Are you ready for 7 million people on tiny Singapore?
-
JannettLee:
Yes. Theoretically..
Theoretically, yes as good growth creates more jobs for people. However, if there are another policies to tax you more or make you pay more and your buying power get affected and you may find very difficult to maintain a good quality of life. At the end of the day, if the money didn't end up with majority, there must be others who are getting all these monies from the good growth. 有人开心,有人愁!mum_sugoku:
BTW why do we need good (GDP) growth? It's because of the belief that good growth will lead to good quality of life for the masses, and a \"good quality of life\" is the reason behind the need for good growth, right?
The question is, will a good growth really lead to a good quality of life for the masses?
Here's some interesting opinions on this:
http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-gdp-growth-a-good-indicator-of-improving-quality-of-life
And here's another one:
http://thescarletibis.org/2013/02/07/singapore-population-white-paper-a-white-paper-that-raises-more-questions/
Distribution of the wealth from good growth is an issue now.
And yes, unfortunately, what works on theory may not neccessarily work upon actual implementation.. Especially if the ones who conceptualise the plan lack foresight and fail to take into account the potential problems, since problems would only surface upon implementation..
Still remember what MP Inderjit Singh said during the Parliamentary debate on the White Paper?
https://www.facebook.com/kbinderjit/posts/598891680137569[quote]..Our past decade of rapid population growth has already created too many problems which need to be solved first before we take the next step. I call on the government to take a breather for five years, solve all the problems created by the past policies of rapid economic and population growth. We can safely say that we have failed to achieve the goal set by the then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, of a Swiss standard of living for most Singaporeans, except for the higher income Singaporeans including foreigners who just recently decided to make Singapore their home.. [/quote] [quote]..Many young Singaporeans I talk to, especially those who have recently graduated and have just entered the workforce feel demoralized because many of the things that they grew up aspiring to have are now beyond their reach. Our aggressive growth strategies, which allowed cheaper foreign workers, including professionals to easily gain employment passes degraded or depressed wage levels of many Singaporeans, not just the lower income Singaporeans. I remember when I started work in 1985, my salary was $1900 as an entry level engineer. After a few years I could afford a house and a car. Today, 28 years later, an entry level engineer in Singapore earns $2600, just $700 more than what I earned when I started. The mathematics is very simple, the cost of living did not just go up by 1.3% per annum the last 27 years and even more, the cost of owning a HDB flat did not just go up by 37% since 1985..[/quote] -
pirate:
Alas actually, my kids' mommy is worse than your DD's lah.
Dunno leh. DD wants to know why she must go to school. Why har? :scratchhead:mum_sugoku:
BTW why do we need good (GDP) growth? It's because of the belief that good growth will lead to good quality of life for the masses, and a \"good quality of life\" is the reason behind the need for good growth, right?
The question is, will a good growth really lead to a good quality of life for the masses?
Maybe it is because Daddy and Mommy don't know how to think out of the box and come up with a solution so she doesn't have to go to school? Ever! :idea:
Boo! Lousy Daddy and Mommy. :spank:
I want a better Daddy and Mommy.
Not only do I make them go to school, I expect them to excel in their studies as well! (BTW my \"excel\" means scoring good exam grades hor). And it's not just because I believe that doing well in studies will give them a better future, but also (or is it mainly?) because they doing well will enable me to \"look good\" in front of my friends and relatives--most of whom happen to have kids who \"excel\" in studies..
It's kinda ironic cos I genuinely love and care about them; I love them so much that I don't think I can live without them.. Yet, I have no qualms about using them to satisfy my desire to \"look good\"!
I'm thinking: I'm already doing this to people who I truely cherish, what if they are someone not even connected to me--physically or emotionally? Wouldn't it be even easier for them to become mere tools for me to get what I desire (like, \"looking good\")? All I need to do, is to get my man to successfully convince these people that whatever I do, I'm doing it \"for their sake\".... -
mum_sugoku:
I'm thinking: I'm already doing this to people who I truely cherish, what if they are someone not even connected to me--physically or emotionally? Wouldn't it be even easier for them to become mere tools for me to get what I desire (like, \"looking good\")? All I need to do, is to get my man to successfully convince these people that whatever I do, I'm doing it \"for their sake\"....
Then you have to think carefully about each part of what they say or do, and then come to your own conclusion lor. Maybe you may decide they do this, that and the other ok. Or maybe you may decide they do this ok, but that one really soosa. Or maybe you may decide they everything also epic fail. After that, you repeat the process with what the others say and do.
That's what a discussion is meant to be, right? After all, we are all supposed to be responsible adults.
Like for example, I never say anything about the senior executive pay in our GLCs hah.
-
mum_sugoku:
Interesting sharing and analogy.Not only do I make them go to school, I expect them to excel in their studies as well! (BTW my \"excel\" means scoring good exam grades hor). And it's not just because I believe that doing well in studies will give them a better future, but also (or is it mainly?) because they doing well will enable me to \"look good\" in front of my friends and relatives--most of whom happen to have kids who \"excel\" in studies..
It's kinda ironic cos I genuinely love and care about them; I love them so much that I don't think I can live without them.. Yet, I have no qualms about using them to satisfy my desire to \"look good\"!
I'm thinking: I'm already doing this to people who I truely cherish, what if they are someone not even connected to me--physically or emotionally? Wouldn't it be even easier for them to become mere tools for me to get what I desire (like, \"looking good\")? All I need to do, is to get my man to successfully convince these people that whatever I do, I'm doing it \"for their sake\"....
While there are parents who want their children to excel academically \"mainly\" for the parents to \"look good\", there are many more parents who do it more for the good of their children.
While children can't choose their parents, fortunately we can choose our government. No matter how much we trust the government, we must not have blind faith in them, neither should we conclude that everything they do is for them to \"look good\". I suppose we need to think and then decide if what they are doing makes sense. -
By 2020, KL may be only a 90 mins train ride away. Hope our PMETs like the new coziness with our northern neighbours. :evil:
Not to mention the MRT ride to and from JB along the Thomson Line. -
pirate:
You want the property rental cost to increase further and thus the surge in business operating cost? All these costs will be passed down to consumer!
Ok lor. Suggest to gov to impose a flat rate tax on rental income same as highest marginal income tax rate (18%). Then can use the extra tax revenue to help the low income group. Got extra property to rent out for passive income must be rich. Heck. Just make it 20%. Easier to calculate. Ok lah, before you say ordinary people maybe need to rent out one room in their HDB flat, can exempt the first $6,000 of annual rental income.JannettLee:
The low income group is the MOST vulnerable group and can't really take care of them-self. The gov is indeed not doing enough to help the low income group.
The very rich can take care of them-self and stop enriching them further.
I'm puzzled about your statement, are you suggesting that we should just ignore the low incomes group?
After that, add a rule that any resale of an 'investment property' within 10 years (of exercise of option to purchase or TOP whichever is later) shall be presumed to be trading and subject to income tax on any gain from disposal. 'Investment property' to be defined as any residential property in excess of one owner-occupied property per household, and any non owner-occupied commerical or industrial property, and for that purpose the period of owner occupation cannot be less than 5 years immediately preceding the sale.
Happy?
If you want everyone to suffer, this is not the most effective la, might as well increase GST to 30% lo :yikes:
Outcome: Someone will repent! :skeptical: -
pirate:
I think there will have more Singaporean stay in JB and work in Singapore then.By 2020, KL may be only a 90 mins train ride away. Hope our PMETs like the new coziness with our northern neighbours. :evil:
Not to mention the MRT ride to and from JB along the Thomson Line. -
JannettLee:
You want the property rental cost to increase further and thus the surge in business operating cost? All these costs will be passed down to consumer!
Ok lor. Suggest to gov to impose a flat rate tax on rental income same as highest marginal income tax rate (18%). Then can use the extra tax revenue to help the low income group. Got extra property to rent out for passive income must be rich. Heck. Just make it 20%. Easier to calculate. Ok lah, before you say ordinary people maybe need to rent out one room in their HDB flat, can exempt the first $6,000 of annual rental income.pirate:
[quote=\"JannettLee\"]The low income group is the MOST vulnerable group and can't really take care of them-self. The gov is indeed not doing enough to help the low income group.
The very rich can take care of them-self and stop enriching them further.
I'm puzzled about your statement, are you suggesting that we should just ignore the low incomes group?
After that, add a rule that any resale of an 'investment property' within 10 years (of exercise of option to purchase or TOP whichever is later) shall be presumed to be trading and subject to income tax on any gain from disposal. 'Investment property' to be defined as any residential property in excess of one owner-occupied property per household, and any non owner-occupied commerical or industrial property, and for that purpose the period of owner occupation cannot be less than 5 years immediately preceding the sale.
Happy?
If you want everyone to suffer, this is not the most effective la, might as well increase GST to 30% lo :yikes:
Outcome: Someone will repent! :skeptical:[/quote]I knew you would say something like that. Dun like to pay more tax on your rental incomes and property trading gains? :evil:
Like that income tax on rich cannot. GST also cannot. Stamp duty lagi cannot. Then how? Grow money on trees? :scratchhead: -
pirate:
I knew you would say something like that. Dun like to pay more tax on your rental incomes and property trading gains? :evil:
You want the property rental cost to increase further and thus the surge in business operating cost? All these costs will be passed down to consumer!JannettLee:
[quote=\"pirate\"]
Ok lor. Suggest to gov to impose a flat rate tax on rental income same as highest marginal income tax rate (18%). Then can use the extra tax revenue to help the low income group. Got extra property to rent out for passive income must be rich. Heck. Just make it 20%. Easier to calculate. Ok lah, before you say ordinary people maybe need to rent out one room in their HDB flat, can exempt the first $6,000 of annual rental income.
After that, add a rule that any resale of an 'investment property' within 10 years (of exercise of option to purchase or TOP whichever is later) shall be presumed to be trading and subject to income tax on any gain from disposal. 'Investment property' to be defined as any residential property in excess of one owner-occupied property per household, and any non owner-occupied commerical or industrial property, and for that purpose the period of owner occupation cannot be less than 5 years immediately preceding the sale.
Happy?
If you want everyone to suffer, this is not the most effective la, might as well increase GST to 30% lo :yikes:
Outcome: Someone will repent! :skeptical:
Like that income tax on rich cannot. GST also cannot. Stamp duty lagi cannot. Then how? Grow money on trees? :scratchhead:[/quote]You are wrong! I pay tax and very happy to pay more tax as it indicates that I earn more. Increase the property tax, no impact to rich as they pay about the same tax either throu property tax or income tax as the property rental incomes will be part of the personal income anyway and then get tax anyway.
You can see the difference, you increase the property tax, rich has no impact but the business cost goes up. Between the property tax and income tax, they should tax more income tax for Rich!
I never said income tax on rich cannot. They should have higher income tax for rich as rich benefited the most from the GDP growth! -
JannettLee:
I never say property tax wor. I say increase income tax on rental income. I also say impose income tax on gain from property trading/speculation. Only rich got more than one property to have net rental income and trade in properties.You are wrong! I pay tax and very happy to pay more tax as it indicates that I earn more. Increase the property tax, no impact to the rich as the they pay about the same tax either throu property tax or income tax as the property rental incomes will be part of the personal income anyway (after net off the property tax) and then get tax anyway.
You can see the difference, you increase the property tax, rich has no impact but the business cost goes up. Between the property tax, they should tax more income tax for Rich!
I never said income tax on rich cannot. They should have higher income tax for rich as rich benefited the most from the GDP growth!
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
