2019年4月16日星期二

Taxi fare hike the wrong fix for bad services and poor driver pays

Posted on 2019/04/12 Stand News:

Hot on the heels of the last fare hike as recent as April 2017, the Government was reported in March to be seeking Legco views on another proposed taxi fare hike – with a magnitude of an eye-popping 25%-36.8% increase for the initial flag-down fares.

The mandarins who ride in chauffer driven AM plated government cars, who probably never have to ride in a taxi like the people, probably conveyed the justifications raised by the ‘taxi trade’ (not even a formal organisation was given in the government document!) for the fare hike as: to improve the low income earned by taxi drivers and to attract new blood to the trade. This was met with widespread scepticism, with political parties doubting that fare hikes would improve service standards and remove malpractices such as overcharging and refusing rides.

Licence owner wins in fare hikes, drivers lose
Instead of finger in the air guesses, we try to quantify the economics to see if indeed the scepticism is warranted.

Comparing the financial equation shortly after the previous fare hike (pink column in Table 1) and the current market conditions (orange column), we have assumed: 1) amount of work is unchanged; 2) running costs are unchanged. However, the current market rent of taxis have seen roughly a 19% increase from two years ago, but with all else being equal, the drivers seem to be getting 11% less
(their pay being the residual balance of all other revenues and costs:

Table 1. Financial scenarios – owners ultimate winners in fare hikes:


Now assume the fare hike proposal is implemented (green column above), and assuming there being no further rent hikes from current levels, then indeed theoretically the drivers will be better off, in fact 87% better off than now!

The reality will most likely be closer to the blue column, where the drivers are offered a meagre 3% pay rise from today (in line with current levels of inflation), and the licence holding car owners pocket all the rest – the net result? a 53% windfall for the owners versus a minute 3% improvement for the drivers. The claims by the ‘taxi trade’ that drivers will be better off may literally be true, but we all know where the vast majority of the benefits of a fare hike will flow…

Taxi returns much better than property, thanks to zero supply
Further analysis of the returns on taxi ownership suggests that the 2017 fare hike has raised yields on taxi from 3.2% to 4.4% today (third line from bottom in Table 1), whereas a new fare hike with the owner-takes-all outcome above would spike the yield to a jaw dropping 6.7% based on current taxi licence prices. This compared to the 2.6% yield on property assets at large, mean a 0.6 percentage points (or ppts) premium two years ago has enlarged to 1.8ppts now, and if the new hike proposals are implemented, will further expand to a mouth-watering 4.1pts!

Taxis most complained mode of transport – time to introduce competition
As is no doubt employed as a reason for fare hike every single time, that higher fares would reduce rider complaints, new data continues to rebut this assertion: the latest government complaints statistics puts taxis firmly in the lead, with no sign of slowing in the growth momentum of complaint numbers – the taxi related complaints are up another 7% to 2,894 for the year ended March 2019:

Table 2. No change in rising trend of complaints against poor taxi services:


All this confirms our thesis that the only way we can improve the HK taxi service standards is to increase competition, and this can be achieved in two ways:

1) issue unlimited number of licences which will immediately cause the per-shift rent for taxis to drop to the level of maintenance costs, and drivers can then take all the revenues themselves, boosting their income immediately
(see our prior articles: http://yulun2012.blogspot.com/2016/12/blog-post.html);

2) allow all ride-hailing operators to compete, such as Uber, provided simple insurance requirements are complied with. There should be no entry barrier besides very simple compensation requirements in cases of accidents.
(see http://yulun2012.blogspot.com/2018/03/blog-post.html)


The author would like to thank Gary Mak Ka Ho of The Chinese University of Hong Kong for assisting in data collection, analysis, and drafting of this article.

2019年4月10日星期三

環球減稅搶飯碗,港府自滿毀長城


載於2019年4月10日信報:

面對經濟下行危機,中國上月大幅調低製造業的增值稅稅率3個百分點(至13%,目的在推動製造業發展,降低企業稅負逾6000億元民幣。可見減稅從來都是刺激經濟活力,減少官僚掣肘的良方。藉此機會,筆者在此審視香港在稅務領域過去數年的表現,以便制定應對策略,迎接環球新形勢下的挑戰。

英日加大刀闊斧,香江府坐食山崩
分析各國自金融風暴後的稅務趨勢,不難見到,上文中國所頒布之減稅救經濟招數其實在不少國家已經早在實行,如英國(最高企業稅率減低11百分點之多,見【圖一】左列數目)、日本(減10.1百分點)、加拿大(降低9.6百分點)等等。亦可見到,大部分減稅措施在風暴後兩至三年間亦已經到位,達到救市的效果:
圖一:全球主要經濟體的企業稅稅率上限

來源:經合組織,畢馬威

可能食髓知味,有幾個地域甚至在過去兩年再度加碼減稅,如英國(由2015年之20%減至2020年目標之16%,見【圖一】右側數列)、美國(特朗普上台後大刀闊斧由35%減至未來目標之21%)、就連萬稅之國的法蘭西也加入行列,減稅5百分點至2020年之28%。當就連英美大國之流亦稅率與香港不相伯仲,企業為何不留於本國,要遠赴香港來承受高昂的租金和人力成本?加上科技進步,外國通曉中文人口激增,香港的窗口地位實在已岌岌可危。
反過來看,香港的稅務優勢不但因對手減價而屢遭削弱,令國際機構來港開店的誘因越趨模糊,更要命的是,本地的稅務複雜性卻逐步上升:各屆政府棄優勢無兩的簡單低稅政策如敝履,去追求各項派糖、小金庫類的小恩小惠動作,導致本港市民及商界無所適從,由專注本業的良民搖身一變成為追逐施捨/著數的愚民!最近新聞廣泛報道的長者驗眼醫療卷事件只是眾多港府財政「新思維」政策下亂拋公帑、輸送納稅人金錢予既得利益團體例證的冰山一角。

香港早已不是亞洲一哥
不單止本港稅務優勢對先進國家逐漸消失,連在強敵環樹的後花園亦早顯得力有不逮:鄰埠澳門早於2004年已由15%減稅至12%(【圖二】橙線),大幅拋離本港,而最大競爭對手星加坡也大刀闊斧地將稅率由2003年的22%減至現在的17%,與本港相差0.5個百分點。
星洲不超越香港可能是故意要本港官僚繼續自我陶醉,感覺良好,以為自己的稅率仍然稍微低於勁敵;豈知彼邦卻在千百個不同的領域釜底抽薪,與落戶商號制定大大優惠於牌面價錢的稅務安排!此乃為何星加坡人均出產能在過去十數年間趕上兼拋離本港(03年為香港98%
之比,現已高於本港25%)!

 圖二:亞洲主要經濟體的企業稅稅率上限

其他較小型經濟如台灣及越南亦不甘後人,分別由03年至今大減稅率5百分點及12個百分點(【圖二】中深綠線及淺藍線)!前者亦因緣際會能避開香港官僚自毀優勢而踴躍參與的共同匯報標準(即Common Reporting Standard,或CRS),令另一本港賴以繁榮的優勢斷手奉送;而後者則是中美貿戰下最大的製造業走難接收地,直接亦令本港的商用服務業也拔營他去(星加坡?)。可惜港府至今仍陶醉於其最拿手的把戲:一)倒水泥建大白象;二)融入大灣區,將本城遺下的獨特性也消除滅去,最終可能面對的會是北上廣深的直接競爭卻不能說服國際社會本港較內地城市優點可在。
再說回稅制,就算是上年四月實施的二級利得稅稅制,亦有極大的社會工程影子,不單扭曲本地營商環境(令更多企業為取便宜而做出不必要的重組),更有特意將稅制複雜化向會計界輸送利益之嫌。本應一刀切減稅至8.25%稅率的德政卻再次在善意的官僚手上成為不倫不類的怪物,實在是令人扼腕!


自力更生永遠勝於所託非人
除了將過多的財政盈餘四處亂散,政府更不停設立各種名目的專項基金(數目眾多,須另文分析),似是為了掩飾稅收過多之事實。但更壞的後果是各基金散盡財富之後會再伸手要錢,加重未來納稅人的負擔。若果不幸其時正當經濟困境,則徒增加稅的壓力,令市民百上加斤。
港府設立之最大的專項基金莫過於外滙基金矣,此雖非支出型小金庫,但也是經年累月抽取市民資產/收入而累積出來的。在有借無還的思維下,政府不斷將多收取的稅款撥入儲備,2018年更撥款超出230億之巨。
可惜,外滙基金回報卻長線跑輸大市(包括樓市及股市,見【圖三】)!既然市民能以最低的管理費支出去買盈富基金而得到更多回報,為何仍要將自己的資金供奉給高踞IFC頂層嘅技術官僚,以極低的回報去管理自己原先辛苦賺來,自己更有能力為之增值的血汗錢?
圖三: 外滙基金表現跑輸恆生指數及住宅價格指數(總回報指數)

由此可見,財政司多年來只取不還(或以個人的喜好去代市民分配本來屬於自己的資源),寧願不減稅亦要多倒水泥去建越來越多、越來越豆腐渣的工程,是否有不負責任之嫌?


應減稅兼派發多餘儲備,藏富於民
基於以上分析,本港實應將龐大的財政盈餘還諸於民,並硬性限制政府開支於國民生產總值某水平以下(如:百分之十五);同時,減少所有政府儲備於國民財富某百分比以下,以藏富於民。只有這樣,才能保障當權者不會濫用手上的資源,而市民亦可重獲已經失去多年的經濟自主。

筆者特別鳴謝香港中文大學經濟系學生韓鎮榮協助收集及整理本文相關的數據及圖表。