Are you ready for 7 million people on tiny Singapore?

[pirate]

JannettLee:

I'm not saying the they should totally remove GST but rather do something to alleviate the impact from GST for those who are SAHM, unemployed, children, old retired or old sick parents.

Sheesh, what a roundabout way to say bigger GST vouchers. This one I am not going to argue with you since I am not necessarily in disagreement. :hugs:

[JannettLee]

pirate:

JannettLee:

I'm not saying the they should totally remove GST but rather do something to alleviate the impact from GST for those who are SAHM, unemployed, children, old retired or old sick parents.

Sheesh, what a roundabout way to say bigger GST vouchers. This one I am not going to argue with you since I am not necessarily in disagreement. :hugs:

How many people who are entertained to this GST vouchers let alone bigger GST vouchers?

I should not be the one who provide solution for them tackle this problem.

If those who are drawing million dollars of salaries can't really came out with the solution, they can make reference to those western countries such as waiving GST for those basic food, necessitates, medical expenses and children products for Singapore citizen - a scheme for Singapore citizen to claim back GST.

[WeiHan]

Irrelevant:

Incidentally, you are still avoiding my question on how many % of GDP to spend on healthcare wor. If we wish to spend 10% of GDP on healthcare (a number u like to mention), we need another 20 billion. Where can we find 20 billion?? Cut defence and education by 80%?

In one of the thread, we were making fun at Vikram. You sure sound alot like him....\"where the money come from?....\"

[pirate]

WeiHan:

However, in view that a co-pay system is effective in reducing abusing of the system, we can consider implement something that is half or 3/4 of that. I believe, we will just need less than 5.8% of GDP. 4.5 or 5% of GDP will make our healthcare system much more affordable and at the same time prevent against abuse.


I am not sure the surplus come from landsale or not but my guess is that it is not because we don't have many landsale in the 80s and yet our surplus during that period was nearly 20% of GDP.

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you on this wor.

I just want to add a point that I feel uneasy when policy makers talk about 'abuse' of healthcare. Sure, there are a minority of hypochondriacs, but other than them, most of us would like to avoid going to the hospital, clinic or whatever if possible. So, I personally find that all too convenient word 'abuse' often difficult to apply.

If, heaven forbids, my kid should fall seriously ill, surely I would want the best treatment possible for her, especially if the alternative is death. Perhaps it may be a horrendously expensive treatment. Is it abuse? Maybe the cost is high and the chances are not good. But is it abuse? Before our policy makers classify something as 'abuse', I feel they should ask themselves if it were their loved one would they have chosen differently?

And then we go down the slippery slope towards this life is worth more than that life because the family of the first one can afford to pay for it.

[WeiHan]

pirate:

WeiHan:

However, in view that a co-pay system is effective in reducing abusing of the system, we can consider implement something that is half or 3/4 of that. I believe, we will just need less than 5.8% of GDP. 4.5 or 5% of GDP will make our healthcare system much more affordable and at the same time prevent against abuse.


I am not sure the surplus come from landsale or not but my guess is that it is not because we don't have many landsale in the 80s and yet our surplus during that period was nearly 20% of GDP.

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you on this wor.

I just want to add a point that I feel uneasy when policy makers talk about 'abuse' of healthcare. Sure, there are a minority of hypochondriacs, but other than them, most of us would like to avoid going to the hospital, clinic or whatever if possible. So, I personally find that all too convenient word 'abuse' often difficult to apply.

If, heaven forbids, my kid should fall seriously ill, surely I would want the best treatment possible for her, especially if the alternative is death. Perhaps it may be a horrendously expensive treatment. Is it abuse? Maybe the cost is high and the chances are not good. But is it abuse? Before our policy makers classify something as 'abuse', I feel they should ask themselves if it were their loved one would they have chosen differently?

And then we go down the slippery slope towards this life is worth more than that life because the family of the first one can afford to pay for it.

Good point!

There wasn't much abuse in the Taiwan system for example.

[3Boys]

http://www.gstvoucher.gov.sg/faqs.html

[3Boys]

WeiHan:

pirate:

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you on this wor.

I just want to add a point that I feel uneasy when policy makers talk about 'abuse' of healthcare. Sure, there are a minority of hypochondriacs, but other than them, most of us would like to avoid going to the hospital, clinic or whatever if possible. So, I personally find that all too convenient word 'abuse' often difficult to apply.

If, heaven forbids, my kid should fall seriously ill, surely I would want the best treatment possible for her, especially if the alternative is death. Perhaps it may be a horrendously expensive treatment. Is it abuse? Maybe the cost is high and the chances are not good. But is it abuse? Before our policy makers classify something as 'abuse', I feel they should ask themselves if it were their loved one would they have chosen differently?

And then we go down the slippery slope towards this life is worth more than that life because the family of the first one can afford to pay for it.

Good point!

There wasn't much abuse in the Taiwan system for example.

Until the abuse starts, which it invariably does.....sorry boys, disagree with you both, abuse is already rampant in our system.

[JannettLee]

Irrelevant:

JannettLee:

Think you have got all mixed up with median individual income and family. You should be talking about family because in a family, nowsdays both spouses work, hence median family income is about $5500 per month. However, the family has 2 kids and 2 elderly to take care of, i.e. 2 incomes but 6 persons in the family spending money all things, including basic food necessities, medicines (big costs for elderly) etc. With such a family, they probably spend >$5000 pm, or say spend $60k a year and $4200 in additional GST.

I must hire you to be my accountant wor.

2*2633=5266
Less 20% CPF=4213

How they spend >$5k when the net take home pay is just 4213? :siao:

The cost is the whole year average cost per month la. You don't need to consider 3 months bonus meh! Anyway, the figure is the true figure that I got it from someone I know. I was as clueless as all of you when someone who got hit and showed me the figure.

[pirate]

JannettLee:

How many people who are entertained to this GST vouchers let alone bigger GST vouchers?


I should not be the one who provide solution for them tackle this problem.

If those who are drawing million dollars of salaries can't really came out with the solution, they can make reference to those western countries such as waiving GST for those basic food, necessitates, medical expenses and children products for Singapore citizen - a scheme for Singapore citizen to claim back GST.

Nah, exempt this or exempt that for this but not that buyer is administratively cumbersome. How to exempt brand X stroller costing $200 but not brand Y stroller costing $800? UK had good fun over whether certain pastry falls under exempt food or non-exempt baked products. Is a $10,000 rare first edition technically a \"book\" and hence exempt from VAT? GST vouchers are much more straightforward.

But in the end it's a judgment call. I have no doubt those drawing million dollars of salaries have already looked at and considered it.

[Mdm Koh]

Irrelevant,


Singapore’s defence expenditure went up by more than 4% last year.

Where did the government get the money from? Since the government did not dip into reserves, another area must have suffered a substantial cut in spending.

So it’s justifiable to cut spending elsewhere to increase defence spending but not vice versa?