THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 1992
MR K.Y. TANG:
WELL I THINK OUR FORECAST OF THE RATE OF INCREASE IN CPIA OF 9.5% FOR 1992, I FEEL THAT IT IS QUITE IN LINE WITH THE CURRENT SITUATION. LOOKING AT THE FIGURES FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY AND LAST DECEMBER, ACTUALLY THE RATE OF INCREASE WAS QUITE NEAR TO 10% AND THAT IS AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF A TREND OF MODERATION SINCE APRIL LAST YEAR. FURTHERMORE, IF WE LOOK AT THIS BUDGET, ACTUALLY THE NET IMPACT ON THE CPI IS VERY LITTLE, IT IS VERY + VERY MILD. AND WHAT IS MORE, SINCE WE ARE BUDGETING FOR A SURPLUS, THE EFFECT ON THE ECONOMY WILL BE DEFLATIONARY.
QUESTION:
MR MACLEOD, UNDER A NORMAL SITUATION AND DEVELOPMENT, IF THE SAR GOVERNMENT CAN RECEIVE ABOUT 70 BILLION RESERVE, IT WILL BE WELCOMED BY THE SAR GOVERNMENT, BUT NOW LU PENG IS GOING TO ATTACK IT. DO YOU FIND THERE'S ANY HIDDEN AGENDA, FOR EXAMPLE TO ATTACK ON THE BUDGET, OR NOW THE SITUATION BETWEEN HONG KONG AND CHINA IS NOT SO GOOD, FOR EXAMPLE THE INDEPENDENCE OF RTHK DO YOU FIND LU PENG HAS SOME OTHER MOTIVATION TO ATTACK?
FINANCIAL SECRETARY:
I LOOK FORWARD TO READING ALL YOUR SPECULATIONS IN THE NEWSPAPERS TOMORROW, BUT I'M AFRAID I'M NOT GOING TO ADD TO THEM.
QUESTION:
·YOU REFERRED TO RATES AS BEING REASONABLY FAIR. YOU ALSO SAID IN YOUR SPEECH THAT WHILE RATES HAVE DECLINED OVER TIME, THOSE DECREASES HAVE NOT BEEN PASSED ALONG TO RENTERS BY THEIR LANDORDS. IT SEEMS NEITHER REASONABLE NOR FAIR, IT SEEMS AN ARGUMENT FOR EITHER NOT INCREASING THE RATES OR FOR GIVING RENTERS A CREDIT IN TAXATION. COULD YOU RESPOND?
FINANCIAL SECRETARY: RENTERS A CREDIT?
QUESTION:
COULD YOU REPEAT THE LAST BIT
4
WELL IN MANY PLACES, RENTERS RECEIVE A CERTAIN CREDIT ON THEIR INCOME-TAX BASED ON THE PORTION
OF THEIR INCOME WHICH THEY SPEND IN RENT, TO RECOGNISE THE FACT THAT THERE ARE THESE KINDS OF, FOR THEM, INDIRECT FORMS OF TAXATION.
FINANCIAL SECRETARY: AT THAT.
WELL I WOULD BE HAPPY TO LOOK
ΤΟ
THE IT'S
IT HASN'T, CERTAINLY, BEEN PUT TO ME AS AN IDEA BEFORE, IT'S A NEW ONE. BUT I MEAN THE POINT I WAS MAKING WAS, IT HASN'T ACTUALLY GREATLY BENEFITED PEOPLE. THAT WE'VE ALLOWED THE CONTRIBUTION OF RATES TO OUR REVENUE, OR INDEED A PROPORTION OF RATES TO RENT, DECLINE. IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY BENEFIT ANYONE, IT MERELY REDUCES REVENUE TO GOVERNMENT WHICH WE HAVE TO MAKE UP IN OTHER WAYS. NOT THE MAIN ARGUMENT FOR USING RATES, THE MAIN ARGUMENTS, APART FROM THE FACT THAT THEY ARE STILL PRETTY LOW, ARE THE OTHER ONES: THAT IT IS PREDICTABLE, RELIABLE, THAT IT IS PROGRESSIVE IN THE SENSE THAT VARIES ACCORDING TO THE SIZE AND THE VALUE OF THE ACCOMMODATION, SO ON. I MEAN THOSE ARE THE MAIN ONES.
QUESTION:
IF I CAN FOLLOW UP. IT DOES NOT SEEM TO ME TO MATCH ANY DEFINITION OF PROGRESSIVE TO SAY THAT PAY IT TO THE GOVERNMENT WHEN THE RATE GOES UP BUT YOU GIVE IT TO LANDLORD WHEN THE RATE GOES DOWN.
IT
AND
YOU THE
/FINANCIAL SECRETARY