Are you ready for 7 million people on tiny Singapore?

[xfx]

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.

[Just relax]

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

[JannettLee]

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:

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.

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:

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)! If not? what is your reason? :skeptical: :rotflmao:[/quote]

[JannettLee]

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

[JannettLee]

Just relax:

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

I am shock to read that you don't even know I am referring to Singapore. :yikes: Which other country has implement IP program in their public education system?

[JannettLee]

In summary, why we are in this current situation - high cost of living today?

It is the consequences of Gahman’s policies all these years.
1) GST
2) Commercial & industrial properties prices and hence rental escalation
3) Transportation cost

[3Boys]

JannettLee:

In summary, why we are in this current situation - high cost of living today?

It is the consequences of Gahman's policies all these years.
1) GST
2) Commercial & industrial properties prices and hence rental escalation
3) Transportation cost

And what's your solution, keeping in mind balance of payments, need to control car population, and free market economy?

Throw stones very easy hor....

[3Boys]

Irrelevant:

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.

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:

Crazy isn't it.

Imagine such opposition supporters driving future government policies and bringing ruin.

[Just relax]

JannettLee:

Just relax:

[quote=\"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

I am shock to read that you don't even know I am referring to Singapore. :yikes: Which other country has implement IP program in their public education system?[/quote]What I am puzzled is your reference to the IP prog being a source of stress which is not what it is at all. So that is why I ask why is this relevant to Singapore or are u even talking about Singapore at all. Even when good programs are introduced fairy tales come out about it being stressful or bad :skeptical:

And by the way the UK govt. in 2011 has acknowledged that they have been examining the IP prog. from Singapore and plan to introduce a version of the IP prog in the UK system as well. (source UK Times Educational Supplement Mar 2011)

They see the merits but unlike Singapore there are vested interests in the UK that are trying to stop a program that can only benefit the brighter student without depriving the average student of the opportunity to study as far as possible. These vested interests have the \"dog in the manger\" attitude and are perfectly happy with the status quo where everything remains equally bad, as then everybody is equally badly affected. That unfortunately is what the critics of the IP prog in Singapore are trying to do as well.

[3Boys]

Irrelevant:

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.

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:

Crazy isn't it.

Imagine such opposition supporters driving future government policies and bringing ruin.