60% of Singaporeans do not pay income tax
-
You mentioned in an earlier post:Originally posted by oxford mushroom:What is the population of Hong Kong? Have you heard of per capita rates?
Public spending includes the salaries of public servants who carry out the policies of the government. Read the referenced paper. Singapore has one of the lowest public spending rates and best social progress index for the moeny spent. In other words, Singaporeans are getting good value for money, unlike most other governments. Hong Kong looks like they are in the same category but no figures were available for this study.
In the words of the author,
"With the exception of Singapore (and Hong Kong, if the data were available), the world's most developed countries receive no gains in social progress for much of the GNP consumed by government."
http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s232/table2.gif
http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s232/s232.html"Singaporeans enjoyed a 'high quality but cheap government', Mr Lee said. Public spending stands at 14 to 15 per cent of the country's total output, or GDP - among the lowest in the world."
So now you are telling me what I was trying to correct you.
(Straits Times 14 Nov)
Listen, when the gov has less public spending, it doesn't mean that they are spending less on governing (meaning the policy making body), it just means that they could be spending less on the public, environment, healthcare, education, etc.
You asked the population of Hong Kong. You obviously don't know any maths; or you don't have any idea what is the population of Hong Kong; or you don't ANYTHING at all. Hong Kong has a population of 7 million, Singapore has a population of 4.2 million. Hong Kong usess 10.4% of GDP on public spending, Singapore uses 14 - 15 % (according to you) on public spending. This does not reflect the cost of government!
According to "The Economist" World in Figures 2005 ed., "The Quality of Life" Human Development Index, Hong Kong Ranks 25th while Singapore Ranks 27th.
Also Purchasing Power Parity (PPP):
Hong Kong: 76.1
Singapore: 65.7
USA (Base): 100.0
Your figures from NCPA is ancient history!!!
Year 2000!!!
*FAINTS*
You might as well dig up 1941 to compare, then we can compare ancient historic economic policies in the new millenium. Better still, dig up the economic policies of mesopotamia to compare. -
last time when i still in sch.. i remember with all the tax relief... u need to earn 2500 to 3000 to have a chance of being tax.... that mean.... 60% of singaporean are earning less than that lor...
-
so minus out the old and students, then that means we also have a lot poor people struggling to make ends meet, not making enough to even qualify as taxable...
its how you read the numbers... -
And the 60% figure will only grow with an aging population. Singaporeans want the government to subsidize more but are unwilling to pay more taxes.Originally posted by I-like-flings(m):last time when i still in sch.. i remember with all the tax relief... u need to earn 2500 to 3000 to have a chance of being tax.... that mean.... 60% of singaporean are earning less than that lor...
The government has achieved very decent results with the contributions of the 40%, although some people are too thick to understand. If we want more public spending for the poor, we must increase revenue somehow. Either lower the tax bracket to make more people pay (but people will kpkb), increase indirect taxes (GST), but people also kpkb or finally, increase direct taxes via income and corporate tax. If you increase taxes on those who are already contributing to the nation's coffers, they can simply move their jobs and investment to Hong Kong or somewhere else.
It will be the poor and immobile Singaporeans without marketable skills who will have to stay and suffer. -
dunno who the thick one leh.. anyway....not everytime have to increase revenue... u can cut cost too.... and pls dun tell mi cutting mean cutting spending and will hurt our local market hor.... .... can cut all the salary of all the fat cats and also stop those fake business transaction from one GLC to another GLC.......mark up, mark up and more mark up..... public transport, water, housing, etc should NEVER be private company.. their job is not to make profit, it's providing our basic needs and the lowest possible cost and highest standard possible....Originally posted by oxford mushroom:And the 60% figure will only grow with an aging population. Singaporeans want the government to subsidize more but are unwilling to pay more taxes.
The government has achieved very decent results with the contributions of the 40%, although some people are too thick to understand. If we want more public spending for the poor, we must increase revenue somehow. Either lower the tax bracket to make more people pay (but people will kpkb), increase indirect taxes (GST), but people also kpkb or finally, increase direct taxes via income and corporate tax. If you increase taxes on those who are already contributing to the nation's coffers, they can simply move their jobs and investment to Hong Kong or somewhere else.
It will be the poor and immobile Singaporeans without marketable skills who will have to stay and suffer.
... for your info.. i am paying the highest tax bracket in hk now and i am not complaining.. and are not giving me much benefit.. but they are also not taking anything from me too... -
Very simple theory, if you are running a corporation, if you can't increase your sales, yet you want to have more profits, lower your cost then. Tax is not the only way out. Sad to say, some people only see one side of the picture.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:And the 60% figure will only grow with an aging population. Singaporeans want the government to subsidize more but are unwilling to pay more taxes.
The government has achieved very decent results with the contributions of the 40%, although some people are too thick to understand. If we want more public spending for the poor, we must increase revenue somehow. Either lower the tax bracket to make more people pay (but people will kpkb), increase indirect taxes (GST), but people also kpkb or finally, increase direct taxes via income and corporate tax. If you increase taxes on those who are already contributing to the nation's coffers, they can simply move their jobs and investment to Hong Kong or somewhere else.
It will be the poor and immobile Singaporeans without marketable skills who will have to stay and suffer.
What makes you think that those who "contribute to the nation's coffers" use tax as a basis for their investment decisions? WAKE UP AND SMELL THE ROSES!!! Alot of companies have already moved out of Singapore, into China, India, Vietnam, etc. If Singapore is such a good place for business then the gov should have encouraged our home grown companies to continue with it's exisiting operations in Singapore and NOT encourage them to move overseas.
You can tell those national companies that we have very favourable tax rates. -
Hahahaha
Good one I-like-flings(m).
Hahaha -
Well said.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:And the 60% figure will only grow with an aging population. Singaporeans want the government to subsidize more but are unwilling to pay more taxes.
The government has achieved very decent results with the contributions of the 40%, although some people are too thick to understand. If we want more public spending for the poor, we must increase revenue somehow. Either lower the tax bracket to make more people pay (but people will kpkb), increase indirect taxes (GST), but people also kpkb or finally, increase direct taxes via income and corporate tax. If you increase taxes on those who are already contributing to the nation's coffers, they can simply move their jobs and investment to Hong Kong or somewhere else.
It will be the poor and immobile Singaporeans without marketable skills who will have to stay and suffer.
Just like what the government will keep telling Singaporeans as justification for raising all sorts of taxes.
While sitting in the 45th floor airconditioned offices shaking their legs and drawing million dollar salaries.
-
What is wrong with taking care of the elderly? If the govt feels obligated to "take care" of the old guards and ministers who "contributed" to Singapore's growth, should the govt also have a responsibility to take of elderly citizens?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:As I said, what is worse is that with an increasingly aging population, the elderly who do not work and pay income tax also tend to consume more resources, thus exacerbating the crunch on the tax payers.
Why must we treat the elderly like leeches? Do we want our children to treat us the same way? What kind of morale are we teaching the kids these days?
Incidentally, I just had a chat with a financial adviser friend of mine; a FT who married a close friend of mine. He broke the news that in 5 years time, he is uprooting the family and taking them back to France.
So we went into the discussion of income tax and GST and he made a very interesting observation.
He said that while it is true that he pays less taxes here, the amount he spend on other stuff, especially on his son equalize all the savings. In France, his son can get free education, medical services, meals etc.
He cited another reason that when he grows old and is incapable of generating income, a good welfare system is very important as that is when you need them the most.
So all in all, paying a higher income tax in France is the same as paying less taxes but spending more on daily necessities; but France offers him the peace of mind and guarantee that he'll be taken care of when he grows old.
He doesn't want to be cleaning tables are working in MacDonald's; he said sarcastically.
Interesting observation. That's why I am also planning to quit Singapore in another 10-15 years time. -
It is precisely this highly condescending tone of yours that I find difficult to comprehend.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:And the 60% figure will only grow with an aging population. Singaporeans want the government to subsidize more but are unwilling to pay more taxes.
The government has achieved very decent results with the contributions of the 40%, although some people are too thick to understand. If we want more public spending for the poor, we must increase revenue somehow. Either lower the tax bracket to make more people pay (but people will kpkb), increase indirect taxes (GST), but people also kpkb or finally, increase direct taxes via income and corporate tax. If you increase taxes on those who are already contributing to the nation's coffers, they can simply move their jobs and investment to Hong Kong or somewhere else.
It will be the poor and immobile Singaporeans without marketable skills who will have to stay and suffer.
In the first place, we have been telling you again and again: that 60% figure of yours may be technically accurate, but it is fundamentally flawed. I'm already 23 and well within employment age - and yet I pay no income taxes. And before you call the taxmen down on me, I'll let you know first that I'm still studying.
'Decent results'? What decent results? How about telling us about some of these mysterious 'decent results' of yours? I only see Temasek Holdings losing billions in investing in Shin Corp - so those are decent results? And you dare claim that we're 'too thick to understand' these 'decent results' when you fail to explain what these 'decent results' are?
And oh yeah - kindly explain to me how increasing the level of regressive taxes like the GST across the board actually helps to aid the less fortunate. I've already spent one long entry in the GST thread explaining how it all doesn't seem to add up, and I won't waste my breath here again.
Suffice to say that when you increase regressive taxes across the board, it is the poor who will get the hardest hit. You may say that they can cut down on spending, but hey, both rich men and poor men eat rice which has been slapped with GST. You may give out subsidies to the less fortunate, but the law of averages states that some will still lose out in the end, since you can only make educated guesses at best with regards to the level of subsidies.
I ain't no economist; I'm only an engineering undergraduate. But I do know my econs, damnit.
You may say that I'm a bit too thick to understand your viewpoint. But I like to think that your viewpoint is a little too thick for me to understand. -
Hello.. 1950? in those days.. police wear shorts! I'm no medical expert.. but I'm not sure if cancer was even discovered in the 1950s! And if it was.. there was nothing they could do about it anyway! Of coz give morphine go home and die lah.. u think have chemotherapy, radiotherapy in those days ar?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:The CPF will hopefully cover the retirement needs of the present generation, many older people joined the scheme late and have not put away enough. On top of that, not all of them (eg. housewives) were working.
If you were a tax payer in 1950, old people with cancer were given a supply of morphine for pain and told to go home to die. Healthcare was cheap. With escalating healthcare costs, the small amount you paid in your younger days will not cover the cost of modern medicine today. Similarly, the healthcare costs for us when we retire will cost far more than the taxes we pay today (unless we want the high taxes people pay in Scandinavian countries). That's why we need to save for our retirement and plan for future healthcare needs with medical incurance etc.
In many countries (branded by PAP as welfare states), ppl pay abt 30~40% taxes.. but retirement, unemployment, medical benifits are ALL included in the taxes they pay.
While 'Only' 60% Singaporeans pay INCOME TAX.. most Singaporeans are paying hell more than 30% taxes.. CPF (33%.. YES ITS TAX!!!) + Income tax + GST + COE + Petrol tax + ERP + Road tax + vehicle import tax and the list goes on and on and on..
CPF is just another one of their clever accounting practice.. instead of calling it tax.. they take our $ and put into 'our' accounts which we have no control over. Make us see hundreds of thousands in 'our' CPF account but cannot cash out. Withdraw only to buy inflated HDB flats, pay medical fees and for very LIMITED retirement needs which gov shuld take care in the first place!
Unemployment benifit is SINful in SINgapore.. so no such goodies here. Instead, FTs are here to save the day! -
That stupid oxford mushroom is a PAP dog. I seen many of its post with siding gov!
Save yr post,stupid mushroom,we will not fall for yr trick and convinced raising tax is justify! We will still hate PAP as much as ever! -
repeat post
-
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Your analysis missed some important indirect taxes.
"Both Japan and Taiwan levy a GST of 5 per cent, but even those in the lowest income brackets pay personal income taxes of 10 and 6 per cent respectively.
In effect, they impose an even greater tax burden on lower-wage workers, compared to Singapore 'where lower-wage workers, and indeed [b]around 60 per cent of Singaporeans, do not pay any personal income tax'."
(Enlarging the Budget pie and slicing it differently, Straits Times Nov 1
It is not widely known that only 40% of the population are paying income tax to support 60% of the population. Increasing revenue from direct taxes will penalise the very people who have been contributing to the nation's coffers. With countries in the region cutting their corporate taxes, Singapore has to rely on higher indirect taxes and reduce the proportion of revenue arising from income and corporate taxes. Otherwise, the minority tax payers can very well vote with their feet and offer their investments and skills to someone else.
On transport, the government should increase ERP charges and road tax for private vehicles and invest revenue towards improving public transport or subsidizing the transport costs for the poor. Higher taxes for private vehicles can be used to give poorer Singaporeans a significant discount on public transportation.
[/b]
They are primarily cigarette, alcohol and car.
Consider an average singaporean who smokes a pack of cigarette a day. A pack cigarette cost an about $10. The cost of cigarettes in some of the developed countries like Japan cost only 300yen or $4.00 This is to say a smoker may pay up to $6.00 per packet in taxes to national coffers.
For a smoker who smokes 1 packet a day, this would amount to $180 per month or
$180 x 12 = $2160 in taxes a year
For a smoker who smokes 2 packet a day, this would amount to $360 per month or
$360 x 12 = $4320 in taxes year
Some of these smokers earn only $1200 -$1500.
A $180/mth tax on a salary of $1500 would be a equivalent of a 12% tax
A $360/mth tax on a salary would be a equivalent of a 24% tax
What about beer? Or tax on Car? And the current GST?
Do the rest of the 60% really pay no tax? In fact a middle class who smokes drinks and drives may be paying more tax in term of percentage than some of these welfare countries and getting no benefits in return. -
We need more of our fellow Singaporeans to be willing to say that they will pay more income taxes while working, to ensure a decent and respectable existence as the elderly.
This economics-first imperative just does not cut it. We are bloody hell a nation, not a corporation. -
singapore too many policemen, burden to taxpayers. do nothing but go on patrols and break up ah mah ah gong quarrels. sg i think has one of the highest policeman - civilian ratio in the world.
btw im referring to the generic police officer like constable acai, not the CID, CNB or other branches. those at least have a more impt use, but policeman in
SG really too much, compare us to USA, they make every policeman count there and maximise their efficiency. -
No lah. You sa la liao.Originally posted by kilua:Your analysis missed some important indirect taxes.
They are primarily cigarette, alcohol and car.
Consider an average singaporean who smokes a pack cigarette a day. A pack cigarette cost an about $10. The cost of cigarettes in some of the developed countries like Japan cost only 300yen or $4.00 This is to say a smoker may pay up to $6.00 per packet in taxes to national coffers.
For a smoker who smokes 1 packet a day, this would amount to $180 per month or
$180 x 12 = $2160 in taxes a year
For a smoker who smokes 2 packet a day, this would amount to $300 per month or
$360 x 12 = $4320 in taxes year
Some of these smokers earn only $1200 -$1500.
A $180/mth tax on a salary of $1500 would be a equivalent of a 12% tax
A $360/mth tax on a salary would be a equivalent of a 24% tax
What about beer? Or tax on Car? And the current GST?
Do the rest of the 60% really pay no tax? In fact a middle class who smokes drinks and drives may be paying more tax in term of percentage than some of these welfare countries and getting no benefits in return.
Om refers to income tax lah. He quoted an article from 146th saying that 60% Singaporeans pay no income tax.
So you are comparing indirect tax instead of income tax.
But then again har, I remember correctly that my parents need to pay income tax. They are the average blue collar worker, so their individual monthly pay never went up to S$2000. But they still pay income tax mah. Not a lot lah, but $$ is still $$ right? -
I dunno about Singapore lah. But according to China history, in the three kingdom time, Shu-Han have the ratio of 4 civilians providing for 1 civil servant. And Shu-Han is the weakest and die out first.Originally posted by mrwonderful:singapore too many policemen, burden to taxpayers. do nothing but go on patrols and break up ah mah ah gong quarrels. sg i think has one of the highest policeman - civilian ratio in the world.
btw im referring to the generic police officer like constable acai, not the CID, CNB or other branches. those at least have a more impt use, but policeman in
SG really too much, compare us to USA, they make every policeman count there and maximise their efficiency. -
yes i know, As long as you earn more than $20,000 per year you are liable for income tax.Originally posted by Hogzilla:No lah. You sa la liao.
Om refers to income tax lah. He quoted an article from 146th saying that 60% Singaporeans pay no income tax.
So you are comparing indirect tax instead of income tax.
But then again har, I remember correctly that my parents need to pay income tax. They are the average blue collar worker, so their individual monthly pay never went up to S$2000. But they still pay income tax mah. Not a lot lah, but $$ is still $$ right?
My point was that the lower income group was also contributing to national coffers like taiwanese but in a more indirect way. -
Then it's the art of bluffing that matters here.Originally posted by kilua:yes i know, As long as you earn more than $20,000 per year you are liable for income tax.
My point was that the lower income group was also contributing to national coffers like taiwanese but in a more indirect way.
146th bluffed OM liao lor.
Actually, I feel very funny about OM's super-protective attitude towards PAP. You see har, a lot of people "awaken" (that means something like when a certain anicent Greek mathematican proclaim, "Eureka!!!") when they are in England. Karl Marx written (or invent? I dunno lah. I'm not a pro-communist. And in fact, KNN, I si bei dislike them lor.
) Communist Manifesto when he was in England, even our MM Lee also "awaken" his politic ambition when he is in England studying. Why the same thing didn't happen to OM har? -
He is having an over nutrition of campbell mushroom soup with an extra dose of HUM. LOL Just joking
-
oxford mushroom, if I were you, I wouldn't post such threads in sgForums... Seems like the opposition parties have planted their supporters in this online forum... I'm not taking sides with the PAP or wat, but I do realise that there's a trend to criticize whatever policy made by the government, be it good or bad... If it's good, they will say that the government has an ulterior motive... If it's bad, they will take the chance to shoot off like there's no tomorrow... This only happens in sgForums...
So my point is... mushroom guy, just give up lah... abandon this thread and never start threads regarding the government anymore... It's just not worth the time and effort... -
For YA2003 till now, chargeable income of more than 20k will incur income tax. Assuming incme relief in total is 4k (I think I am being generous as the average of total relief could be lower), thus residents with annual income of 24k will incur tax. From http://www.singstat.gov.sg/keystats/annual/ghs/r1/t54-61.pdf, only about 997k residents earned more than 24k in 2005. If residen population is 4m, then 25% of resident pays income tax.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:It's simple English. 60% of Singaporeans means 6 out of 10 Singaporeans (or that's how the writer of the article phrased it...)...that includes students, the elderly, prisoners and working Singaporeans whose incomes (after legal deductions and tax rebates) fall below the threshold for income tax payment.
As I said, what is worse is that with an increasingly aging population, the elderly who do not work and pay income tax also tend to consume more resources, thus exacerbating the crunch on the tax payers.
However, from the same source, residents (age>15yrs) that worked in 2005 numbered about 1.65m (i.e. excludes retirees, students, etc). Therefore about 60% (997k/1650k) of residents who worked in 2005 paid income tax.
The 60% number DOES NOT include non-working population -
I agree.... I earn higher than average people during their starting pay and yet I do not pay tax....
but actually I think the 60% includes students and elderly WHO ARE WORKING Fair enough.... Singapore is well known for its low taxation.... I wonder why so many people are still complaining? It will never be able to satisfied EVERYONE ALL THE TIME. But seriously.... I don't like gst to go to 7% too... I guess most people as they are spending to buy for their luxury goods... haha .... though looking at the macro level... it is logical. Just I don't like it personally.... anyway we are into what's rite and not what's wanted... to do the right thing sometime there is a need to sacrifice... -
Originally posted by banzie:
Do u pay CPF? Should be in the 33% bracket? U like to believe thats not tax?
I agree.... I earn higher than average people during their starting pay and yet I do not pay tax....
but actually I think the 60% includes students and elderly [b]WHO ARE WORKING Fair enough.... Singapore is well known for its low taxation.... I wonder why so many people are still complaining? It will never be able to satisfied EVERYONE ALL THE TIME. But seriously.... I don't like gst to go to 7% too... I guess most people as they are spending to buy for their luxury goods... haha .... though looking at the macro level... it is logical. Just I don't like it personally.... anyway we are into what's rite and not what's wanted... to do the right thing sometime there is a need to sacrifice...[/b]