Minimum wage threatens survival of small businesses
-
Absolute rubbish! 60% of Singaporeans do not pay income tax and far greater numbers of low income earners in Singapore do not pay income tax compared to many other countries. It does not make sense anyway taxing the low income earners...they earn to little to generate sufficient revenue.Originally posted by maurizio13:What do you think are the reasons that small businesses can't pay a higher wage rate?
It's "their policy" of taxing the lower and middle income earners more instead of the higher income earners
Taxing higher income earners is counterproductive when our main competitor Hong Kong has a lower tax rate. We will only drive investments and jobs in that direction, if we follow the policies of Opposition Party supporters.
The middle income group is the group that tends to get squeezed. If they have marketable skills overseas, more will consider leaving if we tax them too much. That's why indirect taxes like GST is better than ditrect taxes.
I think we should levy more indirect taxes on alcohol, cigarettes and cars. Tobacco and alcohol have a deleterious effect on health and puts a greater burden on the health system. Tax them to high heavens will put them out of the reach of the poor who cannot afford ill health anyway. -
Originally posted by spinsugar:
Yeah i think applying more tax on luxury good its a good suggestion too, since the rich have benefited most from the tax reduction. The government has to show fairness and not tax only the middle and lower income group. The luxurious cars should come under higher tax.
[b]As for GST, it's truly ludicrous to justify the increase as a way to help the poor. If the poor were truly meant to be the receipients of such a 'noble' cause, then why tax all across the board? Why not apply the tax increase to luxury goods only? [/b] -
what percentage of the 60% who do not pay income tax actually have an income in the first place?
-
Please get this through that thick skull of yours!!! Businesses don't rely soley on corporate tax rates to make capital investment decisions!!!Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Absolute rubbish! 60% of Singaporeans do not pay income tax and far greater numbers of low income earners in Singapore do not pay income tax compared to many other countries. It does not make sense anyway taxing the low income earners...they earn to little to generate sufficient revenue.
Taxing higher income earners is counterproductive when our main competitor Hong Kong has a lower tax rate. We will only drive investments and jobs in that direction, if we follow the policies of Opposition Party supporters.
The middle income group is the group that tends to get squeezed. If they have marketable skills overseas, more will consider leaving if we tax them too much. That's why indirect taxes like GST is better than ditrect taxes.
I think we should levy more indirect taxes on alcohol, cigarettes and cars. Tobacco and alcohol have a deleterious effect on health and puts a greater burden on the health system. Tax them to high heavens will put them out of the reach of the poor who cannot afford ill health anyway.
Do you know what is the corporate tax rate in China?
33%!!!
http://www.pwchk.com/home/eng/tax_inf_cn_2006.html
Do you see investments stifling in China?
If businesses just rely on corporate tax rates to make capital investment decisons, you won't see China booming.
Your thought processes are linear and led by a leash. -
Rubbish? What do you call GST? Isn't it a tax on the low income earners? It's indirect tax, no matter what it's called, it's still tax.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Absolute rubbish! 60% of Singaporeans do not pay income tax and far greater numbers of low income earners in Singapore do not pay income tax compared to many other countries. It does not make sense anyway taxing the low income earners...they earn to little to generate sufficient revenue.
Taxing higher income earners is counterproductive when our main competitor Hong Kong has a lower tax rate. We will only drive investments and jobs in that direction, if we follow the policies of Opposition Party supporters.
The middle income group is the group that tends to get squeezed. If they have marketable skills overseas, more will consider leaving if we tax them too much. That's why indirect taxes like GST is better than ditrect taxes.
I think we should levy more indirect taxes on alcohol, cigarettes and cars. Tobacco and alcohol have a deleterious effect on health and puts a greater burden on the health system. Tax them to high heavens will put them out of the reach of the poor who cannot afford ill health anyway. -
FYI, the corporate tax rate in India is 33.66%.
If time permits click on the table to see corporate tax rates in the region.
I only see Hong Kong with the lowest corporate tax rate
http://www.kpmg.com/Services/Tax/IntCorp/CTR/
GET THIS THROUGH THAT THICK SKULL OF YOUR'S, MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES DON'T BASE INVESTMENT DECISIONS ON JUST CORPORATE TAX RATES. IT WON'T EVEN MATTER IF YOU LOWER YOUR CORPORATE TAX RATE TO 0%, IN WHICH CASE YOU WILL BE BRANDED A TAX HAVEN AND FIND HORDES OF SHELL COMPANIES RELOCATING HERE. -
Local Sporean are not interested to work as hard labour in the first placer n this is the reason labour from neighbouring countries were brought in.Originally posted by maurizio13:Wah!!! You've become a plagirist!!! So smart can quote from Wikipedia!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_in_Hong_Kong
For your information, the trade unions in Hong Kong are not government institutions, there is no conflict of interest, unlike Singapore where the trade unions are government bodies. The trade unions in Hong Kong can negotiate wages for it's worker's interest.
First of all minimum wages guarantees a minimum living standard for the poor.
Secondly, our supply of labour is always increasing, with imports of "foreign talents" from China, India, Philipines, Indonesia, etc. Singaporeans are not able to compete with imported labour from those regions. If those labourer saves SGD 100 and remit it back to say China, it will translate to RMB 500, with the RMB 500 he can support a family. The same SGD 100 given to say the labourer's parent (only 1 parent) will last only 10 days at best.
We are not playing on a levelled playing field. -
There are alot of non-hard labour (Accounting, IT, Admin, Hotels, etc.) which are taken up by non-Singaporean.Originally posted by will4:Local Sporean are not interested to work as hard labour in the first placer n this is the reason labour from neighbouring countries were brought in. -
most accounts clerks are malaysians.
-
My finance manager is a malaysian.Originally posted by dragg:most accounts clerks are malaysians.
-
my former operations manager was a malaysian PR.Originally posted by ditzy:My finance manager is a malaysian. -
If I am not wrong, there is a quota imposed by MOM to hire foreigners unless they are Spore PR. I also a PR n served NS. Hotel is definitely mainlyOriginally posted by maurizio13:There are alot of non-hard labour (Accounting, IT, Admin, Hotels, etc.) which are taken up by non-Singaporean.
occupied by foreigners as local bnever liked to do shift work. IT is being handled by Indian nationals. -
hannor hannor.. if sg government can save more money by hiring FT, why should they employ our elite?.... should we email Mr bush and ask if he is interested in our PM job?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:If your boss can earn more money by hiring a FT, why should he employ you? -
Hard to accept this. Government can increase personal income tax for the higher wage earner (but obviously they don't want to annoy those rich ones, including the ministers), they can also increase taxes and duties for the luxuries items, why should they choose to collect more first from ALL, then redistribute to the poor the way they define? do the poor families need to apply, need to justify how poor they are?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:The government intends to distribute the additional GST revenue to the poor in the form of various new packages to be announced. Higher pay in relation to minimum wage will go to the worker and his family, not the unemployed.
I see no justification for any increase at all, UNLESS the government exempt the essential household items from GST. -
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Haha...dig your grave further and show off your ignorance. Either that or you have 'conveniently' forgot to inform readers that China has very generous tax incentives for foreign businesses:
[b]Please get this through that thick skull of yours!!! Businesses don't rely soley on corporate tax rates to make capital investment decisions!!!
Do you know what is the corporate tax rate in China?
33%!!!
http://www.pwchk.com/home/eng/tax_inf_cn_2006.html
Do you see investments stifling in China?[/b]
"Tax holiday for all manufacturing Foreign Investment Enterprises "FIEs" - a two-year exemption followed by 50% reduction in tax rate for three years, starting from the first profitable year after utilizing tax losses; 15% tax rate in Special Economic Zones; 24% tax rate in certain coastal cities; Foreign investor reinvesting its share of profits for at least five years gets a 40% refund of tax paid on sum reinvested or 100% if reinvestment in advanced technology industries or export oriented enterprises."
(http://www.pwchk.com/home/eng/tax_inf_cn_2006.html)
As for India, read this:
"According to a study released last week by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the World Bank, the real burden of corporate tax in India, after companies take advantage of the relief granted by law, is 14.3 percent of pretax profit. That is less than the 17.7 percent in China and 22.4 percent in Brazil.
Among the so-called BRIC economies - Brazil, Russia, India and China - only Russia has a lower effective corporate-profit tax rate of 12.7 percent."
(http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/13/bloomberg/sxmuk.php)
tsk tsk tsk....check your facts before you shoot yourself in the foot
-
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Yes, 'Absolute rubbish' to your piece that 60% of Singaporeans do not pay income tax'.
Absolute rubbish! 60% of Singaporeans do not pay income tax and far greater numbers of low income earners in Singapore do not pay income tax compared to many other countries. It does not make sense anyway taxing the low income earners...they earn to little to generate sufficient revenue.
Amazing that you will dare to repeat this unsubstantiated claim after avoiding a reply to your thread of the same title.
Is it not even more of the same "Absolute rubbish" coming from a PhD mind that since "it does not make sense anyway taxing the low income earners... they earn to {too} little to generate sufficient revenue" - you will agree to this Government subjecting the low income group to additional tax burden with an increase of 2% GST, but yet will not give them a 'MINIMUM WAGE' to live decently ?
If this is not turning logic on its head from one who has been perched high up on the ivory tower, and losing touch with reality ?
The higher income earners will have more then enough to afford to pay the higher taxes in exchange for a secure place to live in.
Taxing higher income earners is counterproductive when our main competitor Hong Kong has a lower tax rate. We will only drive investments and jobs in that direction, if we follow the policies of Opposition Party supporters.
The Swiss are subjected to Taxes at the Federal, Cantons, and Communal levels; while their Personal income tax do not exceed 30%, yet their tax monies are collected that benefit the Swiss citizens directly in terms of a high standards of social welfare and health schemes.
Compared to the Swiss - an exercise often called by the Singapore Government when it suits them - Singapore Government sucks up every cent from Singaporeans but give back nothing, as what is given is always collected back again.
With a sound and democratic system of governance, where the Swiss Citizens are POLITICALLY INVOLVED in their COLLECTIVE FUTURE, the Swiss Citizens are not complaining; while many rich Europeans are buying their way into Switzerland.
Taxation alone is not the determining factor for the Middle Income Group to migrate out of Singapore.
The middle income group is the group that tends to get squeezed. If they have marketable skills overseas, more will consider leaving if we tax them too much. That's why indirect taxes like GST is better than ditrect taxes.
I think we should levy more indirect taxes on alcohol, cigarettes and cars. Tobacco and alcohol have a deleterious effect on health and puts a greater burden on the health system. Tax them to high heavens will put them out of the reach of the poor who cannot afford ill health anyway.
Ask any ex-Singaporeans living overseas, and majority will place - high on a list of factors - the stifling political culture, the stifling economic strangulation and manipulation of Singaporeans, biased and erratic educational policies - as the reasons for migrating.
Tax will probably not even enter the list of factors.
Why are you targetting and penalising the lower income group with indirect taxes ?
The rich and higher income group can always get away with their addictive habits of smoking and drinking, while the poor will be driven to madness with their craving to smoke or drink to relieve the stress that they are already subjected to by their poverty.
There should be some leeway for the poor to be given some avenues to relieve the pressures that they are subjected to.
Do you think that you are helping the poor and the government by removing cigaretters and alcohol from them ?
You may actually add an additional long term problem of having more in-house patients living in the mental institution; or cause some murderous assault when the poor goes berserk and attack family members or some others, or even injure themselves.
Think before you spout 'Absolute rubbish'. -
This thread is about minimum wage...for further discussion about GST, go to this thread:Originally posted by sgdiehard:Hard to accept this. Government can increase personal income tax for the higher wage earner (but obviously they don't want to annoy those rich ones, including the ministers), they can also increase taxes and duties for the luxuries items, why should they choose to collect more first from ALL, then redistribute to the poor the way they define? do the poor families need to apply, need to justify how poor they are?
I see no justification for any increase at all, UNLESS the government exempt the essential household items from GST.
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=220070&page=21 -
[quote]Originally posted by Atobe:
Do you think that you are helping the poor and the government by removing cigaretters and alcohol from them ?
You may actually add an additional long term problem of having more in-house patients living in the mental institution; or cause some murderous assault when the poor goes berserk and attack family members or some others, or even injure themselves.[/quote]
Hahaha...nearly die of laughter...no alcohol and cigarettes will turn you into a madman....maybe that works for you
what absolute and utter rubbish -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
If you haven't notice you are the only ignorant fool here, the whole world is against you, you are the only fool on the hill. Do you think that Singapore hasn't got it's own set of incentives?
Haha...dig your grave further and show off your ignorance. Either that or you have 'conveniently' forgot to inform readers that China has very generous tax incentives for foreign businesses:
"Tax holiday for all manufacturing Foreign Investment Enterprises "FIEs" - a [b]two-year exemption followed by 50% reduction in tax rate for three years, starting from the first profitable year after utilizing tax losses; 15% tax rate in Special Economic Zones; 24% tax rate in certain coastal cities; Foreign investor reinvesting its share of profits for at least five years gets a 40% refund of tax paid on sum reinvested or 100% if reinvestment in advanced technology industries or export oriented enterprises."
(http://www.pwchk.com/home/eng/tax_inf_cn_2006.html)
As for India, read this:
"According to a study released last week by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the World Bank, the real burden of corporate tax in India, after companies take advantage of the relief granted by law, is 14.3 percent of pretax profit. That is less than the 17.7 percent in China and 22.4 percent in Brazil.
Among the so-called BRIC economies - Brazil, Russia, India and China - only Russia has a lower effective corporate-profit tax rate of 12.7 percent."
(http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/13/bloomberg/sxmuk.php)
tsk tsk tsk....check your facts before you shoot yourself in the foot
[/b]
Abstract from Singapore Master Tax Guide 2005 (Ch 18 Incentives Under The Income Tax Act):
"This chapter deals with some of the incentives contained in the Income Tax Act (Cap 134) (the "Act") and its subsidiary legislation. The incentives given to the selected group of taxpayers are either exemption from income tax or taxation at a reduced concessionary tax rate of usually 10% or 5%."
If you don't know this yet (as is always the case), pioneer industries are given tax exemption of up to 15 years (just to name one). There are other incentives other than sections under Income Tax Act, there is the EEIA (Economic Expansion Incentives Act), which provides for very favourable treatment of tax for companies (either exemption or a reduced tax rate).
You just stuff your foot in your mouth. -
bush and his republican morons also refused to tax the rich more...warren buffet remarked he's probably paying less tax than his receptionist...
-
so you are agreeing indirectly that s'pore does not have a world class health care system right?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:I think we should levy more indirect taxes on alcohol, cigarettes and cars. Tobacco and alcohol have a deleterious effect on health and puts a greater burden on the health system. Tax them to high heavens will put them out of the reach of the poor who cannot afford ill health anyway.
-
rubbish! did the government released statistic figures for the number of white collar jobs (esp in IT industry) that was taken up by cheaper FTs from India, Vienam, China etc? Its not just blue collar jobs thats being taken away mind you..Originally posted by will4:Local Sporean are not interested to work as hard labour in the first placer n this is the reason labour from neighbouring countries were brought in. -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
If you read through your IHT link again, you will realised that the corporate tax rate of 14.3% implied in the article uses exemptions included in the Income Tax Act to reduce their tax. If you don't know already our Income Tax Act has certain exemptions and deductions too. It's possible to reduce the Singapore Corporate Tax Rate to 9.5% of your profits if you know how. Hell, you don't even have to pay any corporate tax for the first few years, if you know how to plan your tax affairs. If you don't please consult your friendly local Big 4 Accounting Firms.
Haha...dig your grave further and show off your ignorance. Either that or you have 'conveniently' forgot to inform readers that China has very generous tax incentives for foreign businesses:
"Tax holiday for all manufacturing Foreign Investment Enterprises "FIEs" - a [b]two-year exemption followed by 50% reduction in tax rate for three years, starting from the first profitable year after utilizing tax losses; 15% tax rate in Special Economic Zones; 24% tax rate in certain coastal cities; Foreign investor reinvesting its share of profits for at least five years gets a 40% refund of tax paid on sum reinvested or 100% if reinvestment in advanced technology industries or export oriented enterprises."
(http://www.pwchk.com/home/eng/tax_inf_cn_2006.html)
As for India, read this:
"According to a study released last week by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the World Bank, the real burden of corporate tax in India, after companies take advantage of the relief granted by law, is 14.3 percent of pretax profit. That is less than the 17.7 percent in China and 22.4 percent in Brazil.
Among the so-called BRIC economies - Brazil, Russia, India and China - only Russia has a lower effective corporate-profit tax rate of 12.7 percent."
(http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/13/bloomberg/sxmuk.php)
tsk tsk tsk....check your facts before you shoot yourself in the foot
[/b]
The article also states,
"Shifting to a 15 percent flat rate and scrapping the exemptions that companies use to lower their effective tax load should not result in any loss of Indian government revenue.",
which means the effect of the proposed tax cut is ZERO. Which is equivalent to our government reducing our tax rates to 15% and removing all the exemptions and deductions.
Your Link:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/13/bloomberg/sxmuk.php
The corporate tax rate according to the Finance Act of the Income Tax Department of India is still above 30%.
http://incometaxindia.gov.in/FINANCE%20ACTS/The%20Finance%20Act2001.asp
YOU RELY TOO MUCH ON OTHER PEOPLES ANALYSIS AND FAIL TO USE THE FAT IN BETWEEN YOUR EARS. THAT'S WHY YOU MAKE A FOOL OF YOURSELF AND SEE HORDES OF PEOPLE ATTACKING YOU. JUST CUTTING AND PASTING OTHER'S ANALYSIS WON'T MAKE YOUR SMART. USE THE FAT IN BETWEEN YOUR EARS!!! -
oxford mushroom:
Could you please respond to my earlier post instead of avoiding it?Originally posted by maurizio13:
[b]Please get this through that thick skull of yours!!! Businesses don't rely soley on corporate tax rates to make capital investment decisions!!!
Do you know what is the corporate tax rate in China?
33%!!!
http://www.pwchk.com/home/eng/tax_inf_cn_2006.html
Do you see investments stifling in China?
If businesses just rely on corporate tax rates to make capital investment decisons, you won't see China booming.
Your thought processes are linear and led by a leash.
[/b] -
Why is it that other countries (other than Hong Kong, which is considered a tax haven) despite having a higher corporate tax rate but still thrive?
Originally posted by maurizio13:
FYI, the corporate tax rate in India is 33.66%.
If time permits click on the table to see corporate tax rates in the region.
I only see Hong Kong with the lowest corporate tax rate
http://www.kpmg.com/Services/Tax/IntCorp/CTR/
[b]GET THIS THROUGH THAT THICK SKULL OF YOUR'S, MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES DON'T BASE INVESTMENT DECISIONS ON JUST CORPORATE TAX RATES. IT WON'T EVEN MATTER IF YOU LOWER YOUR CORPORATE TAX RATE TO 0%, IN WHICH CASE YOU WILL BE BRANDED A TAX HAVEN AND FIND HORDES OF SHELL COMPANIES RELOCATING HERE.
[/b]