kim1022:

even with the scrapping of ABSD, there are hardly any bargain buys out there. SG property developers are all big and cash rich groups, they can hold prices and withstand the storm sighhh

ptb7476:

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/sin ... 85476.html just wake up from dream lolz

jetsetter:

Up Next,


This week - MND Budget COS.

Wondering if ABSD would be scrapped... :xedfingers:

Maybe in my dreams...

Dnls_mum:

You choose to take my statement out of context again. So be it.
So my point about the clever guy who came up with this policy is right. The objective has been achieved. People generally see this as a progressive tax structure and are happy with it. Whether it really is progressive tax or not is not important. Too bad for the 10% of working women. Who ask you to have more kids?

Dnls_mum:

3Boys:

[quote=\"Dnls_mum\"]

You choose to take my statement out of context again. So be it.
So my point about the clever guy who came up with this policy is right. The objective has been achieved. People generally see this as a progressive tax structure and are happy with it.

There is more tax now drawn from from working mothers in a high income category, thereby lessening the burden on non-high income, non-mothers. You may see that as disadvantageous, or one can choose to see it as fair. The many reasons why one ought not to increase the top marginal rate which targets the super high earners have already been put forth.

Overall, I see that this change as progressive, and clearly you disagree. In my view everyone needs to play their part. Some years the tax code gives me and my family an advantage, some years, they don't. One takes it holistically and over a period of time, and not raise a stink every time it moves against us. That's what it means to be part of a community, some give and take.

I think it only behooves us to represent all views on the matter.

3Boys:

Dnls_mum:

[quote=\"3Boys\"]

My sentiment exactly. A garbled, self contradicting position. If someone with an annual income of >$150,000 sees oneself as a 'victim' of a progressive tax system that imposes an additional 2-4K of tax a year, then one needs a lesson on perspectives in life.

You choose to take my statement out of context again. So be it.
So my point about the clever guy who came up with this policy is right. The objective has been achieved. People generally see this as a progressive tax structure and are happy with it.

pirated:

pirate:

[quote=\"Busymom\"]
In fact, to encourage a higher birth rate, shouldn't they give a higher relief per child for the second or third child, akin to the baby bonus system?

Got what. Current system: 1st child 15%, 2nd child 20%, 3rd child 25%.

Dnls_mum:

3Boys:

My sentiment exactly. A garbled, self contradicting position. If someone with an annual income of >$150,000 sees oneself as a 'victim' of a progressive tax system that imposes an additional 2-4K of tax a year, then one needs a lesson on perspectives in life.

You choose to take my statement out of context again. So be it.
So my point about the clever guy who came up with this policy is right. The objective has been achieved. People generally see this as a progressive tax structure and are happy with it.

3Boys:

pirate:

[quote=\"Dnls_mum\"]
I am not advocating increasing tax rate for very high income or anything. All I am saying is that the removal of the relief has nothing to do with equity. It is to give the IMPRESSION of a more progressive tax structure. To gain brownie points with the masses. The high income women with more children are the collateral damage.

:?

starlight1968sg:

so HK has the lowest individual income tax rate!

Dnls_mum:

jetsetter:

[quote=\"pirate\"]

No, on the contrary, it'll help the ruling party earn political brownie points!

Progressive taxes are imposed in an attempt to reduce the tax incidence of people with a lower ability to pay, as such taxes shift the incidence increasingly to those with a higher ability-to-pay.

In keeping with this spirit of progressivity, let's recap in last year's Budget (2015), Tharman announced that the super rich would be imposed with higher marginal tax rates, effective YA 2017. Marginal tax rates will go up for the top 5% of income earners, who earn at least $160k.

For someone earning $250k pa, his effective tax rate will increase from 8.3 to 8.5 %.

A higher-income earner with income of $800k will see his effective tax rate increase from 16.0 to 17.4 %.

A top income earner with income of $1.5 mil will see his effective tax rate increase from 17.9 to 19.5 %.

I think an increase in tax rates is more \"painful\" than relief caps! :scared:

http://i66.tinypic.com/90ybew.jpg\">



Bear in mind this was announced in Feb 2015, and election took place in Sep 2015. Did the PAP lose the GE?

The increase last year was minimal. Max tax rate only up 1 or 2%. It was no big deal to the high income. To really be progressive, the increase on the higher income and super high income need to be a lot higher. If you up max tax rate by 5-10%, the outcome may be different. But doing that a lot more people will be affected and they will be taxing themselves and their friends more. They themselves are in this super high income bracket. Most of their wives are not working.

I am not advocating increasing tax rate for very high income or anything. All I am saying is that the removal of the relief has nothing to do with equity. It is to give the IMPRESSION of a more progressive tax structure. To gain brownie points with the masses. The high income women with more children are the collateral damage.

pirated:

pirate:

[quote=\"Busymom\"]
In fact, to encourage a higher birth rate, shouldn't they give a higher relief per child for the second or third child, akin to the baby bonus system?

Got what. Current system: 1st child 15%, 2nd child 20%, 3rd child 25%.

pirate:

Busymom:

I am just as baffled as you are, and wonder why some choose not to see the inequity of it. No one has explained why it is perfectly alright for the 1-child working mother to get an income relief of up to $50k per child as opposed to a 4-children working mother who gets a relief of $20k per child.

Actually, this one very good idea. Increase the total relief that can be claimed to $120k but reduce the cap for each individual child to $20k a child.

pirate:

Busymom:

In fact, to encourage a higher birth rate, shouldn't they give a higher relief per child for the second or third child, akin to the baby bonus system?

Got what. Current system: 1st child 15%, 2nd child 20%, 3rd child 25%.

Busymom:

In fact, to encourage a higher birth rate, shouldn't they give a higher relief per child for the second or third child, akin to the baby bonus system?

Busymom:

I am just as baffled as you are, and wonder why some choose not to see the inequity of it. No one has explained why it is perfectly alright for the 1-child working mother to get an income relief of up to $50k per child as opposed to a 4-children working mother who gets a relief of $20k per child.

Busymom:

I am just as baffled as you are, and wonder why some choose not to see the inequity of it. No one has explained why it is perfectly alright for the 1-child working mother to get an income relief of up to $50k per child as opposed to a 4-children working mother who gets a relief of $20k per child.

4 children requires less effort (both monetary and non-monetary) to bring up as compared to 1 child? :?

I do wonder, had the relief per child being cut instead (regardless of the number of children), would some still say earn more pay more?

I for one, wouldn't kick a fuss on it.

In fact, to encourage a higher birth rate, shouldn't they give a higher relief per child for the second or third child, akin to the baby bonus system?

Now, I am going to be flamed for sure for suggesting this. :lightrod:

pirate:

Dnls_mum:

I am not advocating increasing tax rate for very high income or anything. All I am saying is that the removal of the relief has nothing to do with equity. It is to give the IMPRESSION of a more progressive tax structure. To gain brownie points with the masses. The high income women with more children are the collateral damage.

:?