Are you ready for 7 million people on tiny Singapore?
-
From your reply, I can safely assume that you are either not a businessman or not in a business where GST rebate can be subjective because their business deal with both end-consumers and intermediate products. The difference is that 1 is entitled to GST rebate while the other is not. Businessmen are not sure whether they can successfully claim back the GST rebate, hence they priced with the assumption they can't, and if they do, it is an extra profit for them because of the additional paperwork and justifications etc required to claim the GST rebate. I can't believe that the ignorant think that they are so smart to call others rubbish. :yikes:
3Boys:
Now that I've read this again, I can't believe this rubbish you are trying to pass off as fact. Is there not a GST offset you can use?JannettLee:
Whoever is running a business in Singapore will know that 7% GST is added for every changing-hand and hence there are a few times (changing hands) of 7% GST are compounded and factored into the costs and they price their goods accordingly. Consumer would have to foot the bill.
Do you really know what you are talking about? -
3Boys:
No you can't.
Sweden is a monarchy of a few centuries standing, Volvo is older than Singapore, they are located in a high cost, high education region.
Their situation is absolutely not comparable to Singapore.
Agriculture based industries contribute up to 6% of GDP or more, if you count things like paper products. Mining and related industries contributes a further 3%, conservatively.
Is this something Singapore can do?
This drives other industries like machine tools, vehicles, trucks, tractors. Can we do these also? Of course, but it's a natural win for them, they have a home market to sell to, we don't.
According to statistical figures, foreign born inhabitants in Sweden number just over 14% in 2010. There are 120,000 Iraqis in Sweden, 60,000 Iranians. In 2011, 1.4 million Swedish residents were born abroad. Not a trivial figure, is it? Hardly a closed society that you would make it out to be.
How about insulation from foreign competition?
Pray tell, what has happened to Saab? Who now owns Volvo cars? (Hint, an Asian company). Just because you think you can shut your economy to foreigners doesn't mean they can't trounce you worldwide and bankrupt you.
Plenty of lessons from Sweden, unfortunately you and others are learning all the wrong ones.
A quick check does shows that agriculture just make up 2% of their GDP. Industry 27% and services makes up 70% of the GDP. It is indeed very similar to Singapore. One just need to ask : how can a developed nation be heavily dependent on agriculture?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden
On population. I am afraid that no matter how you want to argue, Singapore is still way ahead of Sweden in dependency on both immigration and foreign workers.
Net immigration rate for Sweden: 1.65 /1000
Net immigration rate for Singapore: 9.12/1000
Just compare yourselves
Total population of Sweden increase from 8.3 millions in the 80s to 9.3 millions in 2010.
In contrast, Singapore takes less than 20 years to increase population from 3 millions to 5.3 millions.
It appears that you are cherry picking certain numbers to make your point but avoid others which show the big picture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Sweden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Singapore -
JannettLee:
Because as one would diversify streams of income, so should a government diversify it sources of tax dollars. Over reliance on any single stream can lead to unexpected shortfalls and can result in distortions in the economy. Taxing consumption is a legitimate and proven tool, not only in this country but in many progressive nations as well. If we did NOT have GST, and instead taxed on income ONLY, then the question MUST be asked, WHY are we out of step with the rest of the world? If that were the only tax, what happens in a down year if a small number of very high earners decide to leave the country (due to high taxes) and suddenly we have a shortfall of receipts? Then what?In the past, there is not GST but higher income tax % for the top-tier income. The top tier income tax had been reduced from 25% to 20% and hence there is a need for GST. So why you are saying as though no GST means got problem? Instead, shouldn't we ask why implement GST and reduce top tier income tax? :roll:
3Boys:
False.
How much does the g'ment give back in GST rebates?
How much healthcare subsidies are in place for lower income, funded from taxes (inclusing GST)?
How much school subsidies are funded from taxes (including GST)?
Do you not benefit from the defence umbrella funded by taxes (including GST)?
This whole falsehood about GST not benefiting the common Singaporean, wait till you don't have it, then you'll see.
Imagine a household with an annual income of 30,000 versus a household with an annual income of 300,000. Lets say the both spend every single dollar. The tax value of having spent $30,000 is approx $2100, whereas the tax value having spent $300,000 is approx $21,000.
If the government then returns GST rebates worth say $1500 (Cash/Medisave/U-Save) per eligible households (those with high value homes need not apply), then how much are they out of pocket?
http://www.gstvoucher.gov.sg/top-10-things-on-the-gst-voucher.html
If measures are put in place that the less well off are MORE THAN adequately compensated for the GST, what's the issue with having a GST?
I really don't understand your logic. -
WeiHan:
Err.....I've been saying all along that Sweden is different from Singapore, but you say they are the same (and the reasons I've raised you have conveniently ignored). No economist in their right minds would suggest that Singapore share the same economic model.
It appears that you are cherry picking certain numbers to make your point but avoid others which show the big picture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Sweden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Singapore
If our reference point is different, why would our interpretations be the same?
The point I make is that Sweden ALSO has a highish immigrant population. It's not as high as Singapore, but it is not 5%, or 8%, its almost 15%.
What is the right number for Singapore. I wouldn't be arrogant enough to suggest one, because its a complex issue with complex ramifications, and no, we are NOT Sweden.
How about Norway and Finland, since you accuse me of cherry picking..... -
3Boys:
The point is why don't Sweden resort to massive population import like Singapore if it is such an easy solution to stagnant growth and aging population. Like what you said, they have so much land. I am quite sure they won't have crowded issues like ours (which is one of the main complaint) if they use the same solution but yet they do not use it as a solution to such an extreme like us.
Err.....I've been saying all along that Sweden is different from Singapore, but you say they are the same (and the reasons I've raised you have conveniently ignored). No economist in their right minds would suggest that Singapore share the same economic model.WeiHan:
It appears that you are cherry picking certain numbers to make your point but avoid others which show the big picture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Sweden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Singapore
If our reference point is different, why would our interpretations be the same?
The point I make is that Sweden ALSO has a highish immigrant population. It's not as high as Singapore, but it is not 5%, or 8%, its almost 15%.
What is the right number for Singapore. I wouldn't be arrogant enough to suggest one, because its a complex issue with complex ramifications, and no, we are NOT Sweden.
How about Norway and Finland, since you accuse me of cherry picking.....
Finland and Norway, both don't use population increase to get an easy solution out of their slow growth. -
JannettLee:
[/quote]I am fully aware of the scenario you are painting. However, I take exception to you not caveating it as such and applying it wholesale as a universal situation in Singapore, when it is far from being the case.From your reply, I can safely assume that you are either not a businessman or not in a business where GST rebate can be subjective because their business deal with both end-consumers and intermediate products. The difference is that 1 is entitled to GST rebate while the other is not. Businessmen are not sure whether they can successfully claim back the GST rebate, hence they priced with the assumption they can't, and if they do, it is an extra profit for them because of the additional paperwork and justifications etc required to claim the GST rebate. I can't believe that the ignorant think that they are so smart to call others rubbish. :yikes:
Now that I've read this again, I can't believe this rubbish you are trying to pass off as fact. Is there not a GST offset you can use?3Boys:
[quote=\"JannettLee\"]Whoever is running a business in Singapore will know that 7% GST is added for every changing-hand and hence there are a few times (changing hands) of 7% GST are compounded and factored into the costs and they price their goods accordingly. Consumer would have to foot the bill.
Do you really know what you are talking about?
At best, you had made yourself out to be ignorant, at worst, you are being deliberately disingenuous just to make a point.
Since you are doing business, then I assume you are cognizant of the concept of competition yes? If one company does taxes better then another company, and therefore can charge lower prices, don't you think the lesser company is not going to be in business very long?
Further, if GST is he main driver of the cost of goods in Singapore, then theoretically, the cost of living in any country MUST be directly related to the GST or VAT, yes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added_tax
In which case the cost of living should be higher in Ghana than in Japan. It should cost more to live in Mexico than Switzerland. -
You bring up something very interesting and often overlooked. Now, come to think of it, who benefits from GST implementation?
It seems that the only beneficiary of GST implementation and top-tier income tax cut is the rich, since their income tax cut from 25% to 20%.
Now, you argue that the rich will pay more for GST, really? You assumed that if the rich earns $300k, they will spend $300k and pay $21k GST?
Ok, let's say the rich earn $1m a year. He saved $50k tax from income tax cut from 25% to 20%. In fact, the rich will never be able to fully spend what they earn, so let's say they only spend $240k a year on living expenses (which is already $20k per month and is quite a lot!). For $240k expenditure they now need to pay extra $16.8k for 7% GST. Now, isn't it obvious that the rich saved $50k income tax and get hit with only $16.8k GST tax and they are the biggest beneficiary?
Next you say \"govt returns GST rebates worth say $1500 (Cash/Medisave/U-Save) per eligible households (those with high value homes need not apply), then how much are they out of pocket?\". You further stated that \"If measures are put in place that the less well off are MORE THAN adequately compensated for the GST, what's the issue with having a GST?\".
Ok, then Can you tell us:
1) how many families benefited from the GST rebate?
2) Is this rebate given every year for eternity as long as GST is present?
3) What income level below which the family is eligible?
It seems that only the lowest income quintile of the people probably adequately compensated for the GST, but majority of lower and middle and upper-middle income families are worst off with GST because they don't benefit from income tax reduction, they don't get GST rebate every year for eternity, but they get hit with GST for eternity. Need I say more?3Boys:
Because as one would diversify streams of income, so should a government diversify it sources of tax dollars. Over reliance on any single stream can lead to unexpected shortfalls and can result in distortions in the economy. Taxing consumption is a legitimate and proven tool, not only in this country but in many progressive nations as well. If we did NOT have GST, and instead taxed on income ONLY, then the question MUST be asked, WHY are we out of step with the rest of the world? If that were the only tax, what happens in a down year if a small number of very high earners decide to leave the country (due to high taxes) and suddenly we have a shortfall of receipts? Then what?JannettLee:
In the past, there is not GST but higher income tax % for the top-tier income. The top tier income tax had been reduced from 25% to 20% and hence there is a need for GST. So why you are saying as though no GST means got problem? Instead, shouldn't we ask why implement GST and reduce top tier income tax? :roll:
[quote=\"3Boys\"]
False.
How much does the g'ment give back in GST rebates?
How much healthcare subsidies are in place for lower income, funded from taxes (inclusing GST)?
How much school subsidies are funded from taxes (including GST)?
Do you not benefit from the defence umbrella funded by taxes (including GST)?
This whole falsehood about GST not benefiting the common Singaporean, wait till you don't have it, then you'll see.
Imagine a household with an annual income of 30,000 versus a household with an annual income of 300,000. Lets say the both spend every single dollar. The tax value of having spent $30,000 is approx $2100, whereas the tax value having spent $300,000 is approx $21,000.
If the government then returns GST rebates worth say $1500 (Cash/Medisave/U-Save) per eligible households (those with high value homes need not apply), then how much are they out of pocket?
http://www.gstvoucher.gov.sg/top-10-things-on-the-gst-voucher.html
If measures are put in place that the less well off are MORE THAN adequately compensated for the GST, what's the issue with having a GST?
I really don't understand your logic.[/quote] -
WeiHan:
The point is why don't Sweden resort to massive population import like Singapore if it is such an easy solution to stagnant growth and aging population. Like what you said, they have so much land. I am quite sure they won't have crowded issues like ours (which is one of the main complaint) if they use the same solution but yet they do not use it as a solution to such an extreme like us.
Err.....I've been saying all along that Sweden is different from Singapore, but you say they are the same (and the reasons I've raised you have conveniently ignored). No economist in their right minds would suggest that Singapore share the same economic model.3Boys:
[quote=\"WeiHan\"]
It appears that you are cherry picking certain numbers to make your point but avoid others which show the big picture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Sweden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Singapore
If our reference point is different, why would our interpretations be the same?
The point I make is that Sweden ALSO has a highish immigrant population. It's not as high as Singapore, but it is not 5%, or 8%, its almost 15%.
What is the right number for Singapore. I wouldn't be arrogant enough to suggest one, because its a complex issue with complex ramifications, and no, we are NOT Sweden.
How about Norway and Finland, since you accuse me of cherry picking.....
Finland and Norway, both don't use population increase to get an easy solution out of their slow growth.[/quote]I was pointing out that Finland and Norway are also different from Singapore. Thank you for concurring. -
Well, I can only say that the ignorant is trying to call others \"ignorant\". :roll:
Companies don't get out of business immediately. When 1 company starts passing down the additional GST to consumers without closing shop first, and seems to be able to get way with it, all the other companies will start to do the same. That is what I can tell you. Anything more will be our business secrets. :siam:
And as I say, we can't just compare GSTs / VAT of different countries just based on the %. We need to know what are actually GST/VAT-applicable. On the surface, Singapore's GST of 7% is low compared to other countries eg UK VAT, but UK doesn't tax for basic food necessities, medicines, childrens' products etc! If we consider that a person needs only basic food necessities and medicine, then the person will pay higher GST taxes with Singapore's 7% GST vs UK's 20% VAT! So it is obvious that the ignorant is talking wildly here.JannettLee:
[/quote]From your reply, I can safely assume that you are either not a businessman or not in a business where GST rebate can be subjective because their business deal with both end-consumers and intermediate products. The difference is that 1 is entitled to GST rebate while the other is not. Businessmen are not sure whether they can successfully claim back the GST rebate, hence they priced with the assumption they can't, and if they do, it is an extra profit for them because of the additional paperwork and justifications etc required to claim the GST rebate. I can't believe that the ignorant think that they are so smart to call others rubbish. :yikes:
Now that I've read this again, I can't believe this rubbish you are trying to pass off as fact. Is there not a GST offset you can use?3Boys:
[quote=\"JannettLee\"]Whoever is running a business in Singapore will know that 7% GST is added for every changing-hand and hence there are a few times (changing hands) of 7% GST are compounded and factored into the costs and they price their goods accordingly. Consumer would have to foot the bill.
Do you really know what you are talking about?3Boys:
I am fully aware of the scenario you are painting. However, I take exception to you not caveating it as such and applying it wholesale as a universal situation in Singapore, when it is far from being the case.
At best, you had made yourself out to be ignorant, at worst, you are being deliberately disingenuous just to make a point.
Since you are doing business, then I assume you are cognizant of the concept of competition yes? If one company does taxes better then another company, and therefore can charge lower prices, don't you think the lesser company is not going to be in business very long?
Further, if GST is he main driver of the cost of goods in Singapore, then theoretically, the cost of living in any country MUST be directly related to the GST or VAT, yes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added_tax
In which case the cost of living should be higher in Ghana than in Japan. It should cost more to live in Mexico than Switzerland. -
JannettLee:
It's a joke how you distort the scenario just to suit your worldview. Yeah, the rich only spend 240K of a 1 million income. What do they do with the rest? Stick in a savings account earning 0.1% p.a.?You bring up something very interesting and often overlooked. Now, come to think of it, who benefits from GST implementation?
It seems that the only beneficiary of GST implementation and top-tier income tax cut is the rich, since their income tax cut from 25% to 20%.
Now, you argue that the rich will pay more for GST, really? You assumed that if the rich earns $300k, they will spend $300k and pay $21k GST?
Ok, let's say the rich earn $1m a year. He saved $50k tax from income tax cut from 25% to 20%. In fact, the rich will never be able to fully spend what they earn, so let's say they only spend $240k a year on living expenses (which is already $20k per month and is quite a lot!). For $240k expenditure they now need to pay extra $16.8k for 7% GST. Now, isn't it obvious that the rich saved $50k income tax and get hit with only $16.8k GST tax and they are the biggest beneficiary?
Next you say \"govt returns GST rebates worth say $1500 (Cash/Medisave/U-Save) per eligible households (those with high value homes need not apply), then how much are they out of pocket?\". You further stated that \"If measures are put in place that the less well off are MORE THAN adequately compensated for the GST, what's the issue with having a GST?\".
Ok, then Can you tell us:
1) how many families benefited from the GST rebate?
2) Is this rebate given every year for eternity as long as GST is present?
3) What income level below which the family is eligible?
It seems that only the lowest income quintile of the people probably adequately compensated for the GST, but majority of lower and middle and upper-middle income families are worst off with GST because they don't benefit from income tax reduction, they don't get GST rebate every year for eternity, but they get hit with GST for eternity. Need I say more?
Investments in stocks, properties and profits/income derived thereof are all taxable, and if they are on top of your income, they are taxable at the top rate.
The rest of your questions you can go and do the research yourself, but lets just say they are airy-fairy emotional statements. \"The middle income don't benefit from income tax reductions\".....Oh puhleez....You can go work out your sliding scale, and at some point, middle income crosses over to high income, and then jolly well pull your weight in taxes.
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 š
Register Login
