Are you ready for 7 million people on tiny Singapore?
-
WeiHan:
Having read your explanation, I have to still disagree with you. Let me deal with your 1st point. I still do not see any concrete basis or evidence that suggests an open social atmosphere results in greater creativity. The soviet union under the communists and Russia under the Tsars were not bastions of an open social atmosphere but produced great technological advances including sending the 1st man into space ahead of the much vaunted US democratic machinery. The subsequent supremacy of the US was due to the inherent inefficiencies of the Soviet era economy and its subsequent crumbling thus preventing the Soviets from capitalizing on their innovations due to the lack of financial resources.
Firstly, I did not equate voting for opposition as allowing for greater creativity. You get me wrong. What I meant was a more open social atmosphere.
All advances in the west did not come about during the dark age when people and idea was oppressed. Note that I am saying that we are oppressed under PAP and need an opposition party.
As for the three examples of North Korea, Iran and China you quoted above. North Korea and Iran has part of the technology from former soviet scientists. China hasn't has alot of technological advances relative to an economy size that we should expected. Even the space technology has critical component technologies that they somehow gotten from German chinese scientists that have worked in Germany for many years. many of their \"advances\" violate copyrights. Besides, one or two technological pinnacle is not sufficient to prove that widespread creativity is present in their society. Alots of creativity including areas of technologies, management, business practice is required to lift the living standard of people once a saturation is reached.
You also already acknowledge that both N Korea and Iran relied on early Soviet technology but then fail to see that the N Koreans and Iranians taking the old Soviet technologies of the 70s and 80s much further. The Soviets would not have been foolish enough to give their most advanced technologies to the Iranians or N Koreans anyway. Yet both these countries with zero open social atmospheres have joined the exclusive nuclear club and exclusive ICBM club. It is a big deal to join these clubs since it requires innovation and expertise in the sciences that most countries including countries with open social atmospheres lack.
I now take umbrage and issue with you suggesting that we Singaporeans are oppressed. It is one thing to criticize govt. policy (which is fair game) but it is quite another to insult the intelligence and integrity of Singaporeans. A person's faith in his Govt. does not equate with him being oppressed and certainly I have never bought into the mindless and silly rhetoric of some opposition parties that we Singaporeans have been deprived of our human rights. It is such insulting and condescending talk by some opposition parties that make me count my blessings that the Singaporean forefathers were not swayed by such sweet snake-oil salesmen opposition talk but believed instead in the democratic ideals set out in our national pledge. That you have to work hard and regardless of race, language or religion, you will succeed.
The western democracies you seem to equate with an open social atmosphere were in the main homogenous white societies, as even in the purported oldest democracy (which the US always claims itself to be) the non-whites (not only blacks but any people of colour such as native Americans) were systematically oppressed. The initial democratic ideals of the whites only democracies were ill suited to the Asian traditions practiced by the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Indians and people of the Malay archipelago.
The Singapore pledge blended the ideals of East and West and that is what Singapore has stood for and has shown. The man who crafted the Singapore pledge was born in Malaysia and sent to the UK to study. He listened and accepted some of the western ideals that were being spoken about so passionately when he was abroad. But he was still an Asian and realised that when crafting the pledge he had to create a SINGAPORE pledge. So please save the ridiculous rhetoric of \"PAP oppression\" for people who still believe in the glib tongue of the snake-oil salesman. They will believe anything you want to say. -
JannettLee:
Amazing! 20 years after GST has been implemented, folks still do not understand the raison d'être behind a consumption tax, as opposed to an income tax. :roll:
I know and that's why cost of living is very high for all these countries! There are many ways to generate revenue for governments. If you can't administer GST well, you are incurring high cost of living. This is what we are experiencing the effect of it now and it is a huge burden to majority people here. -
WeiHan:
Hi WeiHan
I'll say that if we we have many creative people that invent and create competitive products that sell to the whole world, many of the problems can be solved. Our problem is partly that we are so beholden to the MNCs, more than Taiwan, Korea etc...
Personally, I do not see any problem with these MNCs. Take Taiwan for example. Their economy is being hollowed out by China. Youth unemployment is at 14%. PPP GDP at <$40,000 is significantly less than Singapore's ($60,000). TFR is lower. Corruption / Bribery highly prevalent in Taiwanese business culture. Singaporeans are angelic in comparison.
Are there more prominent Taiwanese personalities and companies in the world arena than Singapore? Yes
Are Taiwanese more creative than Singaporeans? Looks like it if the quality of TV programs are an appropriate yardstick.
Is Taiwan more democratic than Singapore? I believe so, depending on the kind of benchmarks we use.
Would I want to trade our circumstances for theirs? No.
-
Irrelevant:
The reason for existence is as clear as daylight to generate revenue for government through taxing everybody including the poor and those without income (but still need to live)!
Amazing! 20 years after GST has been implemented, folks still do not understand the raison d'être behind a consumption tax, as opposed to an income tax. :roll:JannettLee:
I know and that's why cost of living is very high for all these countries! There are many ways to generate revenue for governments. If you can't administer GST well, you are incurring high cost of living. This is what we are experiencing the effect of it now and it is a huge burden to majority people here. If not? what is your reason? :skeptical: :rotflmao:
At least Many European/Scandinavian governments have a BIG heart for poor and those without income by waiving VAT for those essential foods and necessities as well as medication. Why Gohman not follow here?
I paid VAT when I was in western world before before I pay GST here in Singapore and knew the differences.
In conclusion, your statement is Irrelevant here.
-
JannettLee:
The reason for existence is as clear as daylight to generate revenue for government through taxing everybody including the poor and those without income (but still need to live)!
Amazing! 20 years after GST has been implemented, folks still do not understand the raison d'être behind a consumption tax, as opposed to an income tax. :roll:Irrelevant:
[quote=\"JannettLee\"]
I know and that's why cost of living is very high for all these countries! There are many ways to generate revenue for governments. If you can't administer GST well, you are incurring high cost of living. This is what we are experiencing the effect of it now and it is a huge burden to majority people here. If not? what is your reason? :skeptical: :rotflmao:[/quote]At the time when GST was 1st mooted there was lobbying that certain essential food items should not have GST because of the poor. Govt. made the promise that GST was essential as a revenue creator so that no. of people paying income tax could be reduced and that Govt. would give GST vouchers to help needy.
To the extent no. of people paying income tax has not increased but has in fact reduced the Govt. has kept to its promise. So there is the raison d'être for Singapore's GST.
Those who complain should look at those countries where GST is >10% and income tax is >30% and where everybody is taxed even when you die! (estate duty tax!), so u pay 3 types of taxes at least. In Singapore everybody pays GST but less than 30%, 20% (???) pay income tax.
Oh btw don't forget many countries have capital gains tax where they tax the profits on the sale of house or shares (Singapore does not have that)
Why do u think so many FTs want to come here? I sometimes wonder why Singaporeans complain so much :siao: -
Every time, the up and coming leader wanted to implement something in the name of reducing stress for students by implementing IP program, cooling property market by CMs and to help the poor by implementing GST (this is a joke!), I am very scare le because he always overlook the consequences of every policy. As a result, create more stressful education system for students here with IP program, incurring more business operating costs and making the unemployed, old, poor and less well to do families’s life worsen.
I knew some have highly regarded him as a person who has foresight but I regarded him as a person who has a lot of oversight instead. -
I have to get ready for a sinking Singapore. Flash flood everywhere, each time it rained for 3 or more hours, is a sign that something is wrong. Taking away the trees and green in Singapore to make way for more buildings to accommodate more people??? I think our forefathers planted the trees and greenery in Singapore is to solve the flooding problems they encountered and now they are making way for buildings.
I remember when I was younger, my teacher will show us the percentage of Singaporeans who are Chinese, Malays, Indians and others when teaching graphs. I have also seen such comparisons in the newspapers in my younger days. Today, I think we will have a chart showing Singaporeans, PR, Foreigners and others. Wonder if government is going to change our pledge or national anthem as well.
I am not sure how many forummers here are true blue Singaporeans who supported the White Paper. However I am pretty sure that a true blue Singaporean who supported the paper are those who has a high paying job and/or have loads of money for rainy days. -
JannettLee:
Every time, the up and coming leader wanted to implement something in the name of reducing stress for students by implementing IP program, cooling property market by CMs and to help the poor by implementing GST (this is a joke!), I am very scare le because he always overlook the consequences of every policy. As a result, create more stressful education system for students here with IP program, incurring more business operating costs and making the unemployed, old, poor and less well to do families's life worsen.
I knew some have highly regarded him as a person who has foresight but I regarded him as a person who has a lot of oversight instead.
I thought this thread is about Singapore :rotflmao: I am not interested in other countries unless it affects Singapore
I know sometimes we like to imagine things are worse than they are, :sad: and that usually happens when people have free time
-
It is very important for me to clarify all the misleading statements you made, as below (in same blue colour):
Just relax:
At the time when GST was 1st mooted there was lobbying that certain essential food items should not have GST because of the poor. Govt. made the promise that GST was essential as a revenue creator so that no. of people paying income tax could be reduced and that Govt. would give GST vouchers to help needy.
Did the govt say they give GST vouchers to the needy only after implementing GST? Are you sure before that they didn't give any vouchers (although not in the name of \"GST vouchers\")? Changed name to \"GST vouchers\" to justify GST? More importantly is how much more benefits they give to the poor after implementing GST? Didn't they try to shoot down the suggestion of additional $30 per month for the needy a few years ago?
And How do you define \"needy\"? I am afraid there are many more who have fallen outside the govt's definition of \"needy\" after being slapped with GST.
I would like to remind you that when GST has been implemented, 1 of the main reason is because they wanted to reduce (and had since reduced) the income tax top bracket from 25% to 18%, and hence reduce the income tax of the high-paying rich and they need to increase revenue from somewhere to make up for the tax revenue collection. In response to critism for reducing the tax of the rich while increasing the tax of the general people and imposing tax on the young, the retirees, the unemployed and the poor, they say they are implementing GST to help the poor. Now that GST has not been increased anymore, so does it mean that the govt has since decided \"not to help the poor\"?
To the extent no. of people paying income tax has not increased but has in fact reduced the Govt. has kept to its promise. So there is the raison d'être for Singapore's GST.
Number of people paying tax has not increased? Oh please don't beat around the bush and try to mislead people. You mean those people who are unemployed, the retirees, the house-wifes and the young ones who are too young to work are not \"people\"? After implementing GST, all of these people need to pay taxes for even drinking water! Remember, GST has been implemented on everything, including water, electricity etc!
Those who complain should look at those countries where GST is >10% and income tax is >30% and where everybody is taxed even when you die! (estate duty tax!), so u pay 3 types of taxes at least. In Singapore everybody pays GST but less than 30%, 20% (???) pay income tax.
Are you ignorant or what? Please compare apple to apple. Let me remind you if you are ignorant that in all those countries where GST is >10% and income tax is >30%, they are entitled to:
1) Medicines, basic food necessities, young children's products are exempted from GST/VAT.
2) For >30% of tax they pay, they are entitled to unemployment benefits and social benefits which they can claim and collect after they retire after certain age. So, the actual tax nett of all these benefits and entitlements are not that high after all.
Oh btw don't forget many countries have capital gains tax where they tax the profits on the sale of house or shares (Singapore does not have that)
So, you are saying that the govt should implement capital gains tax? I have no issue with that if that means taxing the rich more? :boogie:
Why do u think so many FTs want to come here? I sometimes wonder why Singaporeans complain so much :siao:
May be you can tell us why so many FTs want to come here? You mean their main aim of coming to singapore is to contribute to singapore and enrich the singapore citizens and not for themselves?JannettLee:
The reason for existence is as clear as daylight to generate revenue for government through taxing everybody including the poor and those without income (but still need to live)!
Amazing! 20 years after GST has been implemented, folks still do not understand the raison d'être behind a consumption tax, as opposed to an income tax. :roll:Irrelevant:
[quote=\"JannettLee\"]I know and that's why cost of living is very high for all these countries! There are many ways to generate revenue for governments. If you can't administer GST well, you are incurring high cost of living. This is what we are experiencing the effect of it now and it is a huge burden to majority people here.
If not? what is your reason? :skeptical: :rotflmao:[/quote]
-
Below is an article about the ineffectiveness of ABSD because it seems that it is the locals who are still speculating and the super high resale HDB flats causing properties bubble... :yikes:
=========================
ABSD: Are we missing something?
HDB prices are still high, curbs have not damped speculation in other sectors, and foreign investors have value in market
The Business Times - February 6, 2013
By: Ku Swee Yong
DESPITE four sets of cooling measures imposed from 2009 to late 2011, the private residential property price index still rose 5.9 per cent in
2011. In a world flush with cheap credit and incessant money printing by the western nations, Singapore's authorities were concerned that the
\"investment flows into our property market are now larger than before, and unlikely to recede as long as interest rates remain low\". So on Dec 7,
2011, the Additional Buyer Stamp Duty (ABSD) was introduced to \"cool investment demand, and avoid the prospect of a major, destabilising
correction further down the road\".
It has been over a year since this stamp duty was introduced for private residential properties.
Have we stamped out the flows of money into our property market?
A. YES: The proportion of foreigners purchasing private residences (excluding landed properties and Executive Condominiums (ECs)) fell from an
average of 19.4 per cent during the 12-month period of Jan-Dec 2011 to 7.1 per cent in the subsequent 12 months. In absolute terms, foreigners
purchased 2,053 private residences in 2012, a drop of 62 per cent from the 5,480 units clocked in 2011. Obviously the ABSD was a successful
deterrent in shutting out foreign interests in Singapore's residences.
B. NO: Developers' sales of private residences set a record high of 22,197 units in 2012. New records were also achieved for prices of mass market
condominiums and ECs. The private residential price index continued its ascent, gaining 2.8 per cent in 2012. This was backed by the strong price
increase of 6.5 per cent in Outside Central Region (OCR) which was in turn supported by the northward march of HDB resale prices, up 6.6 per cent.
C. NO: Recall the long lines of blank cheques queuing at commercial and industrial property launches. All five rounds of property cooling measures
were aimed at cooling the residential segment but the the strata industrial and office segments were left alone to boil over. New launch strata
industrial properties have crossed S$1,000 psf with an expected rental yield of 2-3 per cent, on par with freehold luxury residences.
D. NO: We needed round six of cooling measures in October 2012 to restrict borrowing limits for residential properties. But that did not prevent
new record prices from being set even in the supposedly sandwiched segment of ECs at the end of 2012.
E. Still NO: Now that Japan has joined the money printing frenzy to stimulate its economy to achieve positive real inflation, we needed round
seven of cooling measures on Jan 12, 2013. Investors are further penalised upfront through higher ABSD, stiffer requirements on CPF versus cash
equity, mortgages and lending limits, and for once outside of the residential segment, a curb on speculation in the industrial segment through a
three-year Seller Stamp Duty (SSD).
Where is the money flowing from?
Singaporeans purchased 25,081 private residences in 2012, a rise of 18.9 per cent from the 21,101 units in 2011. These numbers include landed
residences and exclude ECs but we know both EC launches and HDB BTOs volumes were at record highs last year. These numbers should put to rest the
finger pointing on foreigners and their hot money flow destabilising Singaporeans' home values. However, this calls into question why the latest
set of cooling measures are even tougher on foreigners.
The January 2013 measures punish foreigners more with ABSD increased to 15 per cent. Why so when their numbers are already down? It seems
counter-intuitive to further consider that the 2013 Population White Paper pointed to a need for more foreigners and PRs as we grow Singapore
towards a target population of 6.5-6.9 million by 2030. We want foreigners and PRs to assist us in sustaining economic growth of 2-3 per cent per
annum up till year 2030, but on another hand, we make it exorbitant for foreigners to own their own homes.
Are we missing something here?
I am not completely clear about the rationale behind the cooling measures.
If the cooling measures are purely to safeguard the residential segment and protect the home values of Singaporeans, then why did we not start at
the bottom?
First, cool the growth of HDB resale prices.
It is difficult to rein in the price growth of private residences when HDB upgraders feel that their HDB asset values are climbing faster than
private home prices. The HDB resale market remains tight despite three years of record breaking new supply of more than 20,000 BTOs per year.
Unless we can construct the BTOs quickly, the waiting time of three to four years is simply too long for young families that require their own
homes. Some HDB owners affected by SERS (Selective Enbloc Relocation Scheme) may choose to purchase resale flats for immediate relocation.
However, to prevent speculative and frequent trading of HDB flats, the recent measures on HDB ownership, borrowing limits and increased Minimum
Occupation Periods has caused the pool of resale flats to shrink. Tightening the noose even more is HDB's sub-letting policy which further
diminishes the resale pool. Every quarter over the last six years the number of flats with approvals for subletting has been increasing.
In the fourth quarter of 2012, the number stood at 43,508, almost 5 per cent of the total stock of about 917,000. Two years ago, in fourth quarter
of 2010, the total was 35,000 flats, representing a 24 per cent increase. However, when compared to the 17,400 flats with approval for subletting
in fourth quarter 2007, the increase is a whopping 150 per cent over five years.
Surely the more HDB flats are approved for subletting, the less resale units would be available in the market, thereby pushing up Cash over
Valuations (CoVs). More Singaporeans now view HDB flats as investment assets. Until the valuation of the 917,000 HDB flats stops increasing, there
will always be upward pressure on the valuation of the 278,000 private residences.
Another objective of the cooling measures that I find confusing is the concern about the inflow of foreign hot money into Singapore's real estate.
If there were real risks of large inflows of foreign hot money, why did we not apply the anti-speculation measure such as SSD and ABSD to all
property segments, including office, shops, hotels, etc? And now that foreigners' purchases of private residences are reduced, why is the ABSD
increased instead?
Are the authorities similarly concerned about foreign hot money scooping up overpriced emerging market perpetual bonds with 60 per cent or even 80
per cent leverage in Singapore? Would we see anti-speculation measures in the bonds and equities markets then?
Unintended consequence
At the luxury end of the market where freehold residences such as Ardmore Park yield 2 per cent per annum, a foreigner would rather pay eight
years of rental than to fork out the 15 per cent ABSD and 3 per cent (minus $5,400) normal stamp duty upfront. A $10 million apartment in Ardmore
Park will cost close to $1.8 million in total stamp duties at purchase, so why not pay the $17,000 per month rental over the next 96 months?
We can therefore expect more foreigners to stay on the sidelines of the Singapore property scene. However, after a while we might just become
unattractive to foreign investors. Foreigners will leave the sidelines as their home markets become more attractive and profitable to invest in.
This is certainly how Indonesian and Filipino investors view the Jakarta and Manila real estate markets respectively: better capital upside
potential than Singapore.
The luxury residential segment in the doldrums, prices in the Core Central Region (CCR) rose by only 0.8 per cent in 2012. With an overhang of
completed stock that remains unsold in the CCR, developers have little incentive to invest in building high quality and well anointed bespoke
homes if they cannot be sold at a reasonable pace. With an average of two property curbs per year and the harsh measures on foreign buyers, will
Singapore lose its sparkle in the eyes of foreign high net worth families?
Where do we go from here?
I believe the public would accept a moderate population growth and if we took the low end of the Population White Paper 2013, we might expect
total population to be 6.5 million in the year 2030. Accounting for emigration, mortality and PRs who leave, we would need to continue attracting
up to 100,000 foreigners and PRs every year for the next 17 years.
And life would have to be comfortable for them such that some may consider Singapore their long term home and take up Singapore citizenship. Do
they have to wait till they become Singaporeans before they should purchase their first private home? Do we really fear that the high net worths
who want a home in Singapore are depriving Singaporeans of affordable private residences?
The SSD has effectively taken out the speculative wind in the residential segment. So to prevent foreign elements from disrupting home prices for
Singaporeans, and yet encourage high quality foreign professionals and business owners to set up their homes here in the next decade, we might
tweak the ABSD for foreigners and PRs:
A. For all residences of over $5 million value, cut ABSD to 5 per cent for Singaporeans (second property onwards), foreigners and PRs;
B. For completed residences of over $5 million value which are purchased for own stay (the investor has to register his residential address there
for at least three years), cut ABSD to 3 per cent for Singaporeans (second property onwards), foreigners and PR. A completed property is less of a
speculative investment due to a larger proportion who buy for immediate own use and also due to payment requirements.
From Table 1, we see that Singaporeans account for only about 150 units of non-landed residences of above $5 million value. Many Singaporeans with
that budget prefer to look at landed properties. There is no risk that foreigners and PRs will deprive Singaporeans of homes at the $5 million
category. Therefore a reduction of ABSD will let Singapore attract foreigners and PRs to drop anchor here. And with such a large commitment, it is
more likely to be for the long term.
The government's coffers are not short of money. Therefore the imposition of higher taxes to cool the property market should not be overdone. If
further cooling measures were needed, perhaps in the other property segments or even in the bonds and equities markets, I rather prefer the
introduction of non-monetary and non-tax restrictions such as higher cash components and reduced loan tenures. However, we need to be mindful that
an overcooled market may turn foreign investors away, completely.
The writer is the CEO of real estate agency International Property Advisor Pte Ltd
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login