed 2%. In fact, it is such a tax rate space formed after many years of operation.
With regard to the current situation in our country, I think that the concept of giving a space should also be applied to the concept of giving a space after the tax rate has been considered in some other basic element variables of the specific program design. In my own estimation, the greatest likelihood of a pilot programme is to fall into the option of giving room for choice in the amount of tax rates. In the future, the legislation pushed to the national unity should still be given a principle that after each place is authorized, there is a choice within the statutory tax rate space, and the decision-making process of public affairs at the local level is standardized.
I would like to add a few more points of understanding, and different viewpoints are put forward for common discussion. The previous expert mentioned that this reform pilot is "high or low", which is some of the more intuitive feelings, and later Director Qin said that the meaning of "building the institutional framework first" is very important. A basic experience of China's reform, that is, the gradual, this real estate tax reform has been said for so many years, the first step in the gradual substance has been delayed, once it comes out, that is, flexible entry, and strive to build the framework first. At the beginning of the establishment of this framework, do not hope that its policy effect can be strong, but also grasp the key points of flexible cutting, make it acceptable to society, and then relatively calmly do dynamic optimization. Chongqing plan is to move the stock, it began, there is a very valuable experience, to give the first unit of deduction, the area according to 180 square meters after deduction, the remaining part of the actual calculation of the tax burden, and later stabilized for a few years, found that this matter taxpayers more smoothly accepted, then screw again, the deduction of 180 square meters, reduced to 120 square meters. This experience is very important, first build the framework, and then examine the policy effects, specifically how to raise income, how to promote common prosperity, how to make the real estate market more stable and healthier, and how to implement the tax-sharing system needs to build a local tax system below the province, and how to catalyze democratization and rule of law public participation by such a system, which is slowly and gradually unfolded later. And I also think that all these goals cannot be understood in the same way that there are many occasions when people ask questions: Which functional goal do you really want? This is true of the CPPCC, the people's congress, and society, and many people have asked questions like this, but this question is actually a pseudo-question. These policy objectives are all in accordance with the policy effects that conform to the law, and the tax should be expressed, and the policy effects that conform to the law must form a target cluster with at least five major goals, and the positive effects it should have are the goals it can set.
Another point, I think that in Xiong'an, if it is true that as the public information we see now says, the main route of housing construction is different from the co-ownership housing and policy-based affordable housing that is different from the full-property rights housing, there are not many fully-propertyed housing in the big framework, all the central-level company headquarters, scientific research institutions, etc., and the staff housing is mainly co-ownership housing and affordable housing, then I understand that there is not much pilot value of the tax adjustment mechanism that adopts real estate tax.
Jia Kang Introduction
He is a special expert of the 11th and 12th National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference and the current Talent Pool of the CppcC National Committee for Participating in and Discussing Politics. Founding Dean of Huaxia New Supply Economics Research Institute, Researcher and Doctoral Supervisor of China Academy of Fiscal Sciences. He has long served as the director of the Institute of Fiscal Science of the Ministry of Finance. He is a special expert, consultant or advisory member of local governments in Beijing, Shanghai, Fujian, Anhui, Gansu, Guangxi, Tibet and other local governments, and a distinguished professor of Peking University, Chinese Min University, National School of Administration, Central Socialist College, Nankai University, Wuhan University, Xiamen University and other universities. In 1988, he was selected for the Heinz Foundation project and went to the University of Pittsburgh for one year as a visiting scholar. In 1995, he enjoyed the special government allowance of the State Council. In 1997, he was rated as the high-level academic leader of the National Million Talents Project. He has been invited by leading comrades of the party and the state to discuss economic work many times. He was one of the special speakers of the 18th collective study "Fiscal and Taxation System Reform" of the Politburo of the CPC Central Committee on January 8, 2010. Winner of the Sun Yefang Economics Prize, the Huangda-Mundell Economics Prize, and the China Soft Science Award. He is a member of the National Expert Committee of the 11th Five-Year Plan, the 12th Five-Year Plan and the 13th Five-Year Plan, and a member of the Expert Committee of the PPP Expert Database of the National Development and Reform Commission. In 2013, he edited "New Supply: China's Innovation in Economic Theory", initiated the establishment of the "Huaxia New Supply Economics Research Institute" and the "New Supply Economics 50 Forum" (as the first dean and the first secretary-general, and the chief economist during the second council), and from 2015 to 2016, he co-authored with Su Jingchun "New Supply Economics", "Supply Side Reform: A Concise Reader of New Supply" and "China's Barrier: How to Overcome the "Middle-Income Trap" (awarded by the China Book Critics Association and CCTV). 2016 China Good Books", published in 2016, "Ten Lectures on Supply-side Reform" was rated as a national excellent textbook by the Central Organization Department, the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television, and the National Library. After 2017, he has written and published many monographs such as "Theoretical Model and Practical Path of Supply-side Structural Reform", "Future Finance and Taxation on the Main Line of Supply-side Reform", and "General Theory of Fiscal Science". According to the large statistical analysis of more than 7 million articles in 6268 academic journals of philosophy and science in mainland China from 2006 to 2015 published by China Social Science Assessment, Mr. Jia Kang's publication volume (398 articles), total citation frequency (4231 times) and total download frequency (204115 times) all ranked first, and the comprehensive index was 3429, ranking first, and he was a representative scholar among the core authors of economics.