Skip to content

ExpatSingapore

Home Message Board Contact Us Search

ExpatSingapore Message Board 13 February 2012, 8:37:13 am *
Username: Password: (or Register)
 
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 8
  Reply  |  Print  
Author Topic: 7% GST - ouch  (Read 6494 times)
Talkingco*k
Guest
« Reply #45 on: 15 November 2006, 12:26:00 pm »
Reply with quoteQuote

Ministers to Get Pay Rise to Help Lower Income Groups

Besides raising GST, Singapore’s Ministers intend to raise their own pay in order to help lower income Singaporeans.

“The country needs more money for social measures like education, housing and health care for peasa… I mean, lower income workers,” said Ministry of Elitism spokesman Louie Chin Ooh Lui. “So if Ministers get more pay, then we will be able to spend more money in the economy, and that will trickle down to help the peasa… sorry, sorry, lower income workers.”

Mr. Chin said that the Ministerial pay rise would contribute to all sectors of the economy. “For example, it will definitely benefit the airline industry as Ministers will now have more money to afford an overseas education for their kids, and their families will definitely travel more to visit them. They will also buy more luxury cars, which will benefit the automotive sector, and also the chauffeur industry. By traveling more in cars, they will also contribute more ERP charges, thus benefiting the country’s land transport policies. They will also take up more country club memberships, thus providing more employment opportunities for peasa… you know who I mean. If Ministers get paid more, every Singaporean benefits.”

In other news, many Singaporeans agree with PM Lee’s characterization of the government as 'high quality but cheap' despite Singaporean Ministers having the highest salaries of any government in the world.

Said Bukit Buttocks resident, Kiam Siap Kui, “Look at how much money they give us back in exchange for supporting their million dollar lifestyles. Of course they’re cheap, lah!”

Logged
ExpatSingapore Message Board
« Reply #45 on: 15 November 2006, 12:26:00 pm »
Reply with quoteQuote



 Logged
Vatrates
Guest
« Reply #46 on: 15 November 2006, 12:30:00 pm »
Reply with quoteQuote

Norway, Sweden and Denmark have 25% VAT rates. Japan, Malaysia and Singapore have 5% VAT rates.  
Logged
25%???
Guest
« Reply #47 on: 15 November 2006, 12:38:00 pm »
Reply with quoteQuote

Isn't Norway supposed to be the best place to live in the world?
Logged
Sinkers
Guest
« Reply #48 on: 15 November 2006, 12:41:00 pm »
Reply with quoteQuote


It all depends on which side of the fence you are on. Are you in the saucepan of water which is now nearing boiling point and there is no way to run? Or are you the owner of the saucepan who's going to make an enjoyable cup of coffee with that boiling water?

Generally, Singaporeans (are the former in this analogy) would be concerned about the rising cost of common everyday living and survival. It's a very very real concern coupled with the growing frustration that their voices are not heard. How far before the water reaches boiling point?

Logged
swordfish
Guest
« Reply #49 on: 15 November 2006, 13:09:00 pm »
Reply with quoteQuote

This is a discussion you won't ever find in the funny times.

I would write more, as it really truly pisses me off, but lest I be subject to a libel suit I had better sign off.

Great freedom.

Logged
Dr. Phil
Guest
« Reply #50 on: 15 November 2006, 13:18:00 pm »
Reply with quoteQuote

To: @DR PHIL, I am not a right economist.

Ideally we should all have a sound public service sector to care for our people especially the least well-off.

That's what Nordic countries have invested in and that's what Nordic countries are preparing to dismantle knowing, sadly, as those who are now EU member nations, they are increasingly overwhelmed by immigrants who want the same; and who can blame them?

Most amusingly, many are from outside EU.

The fact is these countries increasingly realise they cant sustain the cost of such an invasion and they are making hard choices to salvage their customs and traditions, at least.

I happen to believe we had a good (never very good) National Health Service in UK and our welfare system in UK (an ideological weapon for so long) must be designed to sustain the most needy.

However if benefits are pitched too high we know its a disincentive for unemployed to seek employment; today too many people have lost self respect and no longer want a job, merely a lifesyle or minimum quality of life.

Its especially complicated in UK because we have opened our doors to immigrants from all over the world and we do so honestly and openly.

When foreigners are in UK and are injured they are rightly treated at no expense however to incorporate this into a mission statement as a supplement to our EU commitments to provide free health, education and welfare to all who come to UK is admirable but untennable.

Today in UK these services are over-stressed and a disingenuous government tries to cut costs by reducing manning or cuting jobs.

In the police force we have long ago lost our policemen on the beat and today jaded references to "community policing" distract attention from a skeleton force supplemented by widespread nationwide CCTV coverage.

People need to know their local bobby and trust in him with information important to the security and safety of the local community.

In the fire service we have stopped recruiting in favour of a volunteer force of part-timers when we must commit to permanent staff and advanced training especially during future years of threatened security breaches.

Our National Health Service is sick and there are superbugs in our hospitals which kill patients.

We are not attracting and training young people to careers in medicine and health care these once cherished careers have become the kind of jobs offered to immigrants with poor pay, poor conditions questionable qualifications and there is much stress and unpaid overtime which are inetr-related.

And we continue to cut vital front-line staff, nurses especially, to pay for more Health Service "Managers" to "better utilise" resources.

I could go on, and on.

Once immigration reaches a point of critical mass their voting power will intimidate our political masters and there will be no posibility of rectifying the situation.

However, welfare does not mean giving everything to everyone....

You talk of aunties and uncles working in a variety of jobs; I see useful productive proud people unlike the elderly in Europe who are written-off and ignored and are required to stand, "cap in hand" for government handouts.

Today, many in UK will face great hardship and upheaval as interest rates creep up, increasingly demanding mortgage repayments, mum and dad working, children unattended, increased stresses......

Perhaps these aunties and uncles should sit at home in which case they will have little purpose in their otherwise busy lives and they will die quickly from apathy.

You are too young to judge their priorities and they do not share your goals; its not all about material wealth. Its about community care, national care, and you have an intelligent government which continues to make all the right moves for its people.

Logged
Oh My Gawd
Guest
« Reply #51 on: 15 November 2006, 13:19:00 pm »
Reply with quoteQuote

"Assuming a household earning $1000/month spend their entire income on GST-able items they will incur an extra $20/week. Given the extra tax revenue the goverment will collect from everyone else, they could easily afford rebating this $20/week (eg through utilities rebates) and indeed ensure no impact on the poor. In this case it is indeed a good policy"

This is schoolboy Macroeconomics at its worst.

Let's say I'm a low income earner. The more I spend the more taxes I have to pay. So I will spend less. This will apply to utilities as well- so how will I get more rebate? How would the government know exactly how much to rebate me for because my spending is pegged neither to my salary level or how much I pay for my utilities?

It's easy to say that it's only a 2 percent increase. But many merchants will round up the amount, or even take the opportunity to raise prices. It would effectively be a 5, 10 or 15 percent increase. How is this supposed to help low income workers?

If you really want to redistribute wealth, then you take it directly from those who have more money, not going on one big round that is more damaging than helpful.

Logged
Unfair
Guest
« Reply #52 on: 15 November 2006, 15:07:00 pm »
Reply with quoteQuote

Ha! Dr. Phil for one moment I thought you were serious but now I understand your posts are full of irony and sarcasm. Brilliant! Very funny!  
Logged
Robin Hood
Guest
« Reply #53 on: 15 November 2006, 15:15:00 pm »
Reply with quoteQuote

Who wants to redistribute wealth?

We are talking about providing a safety net for the less well-off.

Schoolboy economics.

Logged
@DR Phil
Guest
« Reply #54 on: 15 November 2006, 19:44:00 pm »
Reply with quoteQuote

A fairly recent edition of Foreign Affairs had a number of extensive articles on Nordic countries, and one of the striking features is that they - almost alone in europe - are NOT being 'overun' with migrants as they mostly have a zero-population growth policy that they use to control migration (amongst other factors).

You need to learn to read beyond the rights spin, they are not 'collapsing' but going from strength to strength and even some of the righties in the EU and US are now, finally, begining to see the logic to the nordic systems.

Logged
nordisko
Guest
« Reply #55 on: 15 November 2006, 22:07:00 pm »
Reply with quoteQuote

Best places to live, but not "overrun" by immigrants cos darn, it's way too cold up there.

Wait, don't they also pay their old folks to live in Spain?

Logged
Dr. Phil
Guest
« Reply #56 on: 15 November 2006, 22:50:00 pm »
Reply with quoteQuote

The only Nordic countries not being swamped by immigration are those not members of the EU. They have control over their destiny.

There is a small population increase but its a qualitative rather than a quantitative development; contrary to the principles of globalisation and it includes social programs which provide constructive intelligent help, rather than punishment.

Interestingly, in a recent study, Denmark is considered the happiest country.

Apparently smaller populations who nurture a "family" spirit to nationhood are happier and enjoy closer community.

In UK whenever we get close, such feelings are deemed "patriotic" and even "fascist" and even "racist" because to love ones own is discriminatory.

Get with the programme guys!

Logged
to dr phil
Guest
« Reply #57 on: 15 November 2006, 23:12:00 pm »
Reply with quoteQuote

there is a website for your kind.  it is called stormfront.
Logged
Amused Bystander
Guest
« Reply #58 on: 15 November 2006, 23:19:00 pm »
Reply with quoteQuote

To poorpolicies and Oh My Gawd, thanks for responding.  This is a a great thread so far

My point wasn't that $20 is insignificant.  Of course it is very significant to someone earning $1000/month

Rather my point was that the govt could easily afford to provide the safety net they have spoken about.  Say if the $1000 income level represents a 20% percentile (complete guess on my part, so happy to be corrected) then giving 20% of the population $240 a year is easily funded out of the increased GST collected from the remaining 80% of the population who will spend far more than $1000/month on average even if as a percentage term of their salary it is less than 100% the poor spend).  Heck the past few years the government has handed out a number of times "New Singapore Shares" or whatever they are called worth far more than $240...

I for one am happy to cut LSL some slack and hope he delivers on these promises.  Sure he was handed leadership on a platter, but he does seem to have a good mix of pragmatism and compassion

The reason Singapore keeps on cutting corporate and personal tax rates and offsets this by increasing consumption rate is quite simply to attract businesses here.  Otherwise, why would any MNC set-up asian quarters in Singapore if taxes were at the Scandinavian levels?

Just cutting corporate tax rate but keeping personal tax rate too high also won't work since then the management f these said MNCs will again push for their relocation elsewhere (HK for example)

Being an Asian country, Singapore obviously started with no social saftey net at all, but it is making progress (albeit frustratingly slow...)

Finally another quick back-of-an-envelope and this time regarding an area where PAP / LSL I think acted rather foolishly..

Going by extremely vague recollection, the topic of aged pesnion I believe was rasied in recent months in public forums and was canned pretty quickly by the government saying it is not affordable...

I'll guess 10% of the population is above 60, and further guess that of those 20% will be "needy" making a total of  60,000 elderly needy singaporeans.  If they were to receive $500/month pension the cost will be $360m/annum.  For a government that handed out in New SIngapore Shares to every single citizen (to promote citizenship or whatever) adding up to 2.something billion, this 360m is easily affordable.  They could have simply restricted the cash grant to the low income earners, and used the surplus to fund this modest pension scheme

Logged
Unfair
Guest
« Reply #59 on: 15 November 2006, 23:59:00 pm »
Reply with quoteQuote

There is a very simple reason why the UK is attracting so many more immigrants than other European countries: language!
For most jobs a reasonable level of the local language is needed, and how many Poles speak Finnish or Danish?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 8
  Reply  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.15 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines