Are you ready for 7 million people on tiny Singapore?
-
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. -
Income tax in Singapore kicks in only at $20,000 of taxable income, ie. after deduction of personal relief and CPF relief. Effectively, this is $26,000 ($1,000 personal relief and $5,000 CPF relief). A dual income family can thus have up to $52,000 of annual income ($60,000 if you factor in employer’s CPF which goes towards your retirement) and still pay no income tax. That is $4,333 per month.
At $20,000 - $30,000, income tax is 2%. So for the first $60,000 of taxable income, which is effectively $77,000 ($6,416.67 per month), the total income tax payable is $400 or 0.52%.
At $30,000 - $40,000, income tax is 3.5%. So for the first $80,000 of taxable income, which is effectively $102,000 ($8,500 per month), the total income tax payable is $1,100 or 1.08%.
I think it is beyond argument that a household income of $102,000 per annum is middle income. Bear in mind that I have not factored in other reliefs such as child relief, NS man relief, working mother relief etc.
The lower income tax doesn’t just apply to high income earners hor. -
Just for comparison, a household in the UK with a gross annual income of the equivalent of S$60,000 will enjoy personal relief of £9,440 x 2 = £18,880. At the current exchange rate of £1=S$1.92, that is about S$36,250. The basic income tax rate for the first £32,010 is 20%. That household will therefore have to pay income tax of approximately $4,750.
On top of that, each wage earner in that household will be paying national insurance of 12% on income between £146 and £817 per week. That works out to about another $3,700 for the household.
So, a dual income household with an annual gross income of the equivalent of S$60,000 will pay about $8,450 in income tax and national insurance. A similar household in Singapore pays the grand total of ZERO. -
pirate:
And for the sake of argument, would you say it is unreasonable for a household with a combined income of S$60,000, that pays ZERO income tax, if they spent every single cent they had, to contribute $4,200 a year to state coffers in the form of GST? Bearing in mind they are consuming public services like roads, education, subsidised healthcare and parks?
So, a dual income household with an annual gross income of the equivalent of S$60,000 will pay about $8,450 in income tax and national insurance. A similar household in Singapore pays the grand total of ZERO. -
3Boys:
But residential property is not subject to GST... Anyway, don't ask me. Ask the person complaining about Singapore's GST.
And for the sake of argument, would you say it is unreasonable for a household with a combined income of S$60,000, that pays ZERO income tax, if they spent every single cent they had, to contribute $4,200 a year to state coffers in the form of GST? Bearing in mind they are consuming public services like roads, education, subsidised healthcare and parks?pirate:
So, a dual income household with an annual gross income of the equivalent of S$60,000 will pay about $8,450 in income tax and national insurance. A similar household in Singapore pays the grand total of ZERO.
-
Since I've accused of living in a well, here is something for you to play around with....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates
Click to rank countries by personal income tax rates, and then compare across to the prevailing VAT/GST.
You will see that MANY countries in the world take a balanced approach to taxation, taking off from personal income tax, corporate tax, comsumption tax, sometimes splitting between national and local/regional level. You will find that some rich countries have high income tax and VAT (Germany, UK, Norway), you will find that some poor countries have high income tax and VAT (Bosnia, Senagal). You will find that the reverse also applies.
There is no one fixed approach, it really depends on your local situation, historical biases, social leanings, and desire for industrial attractiveness.
VAT/GST is not rocket science, nor is it inherently evil, since it is broadly used worldwide.
Taxes are never popular, but if there is one certainty (and necessity) in life, it's taxes! Some form of government spending is always required, and that needs to be funded...via taxation. Why would a balanced system using consumption based and income based taxation be undesirable, if progressive measures are used to help and mitigate impact for the needy? As for the middle income, we all need to pull our weight when it comes to paying taxes, as we are all consumers of public services.
As far as overall taxation goes, Singapore is on the low side, for both GST/VAT, and personal income taxes. -
My view on tax is that government should try to contain spending just like a family with income stagnant or reduced trying to contain their spending.
I just don’t see why should tax should be risen significantly given the fact that no social program will be implemented and that we still have overall positive GDP growth. A GST increment from 7% to 10% is almost a 50% increase which is huge.
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