高住宅負擔背後的迷思？ ─以房價所得比、擁屋數、房價合理性及購屋壓力主客觀因素分析

Abstract

臺灣近年來由於房價高漲，住宅需求者住宅負擔及延伸住宅負擔問題成為關注焦點。本研究以新購置住宅者之住宅負擔為主軸，從主客觀住宅負擔指標角度切入，探討總體及個體房價所得比、購屋者住宅支出壓力、購屋者房價合理性看法等，釐清高住宅負擔背後的四大迷思，第一、探究高房價所得比是否代表高住宅負擔；第二、高房價低所得現象背後資產(擁屋數)之影響；第三、為什麼購屋者認為房價不合理仍進場購買房子；第四、究竟住宅負擔為真實存在抑或僅是虛構故事。本研究以最小平方法、分量迴歸模型、二項羅吉特模型及多項羅吉特模型進行實證。研究實證結果主要有以下四點結論：第一、高房價所得比並非單純代表高住宅負擔，可能為操作高財務槓桿的投資者，因此國內外多以中位數或平均數房價所得比數據探討住宅負擔時，恐有失真之疑慮；第二、以房價所得比探討住宅負擔問題時，購屋者擁屋數(資產)及對房價看法(包含房價合理性看法、房價趨勢看法等)應列入考量，且高房價或高房價所得比並非代表高住宅負擔；第三、購屋者因房價預期心理、剛性自住需求及從眾心理等因素，造成購屋者縱使認為房價不合理仍會進場購屋；第四、住宅負擔的問題為真實存在，但住宅負擔主客觀指標影響因素並不相同，住宅負擔指標應增加考量隱藏財富、購屋者主觀看法等因素才能綜合衡量購屋者實際住宅負擔。\n高住宅負擔問題過去文獻上多以房價與所得、房價所得比或貸款負擔率等客觀指標進行評估，並提出相關政策建議，但較少針對高住宅負擔背後迷思進行探討。本研究針對重要研究成果提出四點建議：第一、建議探討購屋者住宅負擔時，除房價與所得外，擁屋也為重要資金來源，應一併列入考量，而政府公布住宅負擔指標時，除以總體房價所得比評估各縣市的住宅負擔情況外，也應針對不同族群(如租屋者、首購者、擁屋者等)分析住宅負擔風險，才能更有效評估社會上購屋者實際住宅負擔，分析住宅負擔問題。第二、房地產兼具投資與自住雙重性，探討住宅負擔問題時應針對自住者進行分析，才能更精準評估實際情況，探討社會上實際之住宅負擔問題，因此學術探討時應試著排除購屋目的為投資之購屋者，並針對購屋自住之購屋者進行分析，才能有效評估實際住宅負擔情形，而政府分析其住宅負擔指標時，也應一併考量社會投資風氣因素，針對投資情況進行控管，了解投資與自住比例，避免因投資者過度投資炒作房價，造成自住者承擔沉重的住宅負擔，產生住宅負擔問題。\n第三、政府應建構更為健全的住宅需求面資訊，提供租屋者、購屋者不同面向的資訊分析，減少市場上假新聞或錯誤資訊的影響，且能豐富住宅市場分析資訊，降低各類購屋者因資訊不對等造成的含淚購屋(或租屋)之風險，也有助於相關學術研究的推展。第四、高房價或高房價所得比背後並不能代表高住宅負擔，分析住宅負擔問題時應考量不同區域的購屋門檻，政府應針對不同地區房價與所得適配性提供協助。學術面向於後續探討時，除了聚焦高房價與高房價所得比所產生的住宅負擔問題外，或可進一步探討如何引導不同類購屋者評估自身能力，以購置(或租用)符合能力的住宅產品；政策面向，政府擬定高住宅負擔問題相關政策時，不論高低房價都可能產生住宅負擔問題，應針對不同地區購買者擬定協助方案，除了降低首購者的利息負擔外，更應思考如何利用需求面向資訊，引導不同類所得者購買(租用)到合適的住宅，使得各得其所。

In recent years, the continual increase of house prices in Taiwan has received substantial attention regarding the affordability of houses and associated problems. This study explores housing affordability by using subjective and objective indices to comprehensively discuss topics related to the house price to income ratio, financial burden of house buyers, and house price rationality from societal and individual perspectives. The goal is to clarify the four myths of low housing affordability. Specifically, this study explores (1) whether a high house price to income ratio indicates low housing affordability; (2) the effect of high house prices and low incomes on individuals’ assets (number of houses owned); (3) why house purchasers still buy houses despite perceiving house prices to be unreasonable; and (4) whether the problem of low housing affordability really exists. This study employs the least square method, quantile regression, binary logit modeling, and multinomial logit modeling to acquire the following results. First, a high house price to income ratio does not simply indicate low housing affordability; the high ratio might be attributable to the high-leverage practice of investors. Consequently, using median or mean house prices to explore housing affordability might be inadequate despite the prevalence of this approach in foreign and domestic research. Second, when using the house price to income ratio to discuss housing affordability, house purchasers’ assets (number of houses owned) and perception of house price rationality should be considered. High house prices or high house price to income ratios do not necessarily indicate low housing affordability. Third, because of factors such as their expectation of house prices, housing needs, and herd behavior, house purchasers still buy houses even though they perceive house prices to unreasonable. Finally, the problem of low housing affordability exists, but relevant subjective and objective factors exert different effects on housing affordability. Housing affordability indices should account for factors such as hidden wealth and house purchasers’ subjective opinions to comprehensively assess purchasers’ ability to afford houses.\nProblems concerning low housing affordability have mostly been evaluated using objective indices such as house prices, incomes, house price to income ratios, and mortgage rates, and relevant suggestions for policy implementation are proposed accordingly. However, scholars have rarely explored the myths behind low housing affordability. According to the study results, four recommendations are proposed. First, to effectively explore housing affordability and identify relevant problems, scholars should consider not only house prices and incomes but also the number of houses owned, which is an essential indicator of cash sources. Second, investor-related factors should be excluded when examining problems related to housing affordability to effectively reflect the actual problems encountered by buyers with housing needs. Governments should regulate housing investment to prevent excessive real estate investment from reducing housing affordability. Third, governments should establish housing information platforms to reduce information asymmetry between buyers and sellers and alleviate buyers’ risk of purchasing overpriced houses. Finally, high house prices and house price to income ratios cannot directly indicate low house affordability. Governments should implement support measures for house buyers according to local house prices and guide house buyers to evaluate their consumption ability and purchase (or lease) affordable housing products.