How true is government playing Robinhood
-
If COE is used as a substitute to vehicle excise duty, as announced and there is no such gerryamndering to keep charging the punitive excise duty subsequently contrary to original announced intention, there will be nothing wrong with praising COE as the system to implement.
The point of contention is that minister who announced COE as the ultimately fairer way to price road usage did not keep his word. So I am asking whether ministers have the integrity or honesty in serving the people. Can we trust them with such responsibilities when they have signally failed to keep their words of honour as seen in this episode.
If indeed COE and subsequently ERP are the fairer way to solve our road congestion problem, then all the previously punitive taxes and fees including the vehicle excise duty it seeks to replace should be withdrawn and not by gerrymandering retained to increase revenues.
Whether any increases in govenment revenues will be put to good use to benefit the people in lowering the ever-increasing costs of living or doing business is any body's guess so do not give the optimistic view that they will go towards lowering taxes. Records of the government speaks for itself. Surpluses which the people contributed will be sunk in vote buying and all the prestigious projects which only look good from the outside. Wait till all see more GST and fee increases once election is over.
The point we are making here is that if minister has told parliament when COE was introduced that it is a fairer way to tax road usage to solve congestion problem, then he should mean what he said and not after COE was introduced to keep charging the very punitive vehicle excise duty. That is double taxation which is against humanity in any nations and by any human standards.
Such double taxation has been causing the costs of living of a large section of vehicle-dependent people to go up. This group of the population is by no means small. Do we have a caring government who will understand such problems - struggling with subsistence.
People can understand certain policies like COEs or even GST but it is the integrity and honesty of ministers we are concerned with now in this issue not whether COE was justified.
Double charging and wrongful and flawed executions and gerrymandering of the policies will cause major problems.
Some people tend to believe the government's assurance that higher taxes of certain people will help to lower taxes or lessen the people' cost burden. Is that assurance truthful on records. What has the govenment done to lower the costs of essential welfares and wellbeing and services. Basically the government does not use surpluses even in bad times as recommended by ex-President Ong Teng Cheong who finally was left very demoralised. So do not use such propaganda to keep practising anti-entrepreneurial and anti-progress tax-and-recover policies.
The yearly surpluses are not only enforced on government budget but every statutory board is making surpluses or breaking even. So people pay more and more the govenrment is getting richer and richer. Who will suffer at the end when the economy cannot grow being deprived of liquidity and vibrancy. How many people can understand such government policies are costing us jobs and loss of economic competitiveness?
The new leadership under PM Lee did not show it has set a more discernible objective to use surpluses to lower the costs of living such as by way of creating endowments from surpluses to lower high transportation and medical and utlity costs which easily take up 60% of household income of lower income earners.
So think again and do not keep saying things to further propaganda and gerrymandering by the ministers such as the saying - rob the rich to pay for the poor.
The ministers are not helping the poorer section of population as the essential services are taking up a high proportion of their income. So it is certainly untrue to believe them that they are robbing the rich to pay for the poor.
It is a fact that every sector of the economy is suffering the poor, the middle class and the rich as well. Our talents simply do not know what is the meaning of struggling for a living and by its actions the government is killing the goose that lays the golden egg. -
Originally posted by robertteh:
I wouldn't mentioned who's robin and who's hood...
COE - Certificate of "Entitlement". It was introduced to control the number of vehicles (Private, Public, Commercial) in Singapore.
ERP - Electronic Road Pricing. Introduced to charge for vehicles using certain designated route.
Both are introduced to smoothen the traffic condition in Singapore, which we believed or told to believe.
No offence to vehicle owner, or owner going to be. I may propose "hush and hard for singapore sake" rules that may no be in favour of any car lovers.
Isn't there a better way for controling the number of vehicles in Singapore. I think there can have.
Entitlement is no a privilege.
I propose each family shall only be allowed to bit for a COE for private car each under the current bidding system.
Any private vehicles that are bidding under the same address shall / or may be allowed. However, a heavy penalty (say 3 times the COE value) will be served to the owner of the 2nd / 3rd car and so on. That may also applied to carpark. Likely to reduce public spending on all this factilities. We welcome other to consider using public transport, else.
For public transport, it should be excluded from having to bid (Buses, Taxi) to reduce the capital cost, hopefully reduce fare too.
For commercial vehicles (trucks, van, school buses, company's buses and other etc) will still required to bid the COE under current system and the rule on 2nd / 3rd vehicles will not be applied.
The actual number of COE valid for bidding will be after lessing the number of Public transport.
With the implement of the above, I think the number will be sharply reduced. (with a lot of unhappiness, likely)
For ERP, by then may be reduced because of less vehicles using the road.
For Foreigner's vehicle inside singapore, I would propose a $20 inland fees per day for staying in singapore besides the one off toll fees.
This will also reduce the number of foreigner vehicles competing unfairly with our local businesses.
Hopefully with some saving from spending into building factilties and maintenance of roads, etc. The amount of fund can be relocated to help those needys in their daily needs as mentioned by Fellows Robertteh.
This is my personal view and solution proposal. I am not pointing at anyone, hopefully, this can be a more workable solution for the ministry to consider.
No offence. -
The Government aka the Ruling Political Party is playing Robin Hood in the Reverse Role.
Instead of robbing the RICH, they have held on to their belief that the RICH is the generator of wealth and progress, and need to be pampered, as one RICH PERSON can generate enough work for TEN LESS RICH Singaporeans.
All the Taxation Programs have been tailored to attract the Rich and Famous to Singapore, to start new enterprises, and bring over their technical expertise in High Tech Industries and Specialist Financial Expertise.
Where is the wealth coming from that is filling up the Treasury ?
Can the TOP FIVE PERCENT of Income Tax Payees contribute more than the other SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT AVERAGE SINGAPOREAN Tax Payees ?
Can the TOP FIVE PERCENT Tax Payees generate more consumer expenditure than the SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT AVERAGE Singapore Tax Payees ?
It is the bottom THREE QUARTER of the Pyramid that is being robbed at every turn of their dependence on all kinds of services and utilities that they have been forced to depend from one source - the Government and its GLCs, all being headed by the SINGLE POLITICAL PARTY.
The POWER OF ONE decides how Singapore is to be run, and who pays what, and who will be coddled to lay the " golden egg " , and once the goose is old and worthless, it is sent to the slaughter house, as no further use can be found from it.
Is it any wonder that in Singapore, the Retired Folks with all their expertise and experience are left to languish according to their own means ?
In more advanced countries - such as Japan, the Retired Folks are tapped for their expertise and experience to hald in a second tier economy, to provide guidance, and to be organised and sent abroad to help other Less Developed Countries to grow in the areas that the expertise and experience of the Retired Folks can contribute.
These are the initiative from a Mature First World Government that look at ALL ASPECT of Social Development - not merely MONEY. -
[quote]Originally posted by Atobe:
[b]Sorry, Fellows Atobe, hope you won't mind me coming into picture again..
I would propose lower corporate tax, as these will encourage foreigner MNC and local SME to set up companies here and hopefully create job opportunities for our local singaporean.
I would also propose high personal tax, maybe 30 - even up to 50% instead of the current tax system. Reason is very simple, the higher the earning, the more they contribute to singapore society. As a singaporean, if I am more willing to pay 5% above if I have that kind of earning too. won't you? or any singaporean? This may also improve family bonding as deduction can be obtained with staying with parents.
Retain the current 5% GST if needed to, but not encouraging anymore increase.
I am currently looking at how public transport fare can be reduced so that our local can benefit from it.
For the rest of the topic, I won't comment until I have a better proposal or solutions.
No offence. Cheers. -
king108.. you seem to be promoting Reaganomics
anyway, Robin Hood?
they're more like Robbin' Hoods -
Originally posted by the Bear:king108.. you seem to be promoting Reaganomics
anyway, Robin Hood?
they're more like Robbin' Hoods Thanks for teaching me a new words.
I do believed that we need to lower corporate tax to encourage both foreign and local singaporean to set up firm here. By setting up firms here, chances of creating jobs will be higher. I hope this is right?
I believed that higher personal tax. Can be ranged, but to be fair, treated equally, make it same. Since the corporate tax is reduced. The government will be able to recover some from the personal tax.
The higher you earn, the more you paid after deducting all the items that you are allowed to claimed. Are you against this? I am willing to do so.
GST currently 5%, any increase will have direct impact on commoner. Do you wanted it. I would not encourage, cause I care for the commoners.
One may live in Nothingham forest, but he may not be that Robin Hood. Robin Hood is named by the commoners, not anyone can name himself as one. No offence. -
if you look at the US, you will realise one thing very quickly...
Supply-side, trickle-down or whatever the heck you call it.. Reaganomics does not work at all...
by decreasing taxes on corporates, you only give them more... they are here for one reason and one reason only... to make a profit.. damn the people..
in the same sweep, you want to press the people down with more taxes?
i suggest you read a heck of a lot more deeply into the excess and the complete failures of the US system... and the abuses involved...
then come back and tell us all about your trickle-down economics...
people must never ever be used to prop up the economy.. the economy is a tool to help the people, not the other way around... -
Originally posted by king108:
Creation of firms here doesn't mean more jobs. Outsource is still the word businesses like.
[b]I do believed that we need to lower corporate tax to encourage both foreign and local singaporean to set up firm here. By setting up firms here, chances of creating jobs will be higher. I hope this is right?[/b] -
NO GOVERNMENT IN THIS WORLD IS PERFECT
-
my mum always say: govt' will discount a little everywhere, den raise the elec and water bills, ERP, etc. this progress package will be well covered up after the election, with some rises of bills. somehow i think this is quite true.
-
den give our views so we can make it near perfect...Originally posted by F.raon.I.R:NO GOVERNMENT IN THIS WORLD IS PERFECT
-
king108,Originally posted by king108:Sorry, Fellows Atobe, hope you won't mind me coming into picture again..
I would propose lower corporate tax, as these will encourage foreigner MNC and local SME to set up companies here and hopefully create job opportunities for our local singaporean.
I would also propose high personal tax, maybe 30 - even up to 50% instead of the current tax system. Reason is very simple, the higher the earning, the more they contribute to singapore society. As a singaporean, if I am more willing to pay 5% above if I have that kind of earning too. won't you? or any singaporean? This may also improve family bonding as deduction can be obtained with staying with parents.
Retain the current 5% GST if needed to, but not encouraging anymore increase.
I am currently looking at how public transport fare can be reduced so that our local can benefit from it.
For the rest of the topic, I won't comment until I have a better proposal or solutions.
No offence. Cheers.
no offense taken in your post, and likewise would prefer if you avoid using the color " orange " - which really is hurting to the eye when the entire page is painted and to be read in detail in this color.
Are you a practising Buddhist ?
Lowering the corporate tax may only result in higher profits retained - which may not benefit Singapore or Singaporeans, not when the corporation is foreign owned and resulting in a larger profit being repatriated.
Large income tax on Singaporean wage earners ?
Who will benefit from this large amount of money collected by the Singapore Finance Ministry, when the Singapore Government aka the Ruling Political Party do not believe in Welfarism ?
The only beneficiary to the vast amount of money accumulated in annual surplus is the Government, and without doubt transferring the same to the GIC and Temasek Holdings.
Will Singaporeans benefit from the profit earnings of the various investments of the Singapore Assets from Foreign Companies taken over by the Singapore GIC and Temasek Holdings ?
With a personal tax of 50% and more, will there be anything left for Singaporeans to contribute to the economy by way of individual consumption ?
An income tax of 50% PLUS a 5% GST - this will result in Singaporeans being taxed into poverty.
It is ironical that it took the Father of Communism - Karl Marx - to recognise that to tax a Citizen more then FIFTY PERCENT is to commit ROBBERY.
If the Economy is to be brought back to life, the Singapore Finance Ministry will have to return to Singaporeans what they have allowed to be collected by the many increase in charges by the various essential service providers that are all GLCs operating with capital from the Singapore Government.
With higher Personal Tax, and lower Corporate Tax - are you not defeating yourself in drawing the MNCs and encouraging SME start-ups but at the same time demoralizing the individual contributor who are needed to run the MNCs and the SMEs ? -
Ok no more orange.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:Creation of firms here doesn't mean more jobs. Outsource is still the word businesses like. If the company is set up and operated here, the company will have to paid corporate tax, rental, utilities, stamps, telephone charges, legal, other related jobs and best hopefully he created some value jobs for our local here. Even his business is outsourced to other country, his earning is still taxable here. Indirectly and or directly, he created jobs. Am I right. I had been creating jobs..that why I know but just no enough..
Corporate tax will be a collection to the govt. Personal tax is another..
By the way, I am not for out sourcing unless no choice.
I hope my answer is acceptable to you. -
Of which, the government really selectively select them and makes life worse for us if they are implemented.Originally posted by Purplehaze623:den give our views so we can make it near perfect... -
Originally posted by king108:
You want to write in white also can. Just remember to tell us to highlight the text, if not cannot see.
[b]Ok no more orange. If the company is set up and operated here, the company will have to paid corporate tax, rental, utilities, stamps, telephone charges, legal, other related jobs and best hopefully he created some value jobs for our local here. Even his business is outsourced to other country, his earning is still taxable here. Indirectly and or directly, he created jobs. Am I right. I had been creating jobs..that why I know but just no enough..
Corporate tax will be a collection to the govt. Personal tax is another..
By the way, I am not for out sourcing unless no choice.
I hope my answer is acceptable to you. [/b]
Correct me if I misunderstood you. You say the company have to pay corporate taxes, rental, utilities etc
so this means some locals will be hired to do these jobs? Help them buy stamps etc?
For the blue part, how does the company paying of tax helps to create jobs? -
Accounting, IRA, Auditor, IT, Admin really depended how big is the size of company. Would you send your hard copies of the invoices,documents, out and wait for returns when local have such services available?.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:You want to write in white also can. Just remember to tell us to highlight the text, if not cannot see.
Correct me if I misunderstood you. You say the company have to pay corporate taxes, rental, utilities etc so this means some locals will be hired to do these jobs? Help them buy stamps etc?
For the blue part, how does the company paying of tax helps to create jobs?
Please lah..stamps if postage is what you meant..Heard of "stamp fee".. -
Understood.Originally posted by king108:Accounting, IRA, Auditor, IT, Admin really depended how big is the size of company. Would you send your hard copies of the invoices,documents, out and wait for returns when local have such services available?.
Please lah..stamps if postage is what you meant..Heard of "stamp fee".. -
[quote]Originally posted by Atobe:
king108,
no offense taken in your post, and likewise would prefer if you avoid using the color " orange " - which really is hurting to the eye when the entire page is painted and to be read in detail in this color.
Are you a practising Buddhist ?
Rep: A free thinker at current stage, I had interest in religions. I had personally read most of them to know them better. I am pledging my belief to Christ soon.
Lowering the corporate tax may only result in higher profits retained - which may not benefit Singapore or Singaporeans, not when the corporation is foreign owned and resulting in a larger profit being repatriated.
Rep: Lower corporate tax will invite foreigner and local to set up firm here. Am I right to say so.
Advantage can see immediately is to have more employments, create jobs.
A company will have operating expenses and capital expenses, bad dept and other etc. Profit is after minus all the expenses and also after tax.
Foreign owned corporation can result in larger profit being repatriated? Maybe you can advise us the method. (I would like to learn more)
What do company do with profit normally – pay increment, bonus package, dividends to shareholders and part of it as growth funds. If retained a big portion, the company is considered cash rich, I would advise you to buy the share at low.
When higher profit is retained in the company, the financial statement will be healthier. Am I right? Cash inside, less borrowing required.
Large income tax on Singaporean wage earners ?
Rep: (Includes foreigner/local) Higher income to pay higher tax should be good for government collection – no doubt. If you ready have the heart for Singapore, you will stay.
Who will benefit from this large amount of money collected by the Singapore Finance Ministry, when the Singapore Government aka the Ruling Political Party do not believe in Welfarism ?
Rep: I am looking at total employment for local Singaporeans. (self sustain). Cannot answer for their behalf, itÂ’s outside my proposal
The only beneficiary to the vast amount of money accumulated in annual surplus is the Government, and without doubt transferring the same to the GIC and Temasek Holdings.
Rep:Cannot answer for their behalf, itÂ’s outside my proposal
Will Singaporeans benefit from the profit earnings of the various investments of the Singapore Assets from Foreign Companies taken over by the Singapore GIC and Temasek Holdings ?
Rep:Cannot answer for their behalf, itÂ’s outside my proposal
With a personal tax of 50% and more, will there be anything left for Singaporeans to contribute to the economy by way of individual consumption ?
An income tax of 50% PLUS a 5% GST - this will result in Singaporeans being taxed into poverty.
Rep: Personal income tax come with relief, 50% is only a guide and not a must. Would you preferred to have higher 7%-10% GST then? That every commoner and businesses will have to suffer more.
[b]It is ironical that it took the Father of Communism - Karl Marx - to recognise that to tax a Citizen more then FIFTY PERCENT is to commit ROBBERY.
Rep: No comments on this, no my thinking.
If the Economy is to be brought back to life, the Singapore Finance Ministry will have to return to Singaporeans what they have allowed to be collected by the many increase in charges by the various essential service providers that are all GLCs operating with capital from the Singapore Government.
Rep: Cannot answer for their behalf, itÂ’s outside my proposal.
With higher Personal Tax, and lower Corporate Tax - are you not defeating yourself in drawing the MNCs and encouraging SME start-ups but at the same time demoralizing the individual contributor who are needed to run the MNCs and the SMEs ?
My view is for singaporean commoners. I will be proud of paying for that if I can affort to. -
Originally posted by king108:
It is always good to have an anchor.
Original post by Atobe:
king108,
no offense taken in your post, and likewise would prefer if you avoid using the color " orange " - which really is hurting to the eye when the entire page is painted and to be read in detail in this color.
Are you a practising Buddhist ?
Rep: A free thinker at current stage, I had interest in religions. I had personally read most of them to know them better. I am pledging my belief to Christ soon.Lowering the corporate tax may only result in higher profits retained - which may not benefit Singapore or Singaporeans, not when the corporation is foreign owned and resulting in a larger profit being repatriated.
Foreign Corporations will normally bring in their more experienced staffs from their home base, and will not normally employ local staff more then necessary to keep the investment running, and keep the technology IN-HOUSE.
Rep: Lower corporate tax will invite foreigner and local to set up firm here. Am I right to say so.
Advantage can see immediately is to have more employments, create jobs.
A company will have operating expenses and capital expenses, bad dept and other etc. Profit is after minus all the expenses and also after tax.
Foreign owned corporation can result in larger profit being repatriated? Maybe you can advise us the method. (I would like to learn more)
What do company do with profit normally – pay increment, bonus package, dividends to shareholders and part of it as growth funds. If retained a big portion, the company is considered cash rich, I would advise you to buy the share at low.
When higher profit is retained in the company, the financial statement will be healthier. Am I right? Cash inside, less borrowing required.
Where possible, fixxed and long term recurring costs will be kept to a minimum so that the PULL-OUT costs will not be just as high when the LIFE-CYCLE for the business end.
Can there be any large job benefit when low cost labor is no longer the name of the game ?
With Tax Holidays and pre-arranged special write-offs for investments over a given period, it will result in increased tax to be repatriated to the home country.
Such privileges are not available to local start-ups.
Going by the experience with our Singapore Airlines - it is cash-rich but not as generous as it would like to be, not under the present circumstances of curtailing runaway wage increments that affect the profitability of the Company.
With the current mood of flexi-wages and short term labor contracts, the days of generous pay packages and bonus to the lower ranks are over; only the Corporate Leadership will enjoy handsome payout in bonus and share issues.
If the Foreign Company decides to plant their roots here, it will be a new ball game, and just because the shares are cheap does not necessarily mean we should jump into the Stock Market and speculate in the stocks of such Companies. Many have got their fingers burnt even with stable local Companies being made public such as SingTel.Large income tax on Singaporean wage earners ?
Is there any logic here ?
Rep: (Includes foreigner/local) Higher income to pay higher tax should be good for government collection – no doubt. If you ready have the heart for Singapore, you will stay.
As a Foreigner, I invest in Singapore, create jobs for Singaporeans (even if only 2 jobs are created, while the rest are staffed by expatriates), I work hard to put Singapore on the World Map of frontier technology - and I must pay a hefty income tax and you expect me to have a heart for Singapore ?
Under such circumstance, will the Foreigner be altruistic or will he divert a major part of his pay package to be paid in his home country, and only a minimum being declared to be paid in Singapore ?Who will benefit from this large amount of money collected by the Singapore Finance Ministry, when the Singapore Government aka the Ruling Political Party do not believe in Welfarism ?
It is too easy to opt out by simply declaring that the answer is outside of your proposal.
Rep: I am looking at total employment for local Singaporeans. (self sustain). Cannot answer for their behalf, itÂ’s outside my proposal
The only beneficiary to the vast amount of money accumulated in annual surplus is the Government, and without doubt transferring the same to the GIC and Temasek Holdings.
Rep:Cannot answer for their behalf, itÂ’s outside my proposal
Will Singaporeans benefit from the profit earnings of the various investments of the Singapore Assets from Foreign Companies taken over by the Singapore GIC and Temasek Holdings ?
Rep:Cannot answer for their behalf, itÂ’s outside my proposal
What good is a proposal if it is leaking in all directions ? -
continuation:
With a personal tax of 50% and more, will there be anything left for Singaporeans to contribute to the economy by way of individual consumption ?
At whatever percentage point of tax being levied, the Relief Amount allocated is pure nonsense.
An income tax of 50% PLUS a 5% GST - this will result in Singaporeans being taxed into poverty.
Rep: Personal income tax come with relief, 50% is only a guide and not a must. Would you preferred to have higher 7%-10% GST then? That every commoner and businesses will have to suffer more.
The current Personal and Earned Relief available to Singaporeans are $2000 PLUS $1000; Wife Relief - $2000; and Child Reliefs are 1st Child to 3rd Child - $2000, 4th Child PLUS - $300 (those born after 1988 entitled to $2000); and donations to approved charities, insurances, and Provident Fund.
If one is earning in the High Income bracket of between $60,000 to $200,000 the tax payable at 50% after deducting all of the above (estimated at a Total Relief of $20000) will result in payable tax amount of $20,000 to $90,000.
If the family do not have the benefit of all the Tax Reliefs, the tax payable will be even higher.
The available balance after tax will be quite different for the wage earner taking home $60000 annually from that of the $200,000 earner.It is ironical that it took the Father of Communism - Karl Marx - to recognise that to tax a Citizen more then FIFTY PERCENT is to commit ROBBERY.
The fact remains that it is daylight robbery for anyone planning to implement 50% income tax, and more so for a government that do not believe in Social Welfare.
Rep: No comments on this, no my thinking.If the Economy is to be brought back to life, the Singapore Finance Ministry will have to return to Singaporeans what they have allowed to be collected by the many increase in charges by the various essential service providers that are all GLCs operating with capital from the Singapore Government.
Even Communist China recognised that loosening the purse string and declaring a longer holiday will help its economy to expand with domestic consumption by its billion size population.
Rep: Cannot answer for their behalf, itÂ’s outside my proposal.With higher Personal Tax, and lower Corporate Tax - are you not defeating yourself in drawing the MNCs and encouraging SME start-ups but at the same time demoralizing the individual contributor who are needed to run the MNCs and the SMEs ?
Good luck to you if you have deep pockets, and hopefully you still have the strength to scream when the pain sets in; but since you do not seem to be able to "affort to" pay for the pain that you are proposing for Singaporeans, how do you know that it will work ?
My view is for singaporean commoners. I will be proud of paying for that if I can affort to. -
ahahahhahaha
thread starter is damn hilarious
govt is playing sheriff of nottingham, more like it -
Well, Robinhood of the old days probably robbed the rich feudal lords of dark ages with the pure heart to ease suffering from exploitations and unjustness, one wonder if modern-day Robinhood wannabies will be as noble. What if he robs the rich while keeping some for himself and also plunder the rest.Originally posted by HENG@:ahahahhahaha
thread starter is damn hilarious
govt is playing sheriff of nottingham, more like it -
no. our govt is modern day sheriff of nottingham. rob the poor, take from the rich, but take a bit less from the rich to buy their loyalty, and keep everything for itself.Originally posted by robertteh:Well, Robinhood of the old days probably robbed the rich feudal lords of dark ages with the pure heart to ease suffering from exploitations and unjustness, one wonder if modern-day Robinhood wannabies will be as noble. What if he robs the rich while keeping some for himself and also plunder the rest. -
as they say i'm robbing the rich and giving to the poor(me).Originally posted by robertteh:Well, Robinhood of the old days probably robbed the rich feudal lords of dark ages with the pure heart to ease suffering from exploitations and unjustness, one wonder if modern-day Robinhood wannabies will be as noble. What if he robs the rich while keeping some for himself and also plunder the rest.
and since the definition is very vague anywa, i define rich as every one else lor -
Haha robbing with Robbinhood legitimacy is real genius as he could well rob till all are left with no ham and nothing.Originally posted by HENG@:no. our govt is modern day sheriff of nottingham. rob the poor, take from the rich, but take a bit less from the rich to buy their loyalty, and keep everything for itself.