Any suggestions?
-
All this while it's been complaining....any constructive suggestions for the current situation?...
Of course they may not listen...but common singaporeans like us here are seeing it everyday...so how? -
Many singaporeans such as Mr Wang and many forumers have given very good suggestion such as NS, how to let singaporeans not disadvantaged or Less disadvantaged...
We have yet to see the gahmen implementing these solutions. -
The intellects are professional whiners. They whine so well that they managed to win Nobel prize with it. Remember 2006 Nobel Prize in Literature winner? Ya, he whines so well that Turkish government wanted to imprison him but Nobel prize committee saved him. Why Singaporeans haven't win any Nobel prize? Because our whinging has not reach that standard yet.Originally posted by Wakus:All this while it's been complaining....any constructive suggestions for the current situation?...
Of course they may not listen...but common singaporeans like us here are seeing it everyday...so how?
Even with constructive suggestions, when there is no listeners or nobody to implement, those who gave the suggestion will be disappointed.
And then the politican will think, how to get Singaporean involve in politics? It's such a funny situation when you are the one who don't allow others to get involve in politics, then you have to crack your brains, thinking of ways to get them involve. (Taken from P65 MP, Michael Palmer. He wrote that in the P65 blog)
Politicans are those who solve the problems, professionally.
So we need whiners to identify the problems and need politicans to solve the problems. If whiners can solve the problems, why do they need politicans?
-
Chia Shi teck suggested we should use some of our hidden cookie jars from sale of land first before raising GST. Will the government take this suggestion?
Thursday • November 16, 2006
Letter from Chia Shi Teck
Singapore 's shift from direct taxation to indirect taxation through the GST and other consumption taxes is the right way to go to keep the country competitive and relevant in a globalised world.
I agree that raising the GST rate is a realistic option to increase the Government's coffers to meet projected increases in social spending. I am happy to hear the Government plans to spend more to meet the demands of an ageing population.
However, with due respect, I am not convinced that the increase should be effected now or in many years to come, given that our expenditure on social services is so low by world standards.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said the Government is planning to change the Constitution to allow realised capital gains to be included as revenue for the purpose of government drawdown for expenditure.
May I ask the Government to look at all other substantial sources of income that go straight into our national reserves?
Take the proceeds of sale of state land, for instance. Billions of dollars are collected each year. This sum is not included as revenue in the Budget. Why?
I raised this when I was a Nominated Member of Parliament (1992-1994). The answer given then and now is that the sale of land is not an income; it is the transfer of a tangible state asset to cash.
Our so-called sale of land is on a leasehold basis, mostly a 99-year tenure for commercial and residential purposes, while industrial and recreation usage come with shorter tenures of 60, 30, 15-year and or even shorter terms.
The Government spends much money to turn raw land into productive land. The sums spent each year on infrastructure are allowed for in the Budget, yet when land is sold as a result after enhancement, the income is not included as revenue. I see it as a matter of accounting.
My suggestion was for the sums collected, if we want to be prudent, to be “amortised” over the lease tenure — that is, a $99-million land sale income on a 99-year tenure would mean a $1-million income per year for 99 years. Hong Kong , cited by Mr Lee as a primary competitor, includes land sale proceeds as a key source of its income.
Take the Marina South land for easy reference. The Government reclaimed the land, spent further billions on infrastructure and has now started selling the land. It is not equitable to charge out the expense and not include the sales proceeds thereafter.
If we do not want to include the sales proceeds, then let us have a separate book for land and infrastructure expenditure. That way, we would have sufficient money left for other social purposes.