Is Beijing the exclusive domain of Beijingers or capital of the whole nation?

Can Beijing's developed facilities only be enjoyed exclusively by local residents or should they be equally open to non-natives?

Should non-natives pay more than natives for the same thing they want to have?

Possibly, natives and non-natives, or even those within the same groups, have completely different answers to these questions, and possibly all of them would have their convincing reasons to support their viewpoints from different perspectives.

At the recent session of the Beijing Municipal People's Congress, held early this month, Geng Suling, a deputy from the Chaoyang District, put forward a proposal that a certain amount of so-called "localization tax" be levied upon those non-native home buyers who have stayed for less than two years in the city.

"Public facilities in Beijing were built by the fund contributed by local taxpayers. When non-locals purchase a property in the city, which will give them access to many well-developed facilities of the city, they should fulfil obligations as taxpayers," she was quoted by the media as saying.

She added the proposal was mainly aimed at curbing Beijing's commercial housing prices and stabilizing its property market by restricting demand from swarming non-Beijingers, especially property speculators.

Geng's explanations seem plausible but cannot actually hold water.

It is true that the commercial housing prices in Beijing have been far beyond the purchasing power of the city's ordinary residents.

It is also true that some non-native speculators have contributed to the ever-mounting house bubble.

How to curb, or even lower, the prohibitive prices of commercial houses in Beijing and other major cities has been a big concern for local decision-makers in recent years. And different local authorities have enacted or are brewing plans to deal with the problem.

The central authorities have also shown unprecedented concern about the overblown property market and taken a series of measures in attempts to cool it down.

Policy researchers, scholars, experts, and government officials have also aired views and given advice.

While people with different backgrounds may offer varied solutions, no policy suggestions or measures should be made to discriminate against a certain group of people and abet local protectionism.

Obviously, Geng's proposal is not in agreement with relevant state regulations that cherish equality.

According to rules of the market economy, commercial housing, like other commodities, should be sold to all consumers at the same prices. Moreover, levying extra tax on a certain group of people does not agree with the country's current taxation system.

Bai Jingming, a policy researcher with the Ministry of Finance, said  taxation power is in the hands of the central government and there is no possibility that the government will set up a new taxation category against a certain social phenomenon.

Although Geng argues that the capital's well-developed facilities are founded upon the money from local residents, this is not a solid fact.

Beijing is by no means a Beijing of Beijingers.

It is the capital of this nation, which, as a whole, has contributed enormously to the development of the city.

Beijing's current prosperity would not have become possible without years of contributions from people across the country, Beijing natives or otherwise.