Aren't we seeing similarities? Listing GLCs such as SMRT & Comfort & we see endless pursuit of profit focus only. What can we expect from Mapletree, CCT, CMT, KepREITs etc?

Dora1:

Irrelevant:

[quote=\"Dora1\"]Depends on what type of co. Some SME only have less than 30 pax, the rental cost can be the same as the manpower cost, esp if they need big space for machines etc.
if u look at my previous posts, I am against indiscriminately hiring foreigners. However I am also aware that a lot of SMEs are \"forced\" to hire cheap FW because of other rising cost such as rental and even COE. So dun only focus on cheap manpower, lower business cost for SMEs as well.

You must be seriously joking lah. Where got get forced to hire FW one. Singapore manufacturers have been hiring FWs since 30 years ago! There are professional firms all over the place helping you to recruit them, Chinese, Indians, etc. Just tell them your quota. If your fren tell you never hire FW until recently, I would also like some of what he is smoking. FW are hired simply because they are cheaper and more hardworking than Singaporeans at the same price point, period. Remember we use to have many garment factories...

As for rental = labour cost, have you seen hard numbers before or not? Rental for factory is $20 per sq metre per month, give or take. If a company has 25 employees with average pay of $2,500 (including bonus, cpf, insurance, etc), total wage cost is $62,500 per month. To spend that much on rental, factory size would be like in excess of 33,000 square feet! And probably there are at lease 2 shifts working since there are BIG machines? So 12 ppl in 33,000 sqft? You can't get that kind of space ratio even in Malaysia, except maybe a logistics warehouse

Yes, of course I am aware that SG has been hiring FWs for the longest time. What I am saying is that the gov is tightening the FW quota, increasing levy etc to push Companies to hire SCs, which theoretically is a good move. However, other operating costs such as rental and transport (COE, ERP, etc) has been increasing dramatically at the other end. And at the same time, the global economy is down, so the SMEs cannot increase their prices to stay competitive. So the SMEs cannot afford to pay more to attract SCs to join them, and yet at the same time they can't employ FWs. So they are squeezed on both ends.
So essentially what I am saying is, if they want the tightening FW policy to work, which is for companies to hire more SCs, then the gov should also watch the other operating costs. JTC selling the flatted factories to Mapletree, which sells REITs and shares and all, is encouraging inflated rentals, as Mapletree is listed and therefore their goal is to ensure that the shareholders get a good profit. The result is increased rental of >50% in the last few years.[/quote]

So true! That is what we are doing to combat escalating rental of our businesses:

- hire cheaper FWs
- make them worker longer hours
- cut manpower & make 2 workers to shoulder originally 3 workers job.
We explain to them especially citizens that we can't take escalating business rental costs anymore & that the alternative will be we close shop & you all become jobless, up to them!
Blame who hah? Very clear right?

Other than Mapletree, still got JTC, CCT,CMT, Keppel REITs, etc.

Dora1:

Irrelevant:

[quote=\"Dora1\"]Depends on what type of co. Some SME only have less than 30 pax, the rental cost can be the same as the manpower cost, esp if they need big space for machines etc.
if u look at my previous posts, I am against indiscriminately hiring foreigners. However I am also aware that a lot of SMEs are \"forced\" to hire cheap FW because of other rising cost such as rental and even COE. So dun only focus on cheap manpower, lower business cost for SMEs as well.

You must be seriously joking lah. Where got get forced to hire FW one. Singapore manufacturers have been hiring FWs since 30 years ago! There are professional firms all over the place helping you to recruit them, Chinese, Indians, etc. Just tell them your quota. If your fren tell you never hire FW until recently, I would also like some of what he is smoking. FW are hired simply because they are cheaper and more hardworking than Singaporeans at the same price point, period. Remember we use to have many garment factories...

As for rental = labour cost, have you seen hard numbers before or not? Rental for factory is $20 per sq metre per month, give or take. If a company has 25 employees with average pay of $2,500 (including bonus, cpf, insurance, etc), total wage cost is $62,500 per month. To spend that much on rental, factory size would be like in excess of 33,000 square feet! And probably there are at lease 2 shifts working since there are BIG machines? So 12 ppl in 33,000 sqft? You can't get that kind of space ratio even in Malaysia, except maybe a logistics warehouse

Yes, of course I am aware that SG has been hiring FWs for the longest time. What I am saying is that the gov is tightening the FW quota, increasing levy etc to push Companies to hire SCs, which theoretically is a good move. However, other operating costs such as rental and transport (COE, ERP, etc) has been increasing dramatically at the other end. And at the same time, the global economy is down, so the SMEs cannot increase their prices to stay competitive. So the SMEs cannot afford to pay more to attract SCs to join them, and yet at the same time they can't employ FWs. So they are squeezed on both ends.
So essentially what I am saying is, if they want the tightening FW policy to work, which is for companies to hire more SCs, then the gov should also watch the other operating costs. JTC selling the flatted factories to Mapletree, which sells REITs and shares and all, is encouraging inflated rentals, as Mapletree is listed and therefore their goal is to ensure that the shareholders get a good profit. The result is increased rental of >50% in the last few years.[/quote]

You are talking about the CEOs of many GLCs?

pirate:

limlim:

Have lah.. I believe.. If don't hire FW how to got money to drive BMW and stay big bungalow?.. hence, they were force by circumstances to hire FW.. really.. :evil:

But many PMEs also drive BMW and/or stay big bungalow leh. And they don't even have to risk their own capital. :evil:

Then commercial & industrial properties owned & monopolized by a few big players how? Can ask govt to introduce cooling measures here by banning them from buying & owning whole building or >1 unit etc? Many people's businesses are suffering from jack up rentals & have no choice but to pass some down to consumers. Cooling measure for commercial & industrial properties are long overdued!

pirate:

JannettLee:

[quote=\"pirate\"]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.

Firstly, you are wrong, there is property tax on gain from property trading/speculation, (sell more than 3 properties within 3 years, you will receive a letter/call from IRAS to ask you to pay property gain :evil: ).
If you talk about increase income tax on rental income, then the rich has already paid for all these tax at the higher bracket. Let me tell you, most rich are buying properties to preserve value and they will leave those properties for very very long term..

Think about increasing high income tax bracket for high income la and think about how to help Singaporean from hitting hard on GST for those who are not working or ill (SAHW, retire, children, poor sick etc.).

I don't say abolish GST..

It's good fun trying to debate tax policies with people who don't know the difference between income tax and property tax.

I can talk to you about the difference between a flat rate income tax on rental income and a marginal rate income tax on rental income, but that would be like :stupid:

I say 3 properties within 3 years is too liberal. Even 1 property should be considered trading if not owner occupied and sold within 10 years. Long-term investment is good. Short term flipping is bad. :evil:[/quote]

You said \"in the region\" in Singapore's context is \"SEA + Oceania + proximate parts of the Indian Ocean\".  

Harlequin said \"in the region\" refers to \"SEA only\".

So it become obvious that there isn't any fixed concrete definition of \"in the region\" in Singapore's context right? (otherwise either 1 of your definition must have been wrong!  So 3Boy wrong or Harlequin wrong?).  I remember a Minister once said Singaporeans should focus on reaching out to our immediate regions within 8 hours flight from Singapore?  That will include part of China, Russia as well.  I am using that a very loose definition that encompasses that meaning and there is nothign wrong with that since there is no fixed definition.  Otherwise please tell me which dictionary you use that give you that definition?  

3Boys:

First time I heard that Russia is considered regional power in the context of Singapore defence. Alright, so I make it more precise, region as in our immediate region, i.e SEA + Oceania + proximate parts of the Indian Ocean. Anyone with an understanding of how defence is discussed in the Singapore context would have understood that, but I guess you did not.

Moonsun55:

Please see below what you said: \"Right now, there is no one in the region that can come in and beat us, NO ONE.\". Because of what you said, I am asking you that since China & Russia is considered in Asia region of which Singapore is in, you are saying China & Russia can't beat us? I believe you statement is not correct & breeds arrogant & contentment since this is far from the truth. 
Now that you say below \"Nobody says we can fight China or Russia or the US\", so you admit your previous statement about no one can beat Singapore in army is wrong? Is this why you appear so hostile in your reply to me? 

3Boys:

We all know? Who is we?

I suggest you speak for yourself.

Nobody says we can fight China or Russia or the US. In any case, of the 3, only the Us at this time has any ability to project forces so far, should they choose to do so. So your example is just a big red Herring. 

So we scale our forces to deal with the proximate and realistic threats,  we don't roll over an play dead.

Harlequin:

\"In the region\" = SEA (South East Asia)

I am sure you are wise enough to know who should SG defend itself from, right?

Russia, China and USA are not interested to put their military threat here lah. Can even safely say Korea and Japan are not interested too.

(Burp! Shang Palace's YuShen indigestion! excuse moi...)

Moonsun55:

No country in the region?  why you talk of region like China, Russia not in Asia region? Furthermore, If any country want to invade, they can come from anywhere. We all know the singapore's military is wayang, it can never stop a big powerful country from taking it down, & that is a fact that even if Singapore spend >20% of GDP on defense, it will not make much difference. I rather we minimize defense budget to focus on efficiency & transfer this money to healthcare in view of aging population needs. 

Please see below what you said: \"Right now, there is no one in the region that can come in and beat us, NO ONE.\". Because of what you said, I am asking you that since China & Russia is considered in Asia region of which Singapore is in, you are saying China & Russia can't beat us? I believe you statement is not correct & breeds arrogant & contentment since this is far from the truth.

Now that you say below \"Nobody says we can fight China or Russia or the US\", so you admit your previous statement about no one can beat Singapore in army is wrong? Is this why you appear so hostile in your reply to me?

3Boys:

The point of NS is that we are serious about defence and we fight to win. Right now, there is no one in the region that can come in and beat us, NO ONE.

Please quit embarrassing yourself.

3Boys:

Moonsun55:

No country in the region? why you talk of region like China, Russia not in Asia region? Furthermore, If any country want to invade, they can come from anywhere. We all know the singapore's military is wayang, it can never stop a big powerful country from taking it down, & that is a fact that even if Singapore spend >20% of GDP on defense, it will not make much difference. I rather we minimize defense budget to focus on efficiency & transfer this money to healthcare in view of aging population needs.
[quote=\"3Boys\"]I must say I feel a little disappointed that not more people weighed in against the ridiculous notion that our island is not defensible.

Having dutifully served NS and ICTs over the years, and having held some positions of responsibility in that time, I have no doubt that there is no country in the region that can mount a successful invasion of Singapore, and it is down to the professionalism and strength of our armed forces, not the presence of foreigners. If you are not familiar, here is a good book to read.

http://www.questia.com/library/98854885/defending-the-lion-city-the-armed-forces-of-singapore

Anyone familiar with our history, will realize that our present state of economic development, international standing, and indeed, independence, owes a whole lot to the strength of the SAF.

To have an uninformed individual come in and make the preposterous statement that we owe our peace to the presence of foreigners, on Feb 15th no less, is singularly OFFENSIVE!

No one who knows or values our soldiers, our independence, should grant this notion any quarter whatsoever. Rather than standing on the sidelines and chomping popcorn, it'd be nice if there were more than a few would speak up here to disabuse the uninformed of such an egregious notion, forcefully.

We all know? Who is we?

I suggest you speak for yourself.

Nobody says we can fight China or Russia or the US. In any case, of the 3, only the Us at this time has any ability to project forces so far, should they choose to do so. So your example is just a big red Herring.

So we scale our forces to deal with the proximate and realistic threats, we don't roll over an play dead.[/quote]

No country in the region? why you talk of region like China, Russia not in Asia region? Furthermore, If any country want to invade, they can come from anywhere. We all know the singapore's military is wayang, it can never stop a big powerful country from taking it down, & that is a fact that even if Singapore spend >20% of GDP on defense, it will not make much difference. I rather we minimize defense budget to focus on efficiency & transfer this money to healthcare in view of aging population needs.

3Boys:

I must say I feel a little disappointed that not more people weighed in against the ridiculous notion that our island is not defensible.

Having dutifully served NS and ICTs over the years, and having held some positions of responsibility in that time, I have no doubt that there is no country in the region that can mount a successful invasion of Singapore, and it is down to the professionalism and strength of our armed forces, not the presence of foreigners. If you are not familiar, here is a good book to read.

http://www.questia.com/library/98854885/defending-the-lion-city-the-armed-forces-of-singapore

Anyone familiar with our history, will realize that our present state of economic development, international standing, and indeed, independence, owes a whole lot to the strength of the SAF.

To have an uninformed individual come in and make the preposterous statement that we owe our peace to the presence of foreigners, on Feb 15th no less, is singularly OFFENSIVE!

No one who knows or values our soldiers, our independence, should grant this notion any quarter whatsoever. Rather than standing on the sidelines and chomping popcorn, it'd be nice if there were more than a few would speak up here to disabuse the uninformed of such an egregious notion, forcefully.

no embargo of the person who persisted in making the name calling? Why I got a feeling treatment is different from a previous forumer who had been embargoed? will such people stop such behavior?

ChiefKiasu:

Moderation action has been taken to embargo all posts involving name-calling.

How do you define as \"poor\"?

GST + income tax reduction IMHO only benefits the rich while penalises most of the lower income groups not defined as \"poor\" group. I am 1 of the beneficiary but I must also say that GST should be exempted for basic food necessities & medicine, have a heart for majority of Singapoeans struggling to make a living otherwise many can't even retire.

3Boys:

Mdm Koh:

3Boys,

I think that 7% GST is reasonable if we compare the tax rate to that of other developed countries. However, in order for the tax to benefit Singaporeans, I think that there are certain goods that ought to be exempted from GST, such as healthcare (especially for major surgeries in restructured hospitals).

Mdm Koh, I understand where you are coming from, and I strongly agree we can do more to help the poor when it comes to healthcare.

My preferred approach, rather than a en-bloc tweaking of the GST for healthcare, which then frees up the taxable portion for the wealthy also, and hence unnecessarily loses tax revenue, is to provide direct grants or subsidies to the poor when it comes to healthcare, to offset some of the costs, equal to or exceeding the GST portion. As it is, healthcare for C-class is very heavily subsidised.

Reasonable?

Rather than look at the GST only, one needs to consider the totality of healthcare costs. If our healthcare delivery is inefficient and costs are high as a result, the GST is the least of our worries.

Also, if there are people falling through the cracks, the answer is to fix those cracks, not change the signposts. So I believe a GST fix in this situation does not address the key issue and is merely a patch.

The way you are you saying is like all the rich will evade taxes & govt need to implement GST to get back evaded tax from them?

Then how do you explain cutting the rich's income tax by 5% to save them more taxes & taxes everybody else more as a result of GSt? Am I missing something here?

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.