Are you ready for 7 million people on tiny Singapore?

[Mdm Koh]

3Boys:

Mdm Koh,
on these points, I have to disagree with you. Healthcare costs is more than just the GST, I feel you are missing the woods for the trees.

Healthcare is a service, why exempt from taxation? Quite a bit of healthcare these days is reasonably discretionary. You happy to forgo tax on an expat undergoing breast augmentation? Laser acne removal? Recreational Viagra for the coffee shop ah pek?

The aesthetic surgeons will be sending you flowers on this V-Day for your suggestion.

One previous health minister said, people are happy to pay $100 for a hairdo or $10,000 for a overseas holiday, but healthcare, even high end sophisticated stuff, people want for free.

Find ways to bring down healthcare costs, subsidise for the poor....but keep the taxes as they are.

I think there is no basis to the minister's comparison as he has brought up two totally different types of services. An expensive hairdo or a holiday are luxuries while healthcare is not. Furthermore, the majority of Singaporeans are paying for healthcare or health insurance. Nobody really expects it to be free, unless they belong to the minority who are on public assistance.

I did a quick check online and countries with VAT such as Canada and Australia do have exemptions of taxes on medical supplies and services. (And not only that, but on groceries as well.) The Singapore government has stated that we are not doing so, because these countries are facing \"problems\" as a result of the exemptions. It is rather ingenious of them to say that. Every system has problems. Even ours. Also, Singapore does have exemptions on some services, such as financial services.

Although there is no perfect system, I think we should at least reconfigure the tax system such that it helps to lower costs for more people. Aesthetic medical services can be taxed if they are for cosmetic purposes rather than reconstructive.

I think exemption of GST on healthcare can be done; it's whether the government wants to do it. It's much more comfortable for them to maintain high revenues, but at what cost to the people?

[pirate]

$1,000,000 Ferrari. GST $70,000. Cannot buy from Italy. Actually can, but still have to pay the GST when shipped into Singapore.

[3Boys]

Mdm Koh:

It's much more comfortable for them to maintain high revenues, but at what cost to the people?

Again, this is quite an unsubstantiated assertion. Pray tell, how much revenue did the g'ment earn from GST on medical services? Versus how much did they pump back in in terms of subsidies?

Please don't confuse the issue. The point is keeping the whole thing affordable, not about the GST per se.

So why is it justifiable for people to spend discretionary income on hairdos and holidays, but not on medical care? Enjoyment I can pay for but medical care I expect other taxpayers to support?

[limlim]

3Boys:

Here, read this.....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goods_and_Services_Tax_%28Singapore%29

Some excerpts
[color=#0000FF]
\"Objectives

The GST was part of a larger tax restructuring exercise to enable Singapore to shift its reliance from direct taxes to indirect taxes. The government argued that tax reform was necessary in order to maintain Singapore's competitiveness, in order to sustain long-term growth and job creation. The government also argued that with an ageing population, Singapore’s income tax base was expected to decline. With a broad-based GST, the taxation burden would be more evenly spread among the population.
A value-added tax, like the GST, also has several features that make it attractive. A tax on consumption, not income, the tax system inherently encourages savings and investments instead of consumption.

Make of it what you will, objectively or otherwise.

Al those people calling for the abolishment of the GST in order to help the poor, you really sure that's the right way?

Err.. consumption drives the economy isn't it? Discouraging consumption but trying to grow GDP.....? sounds fishy to me.

GST if necessary, is fine with me. But it should be kept low at say, 3% and still contribute to revenue.

If not enough, then the income tax of top tier shouldn't be reduced. Why can't they keep it at say, 25% while introducing GST?

Reducing income tax and increasing GST just doesn't makes sense to me other than benefiting the rich.

I'm okay with GST but don't agree with reducing top tier income tax to increase GST.

[3Boys]

limlim:

GST if necessary, is fine with me. But it should be kept low at say, 3% and still contribute to revenue.

If not enough, then the income tax of top tier shouldn't be reduced. Why can't they keep it at say, 25% while introducing GST?

Reducing income tax and increasing GST just doesn't makes sense to me other than benefiting the rich.

I'm okay with GST but don't agree with reducing top tier income tax to increase GST.

And from where did you arrive at this figure of 3% from? Plucked out of the air? Why not 0% like HK, why not 8% like Switzerland, why not 20% like Ghana or Norway?

What's wrong with 7%?

[pirate]

Mdm Koh:

I think exemption of GST on healthcare can be done; it's whether the government wants to do it. It's much more comfortable for them to maintain high revenues, but at what cost to the people?

Do you know how much Singapore earns from medical tourism? And because it is for a service, there is no GST refund for foreign patients. Nah, I would prefer the gov keep the GST on healthcare and use the money to directly reduce Singaporeans' medical costs. As to which segment of the citizenry gets how much subsidy, well that's a different question altogether.

[Harlequin]

pirate:

$1,000,000 Ferrari. GST $70,000. Cannot buy from Italy. Actually can, but still have to pay the GST when shipped into Singapore.

Any goods above SGD400 brought in to SG for consumption are liable for GST; can hide lah, but must pray hard don't get caught, if get caught kena pay hefty fine plus GST.
Even those luxury items bought at Changi Airport departure hall's duty free shops if brought back to SG on your returning flight are subjected to GST.

[Harlequin]

3Boys:

limlim:

GST if necessary, is fine with me. But it should be kept low at say, 3% and still contribute to revenue.

If not enough, then the income tax of top tier shouldn't be reduced. Why can't they keep it at say, 25% while introducing GST?

Reducing income tax and increasing GST just doesn't makes sense to me other than benefiting the rich.

I'm okay with GST but don't agree with reducing top tier income tax to increase GST.

And from where did you arrive at this figure of 3% from? Plucked out of the air? Why not 0% like HK, why not 8% like Switzerland, why not 20% like Ghana or Norway?

What's wrong with 7%?

Rich pay more GST than any other form of taxes...

For example, rich men's über chi chi tai tai/s no income status, pay no income tax; but easily blowing $100k a month on shopping.... must tax GST lah... supple our national coffer mah.

[Mdm Koh]

3Boys:

Mdm Koh:

It's much more comfortable for them to maintain high revenues, but at what cost to the people?

Again, this is quite an unsubstantiated assertion. Pray tell, how much revenue did the g'ment earn from GST on medical services? Versus how much did they pump back in in terms of subsidies?

Please don't confuse the issue. The point is keeping the whole thing affordable, not about the GST per se.

So why is it justifiable for people to spend discretionary income on hairdos and holidays, but not on medical care?

Your first question should be forwarded to the ministers in parliament. I am not able to provide figures that are not readily available online. All I can say is that GST exemption on medical services is implemented in other developed countries. Thus far, the economies of those countries have not collapsed yet.

I am not sure what your last question means. Are we not spending our income on healthcare?

[pirate]

limlim:

GST if necessary, is fine with me. But it should be kept low at say, 3% and still contribute to revenue.


If not enough, then the income tax of top tier shouldn't be reduced. Why can't they keep it at say, 25% while introducing GST?

Reducing income tax and increasing GST just doesn't makes sense to me other than benefiting the rich.

I'm okay with GST but don't agree with reducing top tier income tax to increase GST.

Because top tier personal income tax is easily avoided by a little bit of tax planning. Only the salarymen and professionals get hit. The big towkays can structure their income into something else. As for the criminals and their undeclared income...

On the other hand, if you want to ride around in your very own $500,000 Mercedes in Singapore, you have to pay $35,000 GST. It doesn't matter if you make your money from bank interest, stock dividends, capital appreciation, speculating on the stock market, gambling at the casino, underdeclaring the number of plates of char kway teow you sell, loansharking or rigging soccer games in Europe. You still have to pay $35,000 GST.