Are you ready for 7 million people on tiny Singapore?
-
Thanks for reminding me that the rich also have \"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.\".
Since top-tier income tax rate has been cut by 5%, the rich saves even more money from the income tax rate cut while they pay ZERO additional GST (since GST is not applicable to these investments' income).3Boys:
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.?JannettLee:
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. -
JannettLee:
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.
Ha Ha! It's really funny seeing you twist yourself in knots
First you say GST drives prices up by 'compounding' effect, now you say companies are profiteering because they pass the cost on to consumers in the anticipation that they can't claim a GST offset, and then make a windfall if they actually do! Further, there is actually collusion amongst various companies to defraud the consumer by jacking up prices when there was no need to do so.
Then you deflect the point by citing the UK exemption for certain categories of essential goods, forgetting that in the prior post you just AGREED with me that the lower quintile (those living only on basic necessities) in Singapore probably get back more in rebates than what they spend on GST.
What's the next twist in your tale? -
3Boys:
Finland isn't much different from Sweden in economy composition.
I was pointing out that Finland and Norway are also different from Singapore. Thank you for concurring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Finland
Norway may be slightly different from the other two since they have oil and natural gas from the North Sea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Norway
My main point is that all these countries do not resort to population import to prop up their GDP numbers. Can anyone imagine they start getting cheap foreign workers to replace their own native fisheries workers? Their bipartisan politics won't allow it and that is why they have taken the painful path of restructuring their manufacturing sector such that it constitutes more than 50% of their GDP since 90s. -
WeiHan:
Plenty of countries don't, and plenty of countries do.
Finland isn't much different from Sweden in economy composition.3Boys:
I was pointing out that Finland and Norway are also different from Singapore. Thank you for concurring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Finland
Norway may be slightly different from the other two since they have oil and natural gas from the North Sea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Norway
My main point is that all these countries do not resort to population import to prop up their GDP numbers.
I'm not saying we resort to wholesale import of foreign workers, but lets open our eyes to different solutions and not worship at the feet of the Scandinavian model blindly. -
If you insist on twisting facts and even what I said, please continue. People have eyes to see and read what I have written and what you have written. Your insistent twisting of facts assuming that all the others are ignorant fools will get you no where and is a tarnish of your reputation here, or rather you have no reputation to speak of?
I have no time to point out all the facts you twisted, just to highlight 1 will do to demonstrate that facts have been twisted, and I have been quoted as saying things I never did, e.g. is it my aim to show that the lowest quintile get back or did not get back more in rebates than what they spend on GST? No I didn't. I have always been saying that GST implementation hits majority of Singaporeans hard, and the fact that GST was implemented because govt wants to concurrently reduce income tax from 25% to 20% only benefits the rich (the top few % only). You are the one who insisted that GST implementation did not hard Singaporeans and cited examples of how GST rebates have benefited most, if not all, Singaporeans. Really? :siao:
Also, Thanks for reminding me that the rich also have \"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.\".
Since top-tier income tax rate has been cut by 5%, the rich saves even more money from the income tax rate cut while they pay ZERO additional GST (since GST is not applicable to these investments' income).3Boys:
JannettLee:
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.
Ha Ha! It's really funny seeing you twist yourself in knots
First you say GST drives prices up by 'compounding' effect, now you say companies are profiteering because they pass the cost on to consumers in the anticipation that they can't claim a GST offset, and then make a windfall if they actually do! Further, there is actually collusion amongst various companies to defraud the consumer by jacking up prices when there was no need to do so.
Then you deflect the point by citing the UK exemption for certain categories of essential goods, forgetting that in the prior post you just AGREED with me that the lower quintile (those living only on basic necessities) in Singapore probably get back more in rebates than what they spend on GST.
What's the next twist in your tale? -
JannettLee:
If you insist on twisting facts and even what I said, please continue.
You originally did say that GST costs compounds, and implied that such compounding applies broadly and generally, did you not? Or do you now recant?
You then implied there was some 'business secret' (your words, not mine), that somehow companies are able to collude via anticompetitive practices to pass on GST costs to consumers, sometimes unwarranted, therefore keeping margins high and everyone in business, did you not? If not, kindly explain if you may.
You did imply, initially explicitly, and then through your example of the UK VAT system (essential goods exemption), that the lowest income group were hardest hit by GST, did you not? Or do you now deny this?
You did then in 1 posts, first conceded that the lowest quintile were probably adequately compensated via GST rebates, and then in this last post, say you were never intending to show that the poorest did not receive back their GST and more, yes?
Did you not then agree that there is not a direct link between GST rates and cost of living, and in my example and link in a prior post? Or do you deny this and insist that there is a direct link, and have evidence to back that assertion?
Is it better to have no GST? I guess so, if the government had a magic wand and could turn water into gold.
But in lieu of magic wand, and with safeguards for the vulnerable, I can't see why GST is such a bad thing. And this, you have singularly failed to disprove. -
From you statement:
\"Any coffee shop uncle can throw bricks at GST and COEs, please don't indulge yourself by thinking you are the only person in Singapore to have 'discovered' these 'problems'.\",
you are telling us that even a coffee shop uncle knows the problems? Wow! Indeed incredible! Why those people paid Millions of $ of salary do not know the problems? :yikes:
Furthermore you said:
\"I am merely saying you only look at one side of the picture without considering why those policies are in place and what the consequences of doing away with them would be.\"
The way you are telling us is that those people paid Millions of $ of salary to implement policies did not look at it from all sides of the picture because they are just unable to articulate and convince all of us why there is a need to implement GST and yet reduce income tax from 25% to 20%. Most of us can only see that what they are doing only benefits the few % of the really rich. Worst still, there are still a minority that don't even know about this fact and can argue that GST implementation and cutting top-tier income tax benefits the majority of Singaporeans! What a pitiful soul... They are living in their own world or what? :slapshead:JannettLee:
[/quote]Very strange indeed. I am just pointing out the problems as they are, and you asking me for solutions to these problems? :siao:
And what's your solution, keeping in mind balance of payments, need to control car population, and free market economy?
You said \"throw stones very easy\", but the fact is, there are many people who can't even identify / recognize the problems! What do you call these people? :rotflmao:
Also, by asking me for solutions, you thought I am the ones given the job of solving these problems and in turn being paid Millions $ of salary a year? :evil:3Boys:
[quote=\"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
Throw stones very easy hor....3Boys:
I am merely saying you only look at one side of the picture without considering why those policies are in place and what the consequences of doing away with them would be.
Any coffee shop uncle can throw bricks at GST and COEs, please don't indulge yourself by thinking you are the only person in Singapore to have 'discovered' these 'problems'. -
Think you can stop taking my words out of context.
May be you can tell us: Didn't you insist that GST implementation and top-tier income tax reduction benefits the majority of the Singaporeans? Did you or did you not? This is the most important issue I am interested, the majority, and is what I have been driving all along and is what you have refused to answer my questions directly but keep twisting and turning here and there and everywhere, real snaky! :slapshead:3Boys:
You originally did say that GST costs compounds, and implied that such compounding applies broadly and generally, did you not? Or do you now recant?JannettLee:
If you insist on twisting facts and even what I said, please continue.
You then implied there was some 'business secret' (your words, not mine), that somehow companies are able to collude via anticompetitive practices to pass on GST costs to consumers, sometimes unwarranted, therefore keeping margins high and everyone in business, did you not? If not, kindly explain if you may.
You did imply, initially explicitly, and then through your example of the UK VAT system (essential goods exemption), that the lowest income group were hardest hit by GST, did you not? Or do you now deny this?
You did then in 1 posts, first conceded that the lowest quintile were probably adequately compensated via GST rebates, and then in this last post, say you were never intending to show that the poorest did not receive back their GST and more, yes?
Did you not then agree that there is not a direct link between GST rates and cost of living, and in my example and link in a prior post? Or do you deny this and insist that there is a direct link, and have evidence to back that assertion?
Is it better to have no GST? I guess so, if the government had a magic wand and could turn water into gold.
But in lieu of magic wand, and with safeguards for the vulnerable, I can't see why GST is such a bad thing. And this, you have singularly failed to disprove. -
JannettLee:
Since neither you or I are a tax expert or a Nobel Laureate economist, then I suggest one be circumspect about one's expertise in the field. I detect a distinct lack of circumspection since you deem yourself to be superior in intellect and motivation to our ministers, and feel qualified to instruct our ministers in constructing a tax code.
The way you are telling us is that those people paid Millions of $ of salary to implement policies did not look at it from all sides of the picture because they are just unable to articulate and convince all of us why there is a need to implement GST and yet reduce income tax from 25% to 20%. Most of us can only see that what they are doing only benefits the few % of the really rich. Worst still, there are still a minority that don't even know about this fact and can argue that GST implementation and cutting top-tier income tax benefits the majority of Singaporeans! What a pitiful soul... They are living in their own world or what? :slapshead:
I did not say the GST benefits the majority of Singaporeans directly. From time to time, governments change or modify their tax rates to keep the country competitive. And in a competitive economy, we are therefore able to generate high value jobs for Singaporeans. And if government revenues are kept up, they have greater degrees of freedom to disburse help to the most needy. So the payoff is indirect.
Does the tax code benefit the MAJORITY of Singaporeans?
I believe the tax code is crafted to benefit SINGAPORE, and in doing so, benefits SINGAPOREANS in general, either directly or indirectly.
By the way, you will know from reading my other posts, that I support an INCREASE in income taxes (and retaining GST).
Life is not as simple as you make it. -
JannettLee:
[/quote]I've have answered your question in the post above. How about you return the courtesy and answer mine here?Think you can stop taking my words out of context.
You originally did say that GST costs compounds, and implied that such compounding applies broadly and generally, did you not? Or do you now recant?
May be you can tell us: Didn't you insist that GST implementation and top-tier income tax reduction benefits the majority of the Singaporeans? Did you or did you not? This is the most important issue I am interested, the majority, and is what I have been driving all along and is what you have refused to answer my questions directly but keep twisting and turning here and there and everywhere, real snaky! :slapshead:3Boys:
[quote=\"JannettLee\"]If you insist on twisting facts and even what I said, please continue.
You then implied there was some 'business secret' (your words, not mine), that somehow companies are able to collude via anticompetitive practices to pass on GST costs to consumers, sometimes unwarranted, therefore keeping margins high and everyone in business, did you not? If not, kindly explain if you may.
You did imply, initially explicitly, and then through your example of the UK VAT system (essential goods exemption), that the lowest income group were hardest hit by GST, did you not? Or do you now deny this?
You did then in 1 posts, first conceded that the lowest quintile were probably adequately compensated via GST rebates, and then in this last post, say you were never intending to show that the poorest did not receive back their GST and more, yes?
Did you not then agree that there is not a direct link between GST rates and cost of living, and in my example and link in a prior post? Or do you deny this and insist that there is a direct link, and have evidence to back that assertion?
Is it better to have no GST? I guess so, if the government had a magic wand and could turn water into gold.
But in lieu of magic wand, and with safeguards for the vulnerable, I can't see why GST is such a bad thing. And this, you have singularly failed to disprove.
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