7% GST - ouch

[Greenspan]

Damned! And they already screwed us on by not restoring the CPF employer rates and CPF ceiling when economy started to become better. Guess that will always stay.

[breitling]

(At least the 70 and 80yo are not homeless with bottles in their hands.)

But GST helping the poor. Yeah right.

The wealthy has choices. Don't spend in Sg.

Rich Singaporean travels abroad, buys a $200,000 diamond encrusted watch. Walks through Changi wearing watch under his $10,000 new suit from Saville Row.

Will anyone stop him to collect the $14,700 in GST (import taxes) - an amount equivalent to the annual income of a poor Singapore family?

[DoYouKnow?]

That the average sum available in CPF on retirement is S$30,000

[Consumerism]

 

quote:If I recall when VAT was introduced in UK the politicians said it was a "tax on luxuries" therefore targetted at the well-off which made everyone want it.

In Singapore GST was originally introduced as an instrument to control consumer spending.

Perhaps the shopping malls are too crowded?  

[Bagshot, Col]

Dr. Phil it is a fact that chancellors raise taxes, introduce new taxes, never repeal existing taxes. Its a fact of life dear boy!

Its just especially galling when he happens to be a Scot (with his own country and parliament) and more so when we English have to support those damned whingers, What?

[Well looks like]

I am back in Canada!

[Ha ha ha]

To: super elite MP - you better resign, okay?

[Amused Bystander]

Totally agree with pension.  I don't mind paying an extra 2% to help the elderly here, and indeed would love to see a state pension scheme for all the needy elderly people here rather than see them slog away as cleaners at hawker centres, as they truly did not have the chance in their day to obtain the education and the attenndant benefits that we now enjoy.

To all the sceptics here saying it is a tax on the poor given that they spend a greater percentage of their income, well give Lee Hsien Loong the benefit of the doubt as he did mention they'll ensure there is no impact on the poor

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

Finally, I imagine very few of us complained as income tax rates have fallen the past few years, and given that most readers of this board spend far less than 100% of their income, each percentage point drop in income tax rate is far more meaningful than a percentage point rise in GST

[@DR Phil]

Like many right-wing economists, you seemed to have missed the example posed by Nordic countries - some with cash reserves in excess of Singapore, stable (but aging populations), high economic growth, and yes, a huge welfare program and high taxes.

The right does not have all the answers.

[swordfish]

As a business owner, an increase in GST taxes those who have the least disposable income and results in people holding back spending. I have enjoyed lower personal and company taxes, so in some ways am better off since GST was introduced.

However, its wrong for the PM to state the nanny states in Scandinavia have failed to interest people in working. These economies in Sweden, Finland and Norway are actually some of the best in the world as is the standard of living. Singapore, with the highest per capita savings in the world, has one of the worst social platforms on the planet.

I think they should start by creating a minimum wage (oooh....) and some standards for foreign workers including maids. Do you know who benefits from their work most ? The super rich of this country. The savings are not passed down to the common man except in the form of nicely pruned trees. I think given a choice most people would prefer medical plans or a pension to a nice shrubbery.

IF the PAP is a party of the people, its time they gave some money back to the people and supported the chronically ill, unemployed, mentally handicapped and other individuals who have been left behind.

Yes, I would pay more person tax if it went to the establishment of some semblance of social planning.

[@DR Phil]

Swordfish, well said.  It's funny how people on the right have been blind to functioning 'nanny' and 'welfare' states that continue to prove that you can a growth around 5-8% per year over the long term and still treat people as human beings.

[poorpolicies]

I’ve got to laugh at the last few postings. Trust Lee Hsien Loong? What are his credentials? Sure he was once Finance Minister, but he beat the second man in charge of MAS to get the position, with a portfolio that was a lot less finance-based. Was he really the best man for the job? And what has he really achieved during his term as Finance Minister? Even now, his policy on “wealth distribution” does not make logical sense. Sure, $20 is nothing to someone who grew up in his privileged background. But someone making $1,000 struggles so hard to make ends meet that $20 is a significant amount of money to them. His policies are designed and geared for the “haves”, not the “have nots”.

It is ludicrous to compare Singapore to the Scandinavian states. The income there is much higher and there’s minimum wage. Income levels for the poor remain very low. Salaries also have not risen by much, even despite the economic upswing. With higher taxes, it just puts a tighter squeeze on spending power, making the lives of people even harder. And when consumer confidence is low, they buy less, which means less money goes around in the economy, causing a downward spiral. Is this really the right way to go?

Last but not least, what’s with the high foreign reserves but taxing people to improve social welfare? Isn’t it logical that you invest in your own country and people before investing in other countries? Investment is money over and above what is required to meet your needs, and if your country’s needs are not met, you cater to those first. Much of our foreign reserves have been thrown around by GLCs in money losing investments that no one is ultimately accountable for- it’s time this money is used rightly.

[The Narcissist5]

Well said Swordfish.

The elderly here are provided for by their children.  If not for this "filial piety" mentality, there will be loads more elderly homeless around.

[MC Donalds]

What you are missing out in the comparisons to the Nordic countries is that Nordic countries enjoy or suffer, whichever way you want to look at it, a very equal distribution of wealth - especially after the highly progressive income tax. The difference between the low earning and the high earning groups, give or take a few CEO's, is very small, Singapore being quite the opposite.

Therefore, any comparison to the Nordic system is highly irrelevant in the Singaporean context with all kinds of elites that have to be nursed and pampered on the cost of regular mortals.

[GST worldwide]

Out of curiosity, which country has the lowest and highest?