Two scissors of urbanization

The policy instruments that drive this round of urbanisation must be adjusted, otherwise, these two "scissors" may cut off the future of the city/"Caijing National weekly" reporter Wang June World Expo fireworks in the Huangpu River, the real estate regulation of the sudden showers, is to China's cities rally.　　April 30, the opening day of the World Expo, under the central government's deployment, Beijing to the soaring prices of the real estate market with an iron fist. "If the city makes life better, why are some young people, or even the number of these young people who seem to be growing, choose to flee the big cities?"　　"April 28, in the CCTV" News 1+1 "Expo program Live room, the moderator questions. The issue of the moderator conjures up a question about the repeated questioning of human cities over the centuries. After the Industrial revolution sent cities into mechanized growth lanes, the cities, especially the big cities, were always regarded by theorists as a hotbed of problems. When China took over the baton of urbanization from the hands of the developed countries, Dickens in the "Tale of Two Cities" show the two sides of the city, in this 1.3 billion of the population of the country deep fermentation.　　During this period, more than half of the human population entered the city, a new urban era began.　　What is the most massive urbanization in the history of the human race in China? Two distribution of "scissors" "China Urban Planning Development Report 2008~2009" estimated that 2010 China's total population of about 1.36 billion, urbanization level of about 47%, urban population of about 640 million people, 2020 China's total population of 1.45 billion, the level of urbanization 56%~58%,　　Urban population reached 810 million ~8.4 billion, around 2030, the total population of China was about 1.5 billion, the level of urbanization reached about 65%, and the urban population reached about 1 billion people. According to the report, from the perspective of economic development, China's urbanization in the future will face greater uncertainty, "to solve the deep-seated problems in economic and social development, to achieve urbanization in the process of urban and rural integration, regional coordination, social harmony, resource conservation, environmental friendly objectives, due to a series of institutional reform to deepen,　　It is very difficult to adjust the relationship among many interest groups and implement the related measures. In a word, China's urbanisation has a chance of at least 20 years, a chance to seize it, and a series of tougher and deeper reforms to be done.　　Now, some young people, including the development potential of college students, by Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, the high housing prices forced to retreat, that is, the so-called "flee North Canton", indicating that China's first-tier cities have emerged generational polarization trend. 2003 years later, due to the excessive emphasis on housing economic development function ignores the housing security function, the real estate "pillar industry" by the local government pushed to the extreme and evolved into a malformed growth model, the management of land to become the government to stimulate investment growth and increase revenue of the magic weapon. From 2005 to 2006, the State Council successively released the price of stable housingof the notice, but fell into the higher prices of the whirlpool. The negative problems of urbanization begin to appear--it is not only through compulsory land expropriation and demolition, to the non market price compensation, from the expropriated farmers and the citizens there to transfer wealth, in urban and rural areas and within the city, the formation of the initial distribution of urbanization "scissors", and through the housing owners to continue to absorb the property rights of the value-added wealth, Lead to the richer the house, the less the poorer, the formation of urbanization two distribution of "scissors."　　There are signs that the policy instruments that drive this urbanisation must be adjusted, otherwise the two "scissors" could cut off the city's future. On the pattern of land accumulation in many people's view, the existing policy tool is still efficient, because everything that has happened in the past has proved its efficiency.　　This judgment needs to be traced back to history. The first 30 years after the founding of New China, China has experienced a "non-urbanization industrialization", even in the 1961-1977 years after the "Great Leap Forward", there has been a rare "reverse urbanization" in history, that is, through streamlining of personnel, the educated youth to the countryside, "three-wire" construction, from the city to the rural population.　　At that time, the city was regarded as a negative thing, and the policy direction was "the life of Mr. Postpartum". In the period of planned economy in China, the nationalization of urban real estate caused the Urban property tax to reduce, the state-owned units do not need to pay for land use, which makes the city's financial dilemma, the public service will be dispersed by each unit supply, and give birth to a unit to run the society's compound. Price signals no longer exist and social resources are distributed hierarchically. Although the city's limited public services raise the value of the land, the latter does not have any commercial attributes.　　There is no return on public service inputs, or subsidies to state-owned enterprises, which are recycled through the profits of the latter, but make ends meet.　　The grain monopoly system in this period has provided support for industrialization, but the increase of peasant-worker product "scissors" has aggravated the burden of farmers, and has played an important role in the household registration management system, which causes the shrinking of rural society. After the implementation of the reform and Opening-up policy in 1978, China's economy gradually bid farewell to the planning model, playing three "hard cards", one is to introduce foreign capital by preferential policies, the other is to supply cheap labor on a large scale, and third, through land accumulation, that is, the government obtains large sums of money by　　The first two cards have led to China's rapid rise to the "World Factory", and the third card has led to large-scale government-led urbanization. Land accumulation of this card, after 1988 years of the state-owned land use system, the 1994 tax-sharing reform of the "squeeze", and the 1998 housing system reform launched, firmly held in the hands of Chinese urban decision-making management, become the industrialization, urbanization, the most important accumulation way.　　The total amount of funds obtained by relying on land accumulation is much larger than that from foreign countries, and the total amount of research institutions is more than 20 trillion yuan. The realization way of land accumulation is the government monopoly level market, the most important tool is the low price compensation demolition and land requisition policy. Low-cost land expansion allowsUrbanization is on the up. The formation of this mechanism, with historical inevitability, it awakened the great wealth of sleeping in the land, even after the housing system reform in 1998, the Chinese economy reaped the "high growth, low inflation" miracle.　　But its corresponding, is the whole society is rising cost, some local government's deviation to public service behavior attracts social attention.　　The contract way of urbanization the real estate accumulates the society biggest wealth, the city periphery farmland and the city interior real estate value, is the urban public service input overflow and the internalization result, the government through the land expropriation or the demolition recovery public service increment is understandable--this is the logic of many officials. The elimination of "urban villages" is the deduction of this logic. In the view of some city managers, these villages enjoy the benefits of urban public services and never pay, even through rental housing or "small property room" directly set up the public service premium, but also to create "dirty" and "crime dens" problem.　　The only way the city government can recycle public services is to tear them down and sell them, although in the absence of housing security, "villages" accumulate a lot of cheap labor, is the breeding and maintenance of urban diversity of the "wetland", but urban managers often ignore this aspect. The Economist Wu in 2007 in the national two sessions, the urban demolition should not be compensated by market price, can be levied on the purchase price and selling rate capital gains tax.　　The reason is: urbanization is the outcome of the whole nation, its interests should not be entirely to the homeowner, should establish the urbanization fund, these proceeds according to certain provisions to allocate. The problem is that "according to certain regulations to allocate" urbanization, "the results of all", it is difficult to "not be compensated by market price" after the mandatory demolition to achieve justice, because such a mandatory demolition, in itself, the challenge of justice.　　But should public-service inputs be subsidized to homeowners for free, or even become their personal income? The practice of market economy countries is that you can share the value added of public services as long as you pay the real estate tax, and there is reason to get market price compensation in urban demolition. The real estate tax, also known as the property tax in mainland China, is an important means of regulating social wealth.　　Through this tax, the government can normally recycle the input of public services without the need for land sales. The tax is the contract, the real estate tax, farmers can choose to pay a real estate tax to the city government to buy public services and join the city as citizens, and the government's public services can raise the value of real estate, which means the government can get more real estate taxes, which allows the government to focus on the supply of public goods.　　In this way, the land expropriation and demolition of the urbanization, can become a contract of urbanization, the initial distribution of urbanization "scissors" can be expected to be the system of correction. At present, the urban government monopoly land level market business model is, through the one-time sale and high land price to make up for the lack of real estate tax, the shortage of public finance, through the low land subsidy industry to obtain recurrent tax revenue to achieve fiscal balance and growth. Such a modelFormula has induced a lot of short-term behavior. In theory, though, the initial distribution imbalance caused by land expropriation and relocation can be compensated by the way of "allocating according to certain regulations", but under the social conditions of providing most employment by Non-state-owned departments, it is difficult for the government to provide large and stable job opportunities for the expropriated farmers as planned economy era. The provision of affordable housing is possible, but in the rule of land finance, it means that the government will have to sell more land to balance such inputs.　　The trouble was made. The grasp of the future opportunity the business model of monopoly land-level market often leads to the loss of the weak, or to the weak to support the public service, and the strong-those who have the most real estate owners, often can cut to more benefits. The business model of real estate tax is the opposite, it means that the most owners of real estate have to provide the most support for public services-which is fair, because you have real estate in the city, just as you get the shares in the city, the investment in public services leads to the appreciation of the stock, and you should pay for it.　　And the logic is, because you don't pay--more precisely, because the government doesn't have a channel to pay for it--you can take your stock at a low price. But there is no panacea for urban problems, and it is dangerous to levy real estate tax in isolation. This tax increases the holding costs of real estate, which can have different effects on different income groups. Therefore, the Government should provide the most basic housing security, so that the lack of payment capacity of members of society to obtain the necessary relief.　　It should be understood that housing security is one of the public products of real estate tax payment. The next question is, in the current lack of housing security investment, housing prices abnormal high situation, the introduction of real estate tax will aggravate the burden of home buyers?　　In fact, as long as the provisions of the purchase of the first housing, or how many areas of housing, can be exempted from the real estate tax, can avoid this problem, while the real estate tax on the comprehensive levy a smooth transition. At present, China's industrialization has entered the middle and late period, in the next 20 years, gradually lose the industrialization support of urbanization, will face more complex situation.　　It should be seen that adequate liquidity and the demand for housing for the young, is indeed the Chinese economy, but the current pattern of urbanization often leads to the confrontation between the two--liquidity is always attracted to the "king" of the chase, increased two distribution gap, to the macro-economic left a huge hidden danger. There is an urgent need to design affordable housing as one of the largest to absorb liquidity, and to provide a stable medium and long-term return products, the disadvantaged people to provide a dignified living environment, the balance of urbanization two distribution of "scissors" to stimulate the most real economic growth, for the establishment of real estate tax business model and the creation of contract city, Lay the most important foundation.