PAP moves to counter criticism of party, govt in cyberspace
-
Since when was the inflow of foreign talents, permanent resident ever controlled? Do you mean that it was controlled the few years before 2007?Originally posted by stupidissmart:During the period when there r unemployment, the rate of influx is controlled
If you haven't been following the news, the past 5 years population has increased 500,000 through immigration.
Can you elaborate this point of yours? I am not very smart and I don't do mind reading.Originally posted by stupidissmart:It is an important factor if your profit is much more than your labour
I don't understand your statement. Can someone explain what he/she is trying to say?Originally posted by stupidissmart:The land is set up mah. U just have to pay for the land. As said, u pay for all the utility etc but the expense is a lot as well. Generally speaking, the profit from other sources r not as ex as u believe...
If we make housing cheap, all the tax for other areas will increase drastically and gov still get back the money lost. But tis time the population where they get the money from differs and it is likely to increase the rich and poor divide. U have to answer tis question. Do u think taxing from the land is a good way of tax in the sense tat it tax the richer people more than the poorer one ?
You are comparing public housing like HDB to Bungalows? They are different housing type. HDB apartments is no frills basic living area, whereas Bungalow is a privately developed project (where companies have a profit motive and will provide premium development). That plot of land that resides the Bungalow, built up to 12 floors can probably accomodate 48 families.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Didn't I say the land is the most limited resources in singapore ? How much tis land costs depend on market evaluation like future plans, road linking to it and accessibility. If land is free, then no one will save on land. Bungalow become the cheapest housing since it is easier to build bungalow then flats. Everyone will live in one storey bungalows with big gardens which is bigger and cheaper. Then wat happened to singapore ?
Good quality air is in short supply, goes to show how much you know about global events. Research on Kyoto Proctocol, curbs on pollution emissions. It is a traded commodity.Originally posted by stupidissmart:As said, land is never free, especially in cities. Air can be considered limitless, u can breath 1 million times and u can breath more. But land is not limitless. It is a resources where we need to manage so tat the return from it is optimal. If we do not do management to it, and squadered it, then we will face severe headache in future.
What is deemed an appropriate amount of MPs in parliament? You claim that 45 MPs is too little. Do you have any relevant research to substantiate your argument?Originally posted by stupidissmart:Well if u ask me, I think 45 students is too little liao. Wat is more 17 has important tasks and are presenting their report to others. We also need a mix group of people and some must be from muslims, some must be indian, some must be girls, some must be young, some old etc.
I don't think we should save tis money
Ermmm, like I said I don't want to compare China, because China has 3 gorges and nuclear energy, which is a cheaper source.
Since when did "Ermmm, like I said I don't want to compare China, because China has 3 gorges and nuclear energy, which is a cheaper source." became your response? I posted it, you copied it to reply to me?
Go read the financial statements from Singapore Power.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I think u need to see tat it is itself investing in other areas outside singapore. It is serving australia, taiwan and south korea, having joint ventures with siemen, daikin etc. U cannot rest the growth solely due to the fact tat it has monopoly but not to its growth and other business.
Wat is more, how much do u spend on power a month ? U think how much profit it can earn minus off its expenditure ?
This calculation was done on 02 Dec 2006, before Singapore Power adjusted their tarffis, should not affect calculation because I used the current spot price for natural gas on NYMEX on that date.
Natural Gas Trade In The Market Without Government Subsidies.
Current Spot Price for Natural Gas NYMEX.
USD 10.77/MMbtu
1 MMbtu = 1,000,000 btu
1 Kwh = 3413 btu
1,000,000 btu / 3413 btu = 292.99 Kwh
USD 10.77 X 1.56 = SGD 16.80
which means SGD 16.80 will produce 292.99 Kwh of electricity. I am not sure what is the process loss (of if there is any) during the conversion from natural gas to electricity, but let's say it's 10%. So we end up with (292 Kwh X 90%) = 263.69 Kwh.
If you divide the cost by the 263.69 Kwh, you get:
6.37 cents/Kwh as compared to 21.64 cents/Kwh for Singapore Power
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/ngw/ngupdate.asp
We can have a process loss during conversion of up to 50% and still make a hefty profit when we sell at 15 cents/Kwh.
292.99Kwh x 50% = 146.50Kwh
SGD 16.80 / 146.50 Kwh = 11.47 cents/Kwh
I check my earlier posting and research, the return on equity for Singapore Power should be 22% to 26% for the last 3 years, not 35% as stated by me earlier. During these 3 years, the price of electricity has gone up from approximately 15 cents to 21 cents. The increase in returns is probably due to increase in price.
http://www.singaporepower.com.sg/index.html
Seriously, a return of equity of 22% to 26% on a blue chip stock is extremely rare in the stock market. For the price you pay for the stock, you only need to 4-5 years to make back the value you pay for the stock.
His upgrading wasn't completed recently, it's been quite some time, if you read the notes, those figures are for batch 19 and batch 20. I don't think he inflated the figures intentionally.Originally posted by stupidissmart:wat flats is your friend staying ? I check the website
http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10208p.nsf/WPDis/Main%20Upgrading%20ProgrammePolicies%20-%20Subsidies?OpenDocument
They don't show any flats tat is 90% subsidise yet u have to pay 10,000. Is your figures inflated ?
Reclaiming land is different, the amount of money they pay, when they sell to investors, they make profits from it. If you build HDB on reclaim land, then it would justify adding the "cost" of reclaiming the land to the price of the HDB. But then again, are all the flats built by HDB standing on reclaim land?Originally posted by stupidissmart:And if u want to really know the cost process of land, singapore has been reclaiming land for many years. It is not zero, zilch, nol, ling. It is costly. If u strictly view cost price then singapore spend a few million to reclaim some square kilometers.
Duh!!! Isn't it obvious, you don't buy your own bond issues!!! You buy other government bonds!!! And I mean government bonds from other countries!!! In case you don't see my point again.Originally posted by stupidissmart:And it also do a stupid thing to buy government bond. Gov is the one selling bond isn't it ?
How dorky can you be? Geez!!! You have missed the forest for the trees.Originally posted by stupidissmart:But now u r talking about a large group of working capable people and u help them work. Do u think u should ask them to pay u ? Furthermore, they have to pay for security guards (army, police)and trainers (teachers) and building (transport, development) for their work. U gonna pay these security guards and trainer with your money or their money ?
Do read my post again and understand where I am coming from.
I like your overall strategy "if you can't beat them, confuse them else change topic to something irrelevant." Same strategy as OM and the current regime.
If you are talking about cost of the land in terms of "opportunity cost". Then it's another issue altogether, the land instead of building public housing, the government can sell it in the market to multinational corporation or property investors for a tidy sum. That is opportunity cost, the next best alternative forgone. But if you talk about opportunity cost, it's not relevant here.
Example: [Say]
You make $100 an hour doing legal work, at the same time you do social work like helping the handicapped and the under privilege people of society.
Would you charge $100 an hour doing social work to those handicapped and under privilege of society?
This is opportunity cost as mooted by you in the cost of land not being free. This is the kind of cost you are associating the cost of land in HDB to be. An opportunity cost is not a real cost in the perspective of the government.
If you are in such a circumstance, would you charge the handicapped for the money you would make by servicing them? -
Profit making? You mean for China?Originally posted by stupidissmart:I felt a bit frustrated because up till now u still use suzhou as an example of "bad deals" when i have already shown it is making profit And u never rebuked on tis fact. R u just repeating and recycling your points ?
Second, the main reason for the conflict was the continuing losses
incurred by the SIP. By September 1999, it was reported that the SIP project
would have accumulated losses of US$60 million by the end of the
year 2000; the incurred financial loss would be about US$77 millions.
From SingaporeÂ’s perspective, the main reason for the SIP loss was the
fierce competition and undercutting of prices on the part of SND, besides
aggressive marketing by the local authorities for the SND. However, the
SND municipal authorities denied any attempt at undercutting the SIP
joint venture. As a Chinese official from SuzhouÂ’s Foreign Economic
Relations and Trade Commission said,
“We have treated both zones fairly. In fact, common consensus within
the government agrees that the SIP has received more preferential
policies than the SNDÂ… [The two zones] are both sons of our city; we
would likely to see both of them grow up and prosper.”
Despite SingaporeÂ’s efforts to persuade the local authorities of Suzhou to
only focus on the SIP for developments, they refused to comply. Thus
Singapore decided to scale down its further commitment to the development
of the SIP in order to minimize further loss of money. As a face-saving
arrangement, both the Singaporean and the Chinese counterparts
signed a memorandum of understanding in June 1999 in which Singapore
reduced its equity from 65% to 35%, whereas the Chinese counterpart
increased its share from 35% to 65%, thus becoming the major developer
of the SIP. Both sides agreed that upon completion of the eight square
kilometres park, it would be handed over to the Chinese partner by the
beginning of January 2001.
After Singapore transferred the SIP to China on 1 January 2001, SuzhouÂ’s
vice-major, Wang Jinghua took over the position of the CEO from
SingaporeÂ’s Lim Neo Chian. Wang decided to relinquish all ties with the
SIPÂ’s rival, the SND industrial park and concentrate all energy to turn
around the CSSD from a loss making into a profit generating company as
the most important goal of his administration. By 7 May 2001, when the
SIP celebrated its 7th anniversary, it was reported that for the first time
since its operation in 1994, the SIP will be able to make a projected profit
of US$7.5 million (S$13.5 million) to US$10million for 2001 and 2002
respectively, a reversal of the previously accumulated loss of US$77 million
at the end of 2000. The SIP has become so successful that it contributes
10% of SuzhouÂ’s GDP. By the end of April 2001, the SIP was able to attract
about US$8 billion of investment funds with about 37 of
FortuneÂ’s 500 multinational companies investing in the SIP.
What is the explanation for SIPÂ’s turning around from loss to profit?
First, the main reason is the local Suzhou authoritiesÂ’ decision to eliminate
competition from the SND, which was the main reason for the losses
the CSSD incurred. As mentioned earlier, Lee Kuan Yew publicly took
issue in 1997 with Wang Jinhua for making unfair remarks about the SIP
to German investors. With China now having 65% of the equity stake in
the SIP, Wang has vested interests not to send any promotion teams
abroad for the SND to compete with the CSSD as he did previously.
Second, with credit to Singapore, the Singaporean team has built a first
class, competitive and high quality industrial park which is able to attract
transnational companies, such as Hitachi, Samsung, Solectron (electronic
components), Philips, Advanced Micro Devices, Volex and Bosch, etc.
Furthermore, the SIP has the advantage of “transparency, no hidden cost,
quality and reliable infrastructure and good customer support for expansion
in the park”.
Singapore-China Special Economic Relations by SHEE Poon Kim (Institute
of International Relations and Area Studies, Ritsumeikan University) -
looking at robertteh, "counter criticism" seems to be banning people from their own boards
-
If they keep banning people, at the end, they will only be left with their own kind posting among themselves praising one another. How agreeable like a friendship club.Originally posted by the Bear:looking at robertteh, "counter criticism" seems to be banning people from their own boards -
Though bitter, good medicine cures illness. Though it may hurt, loyal criticism will have beneficial effects. -Sima QianOriginally posted by robertteh:If they keep banning people, at the end, they will only be left with their own kind posting among themselves praising one another. How agreeable like a friendship club. -
I guess u seems to prefer the reply to each paragraph ? I break down your passage into a few category as shown below. If u felt it is wrong, then please correct me
The example of HDB changing its low-cost housing policy as practised up to 1970s to profiteering in the 1980s is a case in point of such over-taxing policy which does not bring about the greatest benefits to the greatest number which should be the main pillar of a practical and pragmatic government.
If we must avoid welfarism by pointing to western societies which suffer from welfarism, is it also practical to over-charge the citizens for low-cost housing?
Please refer to Point 1 of my reply made in 21 Febuarary 12:22Or is the government only treating people as the target for sucking more monies to build its surpluses and extravagant spending and even losses on self-centred investments like souzhou or shin corp.
What is so impractical to ask the ministers not to lose people's surpluses by billions nowadays in overseas projects like souzhou and shin corp which do not benefit the people.
A system of government's profiteering from its corporatization schemes to free itself from practically any provisions of essential government services is one where the government is working for its own sake and no longer serving the people.
Please refer to Point 2 of my reply made in 21 Febuarary 12:22I have been pointing out to you many times that the government has been wrong in pursuing all these years a wrongful system of taxing and recovering of fullest costs resulting in taxes being accumulated as continual surpluses for which the government has been quick to claim as its superficial success.
Uncaring sucking of monies from the people is not a sign of pragmatism or practicality.
The issue now is by exacting another and another round of taxes, is the government really serving the people or being practical in its governance.
Is such protectism of the elites and their own kind also done out of pragmatism. Is it not hoarding of people's taxes a sin as it leads to more constant increases of fees and charges including selling the low-cost housing to make obscene double-profits on lands and assets.
I have given you many examples to substantiate my argument to discontinue the taxing and recovering system of government but you now claim without basis that I am being idealistic or repetitive in posing of these views or queries. See who is the one who refuses to listen to logic and arguments.
You are not willing to reason with reasons or accept the fact going to the other extreme of over-taxing to recover all possible costs could produce the worse consequences than welfarism.
So it appears that the system has produced the serious problem where the high costs are not only affecting the lower income families but also large number of middle income families so much so that government is being forced to rethink its many past policies.
Please refer to Point 3 of my reply made in 21 Febuarary 12:22Is the government being practical or oppressive in creating jobs for the foreigners even for mundane jobs under its pro-foreign S-pass foreign employment policy. What people want to know is whether by pro-foreign employment policy, indeed more jobs are being created to the citizens including the thousands who have been retrenched and become prolonged unemployed despite high education since the last three prolonged recessions from which Singapore has taken the longest to recover.
If the lower and middle income earners should end up with lower wages due to retrechments or globalization etc should not our leaders set personal examples by being subjected to the same foreign employment policy instead of constantly lecturing the people for the fault or lack of training even though the ministers have patently failed in their economic restructuring plans for ages without results.
Please refer to Point 4 of my reply made in 21 Febuarary 12:22What happen to all the taxes people have been paying and all the surpluses hoarded by the government.
What is so impractical to use part of such surpluses created by over-taxing as people's relief-of-living-costs endowment schemes to offset the constantly increasing taxes and gst by all the ministies and GLCs which cause great burdens to the people.
Please refer to Point 5 of my reply made in 21 Febuarary 12:22 -
I am sure if you are to read my earlier posts again you will be able to see that I have been the one who has given many concrete examples and logics to back up my arguments.
I am sure citizens do not expect the government to be idealistic and to deliver wonders like in an utopia. I am sure also people do not ask for welfarism or free lunch although the same cannot be said of ministers who went to the parliament to vote for their own nkf-type of salary inreases and other golden-tap self-rewards.
I also did not disagree with all the government actions. I agree that it has certain duties to take unpopular measures for the greatest benefits of the greatest number.
I have also shown you that it is wrong to abuse the so-called meritocracy to favor the elites and the rich but you have been too engrossed in selective comparisons with worse-off countries to listen to such plain truth.
The issue facing our society today is whether when the leaders are being confronted with logics and rationality are they prepared to accept robust arguments and make amends or are they merely interested in regurgitating all the past policies and propagandas which have been largely shamefully exposed in the NKF saga.
It appears that to you the government always acts for its own interests forgetting the principle of governing for the greatest benefits of the greatest number. If the leaders are not listening and always seeking to blame the people for the slightest failures of their duties, how can the people be made to listen.
Yet the government has not been willing or candid or truthful to admit there is any major policy error and would rather like the people to keep quiet or insist that they are unfailing in whatever their judgments.
So it is more important for the government to change rather than the people who have not done any wrong as they are the ones who contributed to the nation building through their blood and toil in building up the surpluses.
So people do not want to see government being too clever by using the nkf creative accounting as to enrich the state coffers forever and claim superficial success.
Thus it is my humble view that even if government has to take certain unpopular action out of practicality or pragmatism, it still has the duty to substantiate its actions with well argued easons and logics so as to produce the greatest benefits to the greatest number.
If the government loses cannot do so for any reason or refuses to admit its many past errors then it cannot expect to have the moral authority to ask people to give more births or pay more taxes or tackle any daunting challenges ahead in upgrading the economic competitiveness.
Weasel words in the form of personal accusations with no evidence nor logic etc. No need for replyThe large number of citizens' migration to other countries is a case in point to show you what an uncaring and arrogant government can do to a country progress and prosperity.
Some of the points tat I have missed. If u look at the whole world, people from developing and developed countries r moving around the world. It is true tat singapore is not the best country to be
But one has to face reality tat singapore is not the bigger country, or the more powerful country, or the one with resources. To be able to beat other more established country like the best US state etc is impossible.I am sure citizens will be very happy if the government could just simply owns up and realizes its fundamental policy error in over-taxing the people through all kinds of corporatisation schemes to rid themselves of responsibilty to the people and stop boasting regularly of such tax surpluses as its success.
Just a question. Wat do u mean by over taxing ? How do u know wat is the right amount to tax ? Is it just lesser = more correct ?Method of allocation by HDB for public housing has been first-come-first-served and needs and income ceilings so there is no issue with who get the housing at where. Whether one gets the flat at Toa Payoh or Queenstown, or Seng Kang are not issue at all.
Tis is a wrong policy
1) Wat about resale value ? The houses in the central is gonna fetch a higher price than the one in the remote region. Then aren't u rewarding people on merit of their luck ?
2) People could have chosen a particular location because it is near to the parent. People could have chosen a location because it is near to their work. Because of your plan, nobody get the place they want. The whole world become a worse place.
3) Older people get to stay in the central area while the younger people have to stay in awkward places. The younger generation will not be happy because they get punished for living in lousy location because they r borned later. Furthermore it is likely the younger people who just bought houses who have to work but they r punished to travel around because they can't choose where to live
4) Furthermore, the problem of tax from other areas still have to come. If gov cannot earn the necessary money from housing, they have to raise the money from somewhere else. It is just a redistribution of tax, but the amount may end up taxing the poorer people more compared with housing. -
I think we are going off topic. This is supposed to be about online "counter-insurgency", not whatever we can see fit to talk about on a loose relation to this.
I believe the question was: is this covert "counter-insurgency" really proper for an offical government? is it working? should they be spending their efforts on others things proven to be more effective? and what have you not.
As much as all the rest of the talk is interesting, one can create threads for that... I mean if even rather silly flame threads like racism in australia can carry on for over 20 pages still on topic... we need more talk on such a more important issue in here. -
Just the last reply... got beginning got end
Can you elaborate this point of yours? I am not very smart and I don't do mind reading.
I give u an example
company A made 10 million and it recruit 1000 people in country A each 2000. A lesser tax of 10% means company take home 7 million (- tax then labor for easier calculation)
company B made 10 million but it recruit 10000 people in country B each 200. The place got high tax of 50%. Company take home 3 million.
As seen here the tax rate is important. Company A should go to country A. If it go to country B, it will get only 4.8 million. Similarly if company B go to country A, it will make a loss. U get the picture now ?I don't understand your statement. Can someone explain what he/she is trying to say?
Putting it simply, if gov don't charge for land, then it will charge from other venue like 20% GST. Land tax is better than GST simply because it make the people with more land contribute more to budget. Tis helps to lower the rich and poor divide.You are comparing public housing like HDB to Bungalows? They are different housing type. HDB apartments is no frills basic living area, whereas Bungalow is a privately developed project (where companies have a profit motive and will provide premium development). That plot of land that resides the Bungalow, built up to 12 floors can probably accomodate 48 families.
U need to get the underlying idea. If land is free, people waste land. Do u agree ? If land is free for the people living in HDB, why does gov charge land for people living in condo or bungalow ? Is it fair to them ? They contribute tax and serve NS as well.Good quality air is in short supply, goes to show how much you know about global events. Research on Kyoto Proctocol, curbs on pollution emissions. It is a traded commodity.
Tis is rubbish. I repeat. There is no economy for air because there is too much supply of air and no need of managementWhat is deemed an appropriate amount of MPs in parliament? You claim that 45 MPs is too little. Do you have any relevant research to substantiate your argument?
Not really, but I do know other countries have a few hundred senators and it seem to be working fine. Now u claim the lesser people the better. U have any relevant research tat show it helps ?Since when did "Ermmm, like I said I don't want to compare China, because China has 3 gorges and nuclear energy, which is a cheaper source." became your response? I posted it, you copied it to reply to me?
Tat is a posting mistake. It should be together with the quote belowGo read the financial statements from Singapore Power.
Then how about the cost for building the power plants ? The cost of transporting the gas ? The maintenance of the plant ? Somes plant r not burning gas but also fuel ? U also do not know how efficient from gas to electricity as well
...
which means SGD 16.80 will produce 292.99 Kwh of electricity. I am not sure what is the process loss (of if there is any) during the conversion from natural gas to electricity, but let's say it's 10%. So we end up with (292 Kwh X 90%) = 263.69 Kwh.
How much do u pay per month for your utility for your whole family ? Do u think tat is suficient to pay for the 4 billion dollar for the use by army only ?
Furthermore, I have already suggested tat singapore power have invested itself in a lot of places. The share price rise may simply hint tat its investments r paying off.Reclaiming land is different, the amount of money they pay, when they sell to investors, they make profits from it. If you build HDB on reclaim land, then it would justify adding the "cost" of reclaiming the land to the price of the HDB. But then again, are all the flats built by HDB standing on reclaim land?
The point is to show tat land is limited in singapore and singapore have to waste a lot of money on reclaiming land. So your claim tat is cost zero is not really trueDuh!!! Isn't it obvious, you don't buy your own bond issues!!! You buy other government bonds!!! And I mean government bonds from other countries!!! In case you don't see my point again.
Then it brings more unstability and risk since other country may face inflation and change in rates bet singapore and their currency. Wat country do u suggest tat have 5% compounded interest and last 99 years ?How dorky can you be? Geez!!! You have missed the forest for the trees.
My example shows the problem of your analogy. U r seeking compassion points by telling a story of handicapped and under priviledge people and u volunteer work for them. However in the real HDB scenario, u r talking about the masses, or 80% of the population. Why do u think we should use your compassion points for the normal population of singapore ? If u want your analogy to be fair, u have to suggest working for a group of HDB living people and not working for handicapped. Then your story does not make sense because u will not work for free for normal people. Furthermore my example shows tat there r some cost tat these normal people have to pay such as security and education. Who should pay them ?
Do read my post again and understand where I am coming from.Profit making? You mean for China?
U need to read properly. The losses made was reversed about 2001 and 2002. Even in your reference, why didn't u paste the continuous story ?
This time, Lee Kuan Yew was optimistic about the SIPÂ’s future, as in his assessment, the SIP has a good chance to reverse its past financial loss into profit.
In 2003, it happened and
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200405/18/eng20040518_143684.html
Up to the end of 2003, the company has already got in enough profits for making up all accumulated deficits. And the company has for the first time allotted stock dividend amounting to USD 10 million
The park is making profit now. Tat is why lee hsien long is talking about it more often -
I suspect one reason you are banned is because your posts are far too long and you tend to hijack the entire thread. Learn to be more succinct and don't keep repeating the same point.Originally posted by robertteh:If they keep banning people, at the end, they will only be left with their own kind posting among themselves praising one another. How agreeable like a friendship club. -
Ermmm.....I still don't get what you talking about.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I give u an example
company A made 10 million and it recruit 1000 people in country A each 2000. A lesser tax of 10% means company take home 7 million (- tax then labor for easier calculation)
company B made 10 million but it recruit 10000 people in country B each 200. The place got high tax of 50%. Company take home 3 million.
As seen here the tax rate is important. Company A should go to country A. If it go to country B, it will get only 4.8 million. Similarly if company B go to country A, it will make a loss. U get the picture now ?
10 million is sales or profit before interest and tax or profit after tax? You just said company A made 10 million, you "made" is not very descriptive. "each 2000", what does "each 2000" mean? Salary for a year, a month or a week?
How did you arrive at 7 million? How did you get the 3 million? You picked up your math skills from OM? I have some basic accounting knowledge and I have no idea where you get you figures from?
If what you said is correct, then China with corporate tax rate of 33% and a individual tax rate of 45% won't be attracting any foreign direct investments.
"In recent years, foreign direct investment attracted into China, which hit the historic high of US$60.63 billion in 2004, has been witness a sustained growth; but in 2005, such a growth trend slowed down slightly with a little bit decrease on a year-on-year basis. In 2005, the number of newly established foreign-invested enterprises across China amounted to 44,001 with a year-on-year growth of 0.77 percent but the foreign investment actually used amounted to US$60.325 billion with a year-on-year decrease of 0.5 percent."
http://en.ce.cn/Insight/200603/14/t20060314_6364266.shtml
They should learn to reduce their own spending, so there won't be any need to impose any more taxes. Not by increasing taxes so that they can have a bigger pay rise.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Putting it simply, if gov don't charge for land, then it will charge from other venue like 20% GST. Land tax is better than GST simply because it make the people with more land contribute more to budget. Tis helps to lower the rich and poor divide.
You so called "underlying idea" is flawed. So air is free now, do you waste the air you breathe by breathing more? We are asking them to provide basic accomodation, not a 1 hectare land for a house. Since when does that lead to wastage? Maybe you can elaborate more? They charge condo and bungalow higher because there are less restrictions as with HDB.Originally posted by stupidissmart:U need to get the underlying idea. If land is free, people waste land. Do u agree ? If land is free for the people living in HDB, why does gov charge land for people living in condo or bungalow ? Is it fair to them ? They contribute tax and serve NS as well.
Then it's very obvious you have a very limited amount of the world around us.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Tis is rubbish. I repeat. There is no economy for air because there is too much supply of air and no need of management
Kyoto Proctocol
Canned Air For Sale In Thailand
Canned Air For Sale In Japan
Are you the proverbial frog in the well? You haven't seen the world, that's why you think well of the government.
Are you refering to USA having a few hundred senators? If you are, don't you even know the population of USA. It's 297 million!!! I don't have to show any relevant research, if 50 MPs can do the job 84 MPs can do, it's already implicit from the relationship that it's beneficial. If you run a business, why would you employ 100 workers if 50 workers can do the same job. Of course, unless all those workers are your relatives and friends, then that's an entirely different issue. But if it's your own business, nobody would cry foul and accuse you of cronyism.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Not really, but I do know other countries have a few hundred senators and it seem to be working fine. Now u claim the lesser people the better. U have any relevant research tat show it helps ?
I have no idea what is the cost of the plant, but it is normally depreciated over it's useful life and charged to the profit and loss accounts. But if other countries who have plants that generate electricity like us and managed to keep their electricity rates low, I don't understand why we cannot. Electricity generation from fuel is minimal. I don't know the efficiency. Do you know? It could be as high as 95% for all we know.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Then how about the cost for building the power plants ? The cost of transporting the gas ? The maintenance of the plant ? Somes plant r not burning gas but also fuel ? U also do not know how efficient from gas to electricity as well
How much do u pay per month for your utility for your whole family ? Do u think tat is suficient to pay for the 4 billion dollar for the use by army only ?
Furthermore, I have already suggested tat singapore power have invested itself in a lot of places. The share price rise may simply hint tat its investments r paying off.
How is payment of electricity charges related to the army? Next you will be asking we pay higher food charges to support the army. What is the connection here? I don't see the relevance. If you think that it's because of other investments overseas. Why don't you research on it and prove it (with references to sites)? Instead of maybe they made 100% return on equity from overseas investments, these are unsubstantiated points, useless to me. Maybe next time you tell me higher phone charges so that we can have better roads. Not related and not relevant.
When you reclaim land, obviously there is a reason (financial or otherwise). When they reclaim land, they sell it to the highest bidder to develop projects. Unless people behave like you, reclaim land for fun and laughter, then inflate price of HDB apartments to make flats more expensive. Would you waste money to dig a hole in your backyard for no reason? I'd like to reiterate again, cost of land to he goverment is zero!!! There is an opportunity cost for the land, but then opportunity cost is not a real cost in terms of public housing development.Originally posted by stupidissmart:The point is to show tat land is limited in singapore and singapore have to waste a lot of money on reclaiming land. So your claim tat is cost zero is not really true
http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates/index.htmlOriginally posted by stupidissmart:Then it brings more unstability and risk since other country may face inflation and change in rates bet singapore and their currency. Wat country do u suggest tat have 5% compounded interest and last 99 years ?
http://federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data.htm
Don't you think we need to show more compassion to those under privilege of society? 80% of population living in HDB? Can you provide the break down of those 80%? Out of those 80%. How many % lives in 1 room, 2 room and 3 room? Consolidating all your 1/2/3 rooms with 4/5 rooms Executive flats and labelling them as well off, is your strategy of side winding the facts again.Originally posted by stupidissmart:My example shows the problem of your analogy. U r seeking compassion points by telling a story of handicapped and under priviledge people and u volunteer work for them. However in the real HDB scenario, u r talking about the masses, or 80% of the population. Why do u think we should use your compassion points for the normal population of singapore ? If u want your analogy to be fair, u have to suggest working for a group of HDB living people and not working for handicapped. Then your story does not make sense because u will not work for free for normal people. Furthermore my example shows tat there r some cost tat these normal people have to pay such as security and education. Who should pay them ?
I don't know what is your problem, difficulty in comprehension or low level intellect that precludes you from understanding the financial impact.Originally posted by stupidissmart:U need to read properly. The losses made was reversed about 2001 and 2002. Even in your reference, why didn't u paste the continuous story ?
This time, Lee Kuan Yew was optimistic about the SIPÂ’s future, as in his assessment, the SIP has a good chance to reverse its past financial loss into profit.
In 2003, it happened and
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200405/18/eng20040518_143684.html
Up to the end of 2003, the company has already got in enough profits for making up all accumulated deficits. And the company has for the first time allotted stock dividend amounting to USD 10 million
The park is making profit now. Tat is why lee hsien long is talking about it more often
"As a face-saving arrangement, both the Singaporean and the Chinese counterparts signed a memorandum of understanding in June 1999 in which Singapore reduced its equity from 65% to 35%, whereas the Chinese counterpart increased its share from 35% to 65%, thus becoming the major developer of the SIP. Both sides agreed that upon completion of the eight square kilometres park, it would be handed over to the Chinese partner by the beginning of January 2001."
You had a shareholding of 65% reduced to 35%. What ever you make right now is halved. We don't know how was the shareholding reduced. We probably made a loss from the reduction in shareholding.
"The total cost of the SIP was estimated to be about US$20 billion, to be fully developed in twenty years and based on a Singaporean style of industrial, residential, recreational community with a population of six hundred thousand
providing employment for three hundred and sixty thousand workers."
Do you know the difference between US$20 billion and US$10 million? If you make US$10 million annually, it would take you 2000 years to recover the initial investment of US$20 billion. If let say they make US$100 million annually, it would still take them 200 years to recover the initial investment (this does not even take into effect the cost of capital). The timeline is too long even for my kids and grandkids to see. -
Ermmm.....I still don't get what you talking about.
U r sure wasting my time on tis stupid thing
company A, take in profit before tax and labour cost = 10 million
- tax = 9 million
- labour = 9 million - 2000*1000
= 7 million
I have mentioned tat the cost of labour is after tax cut to simplify matter
company B, take in profit before tax and labour = 10 million
- tax = 5 million
- labour = 5 million - 200*10000
= 3 million
If we make company B go to country A
take in profit = 10 million
- tax = 9 million
- labour = 9 million - 2000*10000
= a lost of 11 million
U got to know wat is labour intensive. China labour is cheap. Enough said.They should learn to reduce their own spending, so there won't be any need to impose any more taxes. Not by increasing taxes so that they can have a bigger pay rise.
It is easy to say reduce spending Defense weopons r more ex, so we reduce or increase spending ? Police need more equipment to deal with terrorist. Need to reduce or increase spending ? More teachers needed to enable smaller classroom size. Increase or decrease spending ?
It is always desirable to reduce spending but it is a no brainer and every organisation, individual and country know tis theory. U can always say "reduce reduce reduce" but how do we know we had reduce untill it cannot be reduced ?You so called "underlying idea" is flawed. So air is free now, do you waste the air you breathe by breathing more? We are asking them to provide basic accomodation, not a 1 hectare land for a house. Since when does that lead to wastage? Maybe you can elaborate more? They charge condo and bungalow higher because there are less restrictions as with HDB.
U can waste air by breathing more air if u want. As said, it is free and abundant and there is no need for economy. But u r talking about land which is limited, especially singapore. If u r talking about giving free land for housing, I have shown so many point why it will give many social problems. (tax from other area, increase rich and poor divide, unfair to people allocated lousy region etc)
If we follow your suggestion on bugalow and condo, u will be unfair to them because u r forcing them to live in HDB which they do not like. They do not mind paying a bit more for condo because of the amenities, but now u r forcing all of them to live in HDB because of the great difference in the price and make the whole world a worse place.Then it's very obvious you have a very limited amount of the world around us
U r talking rubbish here. U can breath now right ? No one charges u to breath right ? U can breath a few million time per second but the air is still around u right ? There is no economy because its supply is much greater than the demand. I don't know why u drag the kyoto protocol into tis argument. Pollution is a different matter. The amount of air u r allowed to breath in is another matterAre you refering to USA having a few hundred senators? If you are, don't you even know the population of USA. It's 297 million!!! I don't have to show any relevant research, if 50 MPs can do the job 84 MPs can do, it's already implicit from the relationship that it's beneficial. If you run a business, why would you employ 100 workers if 50 workers can do the same job. Of course, unless all those workers are your relatives and friends, then that's an entirely different issue. But if it's your own business, nobody would cry foul and accuse you of cronyism.
The point is a few hundred senators is an example tat more people can still come out with good policies etc. There is no problem with having more people in an parliament. An obvious problem is too few MP will result in weaker brainstorming, detection of problems and questioning of policies. If we have too little MPs, we may face problems because each MP has too large a stake in the whole vote. Lets say there is a cranky guy in the parliament and he vote all the lousy policy. He already have a 3% pursuasion power if there is only 33 people. In the case of 100 people, he only have 1 %. The more people there r, the more likely the people inside follow normal distribution and thus can come out with policy tat r of value.
Now it is your turn to show why do lesser people inside the MP is a good thing ? -
I have no idea what is the cost of the plant, but it is normally depreciated over it's useful life and charged to the profit and loss accounts. But if other countries who have plants that generate electricity like us and managed to keep their electricity rates low, I don't understand why we cannot. Electricity generation from fuel is minimal. I don't know the efficiency. Do you know? It could be as high as 95% for all we know.
Com'on, the water cycle is impossible to generate 95% efficiency. U need to boil the water, make it go high pressure before it can turn the turbine. The escape water itself have heat and tis energy is obviously wasted. The boiler itself is heated up and heat also lost to the environment through convection and radiation. If I am not wrong, the efficiency never go beyond 70%. Furthermore, electricity going down to your home is again not 100% efficient. The copper wire heat up, the electricity leaks etc.
A power plant cost about 500 million. So tis cost have to come down to the consumers. Furthermore how about the transportation ? More multi million dollar equipment of have to pay shipping for transportation ?How is payment of electricity charges related to the army? Next you will be asking we pay higher food charges to support the army. What is the connection here? I don't see the relevance. If you think that it's because of other investments overseas. Why don't you research on it and prove it (with references to sites)? Instead of maybe they made 100% return on equity from overseas investments, these are unsubstantiated points, useless to me. Maybe next time you tell me higher phone charges so that we can have better roads. Not related and not relevant.
As said, u r not paying a substantial amount for utility. It is not enough to generate enough income to cover the gov expenditure or the tax from land etc. U think u spend a lot but in the grand scale of a country, it is little compared with the overall expenditure.When you reclaim land, obviously there is a reason (financial or otherwise). When they reclaim land, they sell it to the highest bidder to develop projects. Unless people behave like you, reclaim land for fun and laughter, then inflate price of HDB apartments to make flats more expensive. Would you waste money to dig a hole in your backyard for no reason? I'd like to reiterate again, cost of land to he goverment is zero!!! There is an opportunity cost for the land, but then opportunity cost is not a real cost in terms of public housing development.
Com'on, your points r getting more and more low class and u r adding in insults to your points. Singapore reclaim land. Singapore pay to reclaim land. It released land from other areas of singapore (if no reclamation, factories may set up in previously residential area). The cost of land is not zero.http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates/index.html
I still do not see why u say the gov bond is giving compound interest.
http://federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data.htm Can u show me the evidence tat bond give compound interest and not interest on the principle
following your suggestion, in the worse scenario
1950: 1 US$ = sing$3.06
2007: 1 US$ = sing$1.53
If interest is not compunded u get US 3.5 million back. But u spend Sing 3.06 million in the past and u get Sing 4.55 million now. Not the miracle fiancial plan u suggested. Even if u invest in suzhou u earn much more for 50 years.Don't you think we need to show more compassion to those under privilege of society? 80% of population living in HDB? Can you provide the break down of those 80%? Out of those 80%. How many % lives in 1 room, 2 room and 3 room? Consolidating all your 1/2/3 rooms with 4/5 rooms Executive flats and labelling them as well off, is your strategy of side winding the facts again.
80% of population living in HDB not enough for u yah ? Why does living in 1 room or 2 room or 3 room give any purpose ? Tis guy is living in a 1 room flat but he may be working and earning a lot of money.
Why don't u make things more simple by simply comparing income instead of flats ? All u want is to find out who is poor right ? -
You mean your posts or other posts are not that long. Go and read some of your posts and if I deserve to be banned on length of post or hijacking of thread, the shorter posters who were banned should have been spared.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:I suspect one reason you are banned is because your posts are far too long and you tend to hijack the entire thread. Learn to be more succinct and don't keep repeating the same point.
Countering cyberspace is now turning into a circus..when they cannot counter with reasons, the power that be cannot win, they will use power to ban. This is what they mean by countering criticisms. -
What can you expect from these modern book burners? In the old days, the emperor burnt books but these modern despots control the press and sue people for defamation till they are bankrupt; ban forumites that speak out against them... hahaha first world government?Originally posted by robertteh:You mean your posts or other posts are not that long. Go and read some of your posts and if I deserve to be banned on length of post or hijacking of thread, the shorter posters who were banned should have been spared.
Countering cyberspace is now turning into a circus..when they cannot counter with reasons, the power that be cannot win, they will use power to ban. This is what they mean by countering criticisms.
If they are so confident of their position, they would have put themselves to the ultimate test and set up a proportional representative parliament.
They are just siao ren acting like they are so smart and honorable. -
Mmh, your argument DOES NOT apply in Singapore.
U need to get the underlying idea. If land is free, people waste land. Do u agree ? If land is free for the people living in HDB, why does gov charge land for people living in condo or bungalow ? Is it fair to them ? They contribute tax and serve NS as well.
Don't the people in Hougang and Potong Pasir contribute tax and serve NS as well?
Let's face it, the MIW can change the rules to suit themselves, we don't even know how much reserves they have so let's not talk about openness. They are afraid of the public outcry once it is revealed.
I don't need to quote anyone or give any figures to tell you the public outcry will be massive. It's common sense. -
Originally posted by bigmouthjoe:
Excellent post, just like the outcry that greeted NKF when the truth was known.
Mmh, your argument [b]DOES NOT apply in Singapore.
Don't the people in Hougang and Potong Pasir contribute tax and serve NS as well?
Let's face it, the MIW can change the rules to suit themselves, we don't even know how much reserves they have so let's not talk about openness. They are afraid of the public outcry once it is revealed.
I don't need to quote anyone or give any figures to tell you the public outcry will be massive. It's common sense.[/b] -
80% of population living in HDB not enough for u yah ? Why does living in 1 room or 2 room or 3 room give any purpose ? Tis guy is living in a 1 room flat but he may be working and earning a lot of money.
There is a maximum gross household income for each HDB unit type thus you will not find a family with a gross monthly household income of $10000 purchasing say a 3 room flat.
Why don't u make things more simple by simply comparing income instead of flats ? All u want is to find out who is poor right ?
The income ceiling does not permit such a thing to happen. -
U r sure wasting my time on tis stupid thing
It is a warped argument, distorted to support your argument. It does not do this stupid thing call simple mathematics justice.
company A, take in profit before tax and labour cost = 10 million
- tax = 9 million
- labour = 9 million - 2000*1000
= 7 million
I have mentioned tat the cost of labour is after tax cut to simplify matter
company B, take in profit before tax and labour = 10 million
- tax = 5 million
- labour = 5 million - 200*10000
= 3 million
If we make company B go to country A
take in profit = 10 million
- tax = 9 million
- labour = 9 million - 2000*10000
= a lost of 11 million
U got to know wat is labour intensive. China labour is cheap. Enough said.
If I have a company with 2000 staff as compared to 200 staff, the production output will be higher, generating more produce thus contributing to my coffers. The profit in the case of country B going to country A should be higher. -
Yah, and why not right? It is my money and I should be able to spend it anyway I want, including saving it instead of giving it to them. They say that it is "subsidised" only because they "valued" "state land" that HDB is built on at an exorbitant rate while they could have valued it at "zero" because it is state land! Land that belongs to Singaporeans, not the government of the day!Originally posted by bigmouthjoe:There is a maximum gross household income for each HDB unit type thus you will not find a family with a gross monthly household income of $10000 purchasing say a 3 room flat.
The income ceiling does not permit such a thing to happen. -
While it is not wrong for the government to excise their rights to ''sell'' the land to HDB, I would appreciate it if HDB actually lowers the cost of it's units. It's a simple case of folks having more monies in their CPF at the end of the day.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Yah, and why not right? It is my money and I should be able to spend it anyway I want, including saving it instead of giving it to them. They say that it is "subsidised" only because they "valued" "state land" that HDB is built on at an exorbitant rate while they could have valued it at "zero" because it is state land! Land that belongs to Singaporeans, not the government of the day!
With $10,000, $20,000, $30,000 less profit per unit for the government over a period of 10-20 years is no big deal but a great deal for us common folks. -
Actually my biggest beef is that they take the money to invest in "Shin Corps" instead of redistributing it back to the people just so that the people become heavily in debt and have no choice but to work for them.Originally posted by bigmouthjoe:While it is not wrong for the government to excise their rights to ''sell'' the land to HDB, I would appreciate it if HDB actually lowers the cost of it's units. It's a simple case of folks having more monies in their CPF at the end of the day.
With $10,000, $20,000, $30,000 less profit per unit for the government over a period of 10-20 years is no big deal but a great deal for us common folks.
They need million dollars salaries but the people need to be in debt. Just like the government needs "renewal" but the old man has to stay.
I am just fed up and will just say, GIVE US BACK OUR MONEY AND STOP ALL THAT EXCUSES
THEY ARE ALREADY SO RICH AND THEY TAKE SOME MORE! THEY ARE GREEDY BEYOND WORDS -
Siao Ren is the right word to describe the whole set-up. It is sad that the scholars and the educated could deteriorate to siao ren with education.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:What can you expect from these modern book burners? In the old days, the emperor burnt books but these modern despots control the press and sue people for defamation till they are bankrupt; ban forumites that speak out against them... hahaha first world government?
If they are so confident of their position, they would have put themselves to the ultimate test and set up a proportional representative parliament.
They are just siao ren acting like they are so smart and honorable. -
You have simply regurgitated all the government hypocrisy here without replying to reasons and logics. So I don't see how you could cyber-counter anyone's criticisms or feedbacks to the public. Let the public decide whether the cyber-countering has succeeded ...or is the government in desparation now starts to ban people from internet posting.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Tis is a wrong policy
1) Wat about resale value ? The houses in the central is gonna fetch a higher price than the one in the remote region. Then aren't u rewarding people on merit of their luck ?
2) People could have chosen a particular location because it is near to the parent. People could have chosen a location because it is near to their work. Because of your plan, nobody get the place they want. The whole world become a worse place.
3) Older people get to stay in the central area while the younger people have to stay in awkward places. The younger generation will not be happy because they get punished for living in lousy location because they r borned later. Furthermore it is likely the younger people who just bought houses who have to work but they r punished to travel around because they can't choose where to live
4) Furthermore, the problem of tax from other areas still have to come. If gov cannot earn the necessary money from housing, they have to raise the money from somewhere else. It is just a redistribution of tax, but the amount may end up taxing the poorer people more compared with housing.
Remember, there is an old Chinese saying: "Paper cannot wrap fire" -
He would probably retort that your comments are at best ''weasel words'', to quote him.Originally posted by robertteh:You have simply regurgitated all the government hypocrisy here without replying to reasons and logics. So I don't see how you could cyber-counter anyone's criticisms or feedbacks to the public. Let the public decide whether the cyber-countering has succeeded ...or is the government in desparation now starts to ban people from internet posting.
Remember, there is an old Chinese saying: "Paper cannot wrap fire"
It's easy to dismiss everything with a wave of the hand, dismissing anything that one has not seen or experience before as weasel words.