SG is lowest spending gov
-
Dunt angry with gov GST hike.SG expenditure as a percentage of GDP declined from 17.6% to 14.6% of GDP between 1996 and 2005.
As a result, expenditure as a percentage of GDP declined over the same period from 17.6% to 14.6% of GDP. Measured as a percentage of GDP, Singapore remains among the lowest spending governments in the world.
--http://www.singaporebudget.gov.sg/budget_2007/budget_speech/downloads/FY2007_Budget_Highlights.pdf
page 27,28--Budget_Highlights
The last decade has been characterised by a gradual decline in government expenditure as a percentage of GDP. Although total government expenditure has steadily risen from $23.3 billion to $29.1 billion between 1996 and 2005, the increase has not matched GDP growth over the same period, except during the 1998 and 2001 downturns. .As a result, expenditure as a percentage of GDP declined over the same period from 17.6% to 14.6% of GDP..
Measured as a percentage of GDP, Singapore remains among the lowest spending governments in the world.
The Block Budget Framework has helped to establish spending ceilings in ministries, while budget cuts in FY2004 and FY2005 trimmed expenditures further. Operating expenditure has been broadly stable as a percentage of GDP during the last decade while development expenditure has declined significantly11.
(11 The analysis of operating and development expenditures in the following two paragraphs hereafter excludes expenditures on defence.)
FEATURE ARTICLES
page 28
While operating expenditure has been broadly stable over the last decade, it has declined in recent years, easing from a high of 7.9% of GDP in FY2001 to 6.5% of GDP in FY2005. In particular,. expenditure on manpower (EOM) dropped steadily from 2.2% to 1.8% of GDP .over the same period, reflecting the emphasis on keeping the government workforce lean via
measures such as the Manpower Management Framework (MMF).
Development expenditure has declined even more sharply, from 6.0% of GDP in FY2001 to 3.5% of GDP in FY2005, largely due to the completion of major land reclamation projects, and the stepping down or eventual completion of several major infrastructure projects such as the Deep Tunnel Sewerage System, the Programme for Rebuilding and Improving
Existing Schools (PRIME) and the North East Line rail project.
Where appropriate, privatesector financing (such as bonds and Public Private Partnerships going forward) has been tapped, and has replaced some development expenditure with operating expenditure.
2.singapore budget 2007Chart 4.1: Trends in Government Expenditure(% GDP,vertical)
2.Have statuory boards and private companies,like
FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05
legend:
Operating Expenditure (excluding Defence)
Development Expenditure (excluding Defence)
Total Expenditure (excluding Defence)
Total Expenditure
* For comparability across periods, land-related expenditures (expenditure spent on land-reclamation or land improvements that augment the value of land, and which are charged to past reserves since FY2001) are added
back as part of Development Expenditure for FY2001 to FY2005.
Grants to HDB for bottom-line financing has been reclassified as Operating Expenditure since FY2006 as it is primarily for housing subsidies extended to
buyers of HDB flats. The revised definition has been applied to the data series to reflect the breakdown more accurately.
2 main health groups ,been included in the expenditure? -
Baby bonus to be increased to 1st child $30 000 cash
2nd child $50 000 cash
3rd child $100 000 cash
plus other goodies like longer maternity and paternity leaves
subsidized HDB flats
-
build more schools and hospitals and parks
-
bcos some clan is hoarding all the money
-
Thats why raise GST, so no need to dig $$$ out of reserves. Hence low spending lor.
-
the people voted in a party and paid their high salaries, whose policy is to shift all responsibility to the people and make people pay for everything the people need and party wants to spend on with no checks and balances -
2.If there is no check and balance,now the rate is RM 1 to S$2.25.Originally posted by mistyblue:the people voted in a party and paid their high salaries, whose policy is to shift all responsibility to the people and make people pay for everything the people need and party wants to spend on with no checks and balances -
Of course it will go down, because average families expenditures go up.
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:2.If there is no check and balance,now the rate is RM 1 to S$2.25. than we will see the other way happening at check point... lots of SGrean will be going in JB to work. it not a bad thing know. earning RM 2k will be S$4.5k.
as long balance sheet are balance who will make noise? obvisouly ours are not that is why ppl are making noise? GOV having surplus while citizen are in debt -
If they tax us more, charge us more for HDB apartments, electricity, transport and phone, but provide us with less subsidies. They will always spend less and have surplus.
Singapore have large surpluses because it under estimates tax revenues and over estimates expenditure. -
Government spending comes from taxation if I'm not wrong. Some of you seem to be saying that people are taxed more to fund public services therefore the government has to spend less. You're forgetting that the government's revenue comes almost entirely from taxes.
hence tax => govt revenue => govt expenditure. It's not some complementary thing.
And kudos to the guy who can show me that the tax we are paying is going into the Lee family's pocket (some "clan" as that particular forumer put it). the worst that would happen is for it to go into our reserves. or perhaps be spent on some meaningless upgrading like repaving neighbourhood pavements that are perfectly fine (which i feel is the govt applying Keynesian economics to boost aggregate demand anyway).
The only fair comment so far is that the government spends without checks and balances. Well i guess when that's big enough an issue we'll be inclined to dismiss the good points of this government and vote in the opposition. -
It's funny how many people are so quick to say that we're run by a particular clan.
I for one am not so concerned about that. Let's put things in perspective: If you didn't want the 'clan' in power, then why not just vote for someone else? If there's no one who's willing to stand up and be counted (or if their standards are still short), then let's not make this an issue.
Budget wise, I think the Governement can do more. Yes we should have policies to hellp the lower income group, coupled with policies to encourage those in the higher income group to stay and contribute to the economy. However, with too many policies for the lower income group, we run the risk of damaging the meritocratic system. There should be a clear distinction between helping them get back on their feet, versus just helping them get by. -
PLEASE DO NOT GET FOOLED BY STATISTICS!!!
Let me give you a short and simple example why statistics above is true, but it's very misleading... Otherwise simple minded people always get fooled by the government statistics...
Country A: 100 People, 10 government staff. Here fine there fine, tax here tax there, managed to rob the 100 people to get $1 million per year. Then the 10 government staff will take $500,000 and waste another $200,000 on buying thai shares which happen to drop in value after some time due to the thaksin being ousted. So, they have $300,000 remaining, which they will spend another $100,000 on whatever. So the surplus for that year is $200,000.
Country B: 100 People, 10 government staff. To help the poor people, money is diverted to facilities and education and subsidies medical etc, so collected $300,000 from tax of which the 10 government staff gets paid $160,000. Left $250,000 to spend, so use $100,000 on whatever, surplus left is $40,000.
So based on those information, despite country A being not as efficient as country B, I can put forth these statistics to be as if country A is the best in every department.
Country A: Our surplus is $200k, other countries only $40k, see how good we are at saving money for our citizens, in fact we are 5 times better at saving money compared to other countries, how dare you still say we all earn big fat salaries at the government sector!
Country A: Our government salary is only 50% of the total money (500k divide by 1 milllion dollars), while other countries government so corrupted, they take more than 50% of the total money (160k divide by 300k), you still complain we earn big fat salaries at the government sector! So what if we take 500k and others took 160k only, ours compared to the total is only 50% leh!
Country A: Our expenditure is only 30% (300k divide by 1 million) despite losing money in thai shares, but other countries, look at them, their expenditure is 33% (100k divide by 300k) leh... So what if we lose money in thai shares, our expenditure is still lesser than other countries leh!
Country A: So you see, we spend less, we earn more, and we save more, so what if we take so much salary, ... (because we're smart enough to use media and statistics to fool our citizens, we deserves the best salary in the whole world.) -
No surprise.
-
i think u r ignorant & naive...Originally posted by dlareg:It's funny how many people are so quick to say that we're run by a particular clan.
I for one am not so concerned about that. Let's put things in perspective: If you didn't want the 'clan' in power, then why not just vote for someone else? If there's no one who's willing to stand up and be counted (or if their standards are still short), then let's not make this an issue.
Budget wise, I think the Governement can do more. Yes we should have policies to hellp the lower income group, coupled with policies to encourage those in the higher income group to stay and contribute to the economy. However, with too many policies for the lower income group, we run the risk of damaging the meritocratic system. There should be a clear distinction between helping them get back on their feet, versus just helping them get by.
do u think the PAP will allow that to happen even if the ppl want to? what's with all the redrawing of electoral lines in the last few elections, gag orders, media deprivation, sue till bankcrupt and 1001 other things that doesn allow for a even playing field.
a big proportion of ppl dun even hv an electoral voice here...
vote the gahmen out? tkk in this case....
the apathethic will not be too concerned. as long as he/she have his/her fair share of the spoils, why rock the system that is designed to favour the haves/elites...
greed and partial idealogies shld resides in non-govt'l sectors, i.e. if u wan to do an Enron, by all means, go ahead and if fools follow, it's their bad. or if you want to pledge all pennies to a grp of underpriv. ppl, it's your prerogative and we salute u.
but for the govt., their obligation is to the ppl of the land, regardless of race, language or religion. in this case, make that to include the electorial territory as well. that, sgp lack transparency. -
2.If there is no check and balance,now the rate is RM 1 to S$2.25.
what does check and balances have to do with exchange rate?
can i say if we have improve and more transparent checks and balances maybe the rate would like $1 to RM5? -
Is this true??Originally posted by sgboy2005:Baby bonus to be increased to 1st child $30 000 cash
2nd child $50 000 cash
3rd child $100 000 cash
plus other goodies like longer maternity and paternity leaves
subsidized HDB flats 
-
It's funny how many people are so quick to say that we're run by a particular clan.
I for one am not so concerned about that. Let's put things in perspective: If you didn't want the 'clan' in power, then why not just vote for someone else? If there's no one who's willing to stand up and be counted (or if their standards are still short), then let's not make this an issue.
Budget wise, I think the Governement can do more. Yes we should have policies to hellp the lower income group, coupled with policies to encourage those in the higher income group to stay and contribute to the economy. However, with too many policies for the lower income group, we run the risk of damaging the meritocratic system. There should be a clear distinction between helping them get back on their feet, versus just helping them get by.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i think u r ignorant & naive...
do u think the PAP will allow that to happen even if the ppl want to? what's with all the redrawing of electoral lines in the last few elections, gag orders, media deprivation, sue till bankcrupt and 1001 other things that doesn allow for a even playing field.
a big proportion of ppl dun even hv an electoral voice here...
vote the gahmen out? tkk in this case....
the apathethic will not be too concerned. as long as he/she have his/her fair share of the spoils, why rock the system that is designed to favour the haves/elites...
greed and partial idealogies shld resides in non-govt'l sectors, i.e. if u wan to do an Enron, by all means, go ahead and if fools follow, it's their bad. or if you want to pledge all pennies to a grp of underpriv. ppl, it's your prerogative and we salute u.
but for the govt., their obligation is to the ppl of the land, regardless of race, language or religion. in this case, make that to include the electorial territory as well. that, sgp lack transparency.
agree. its not that ppl doesnt want to vote for alternative voice but without taking out the fear factor, and even playing field in politics, how can we do it?
ppl like robert teh who volunteer himself to attend feedback forums in Minister but kena rejected? why? there are something PAP doesnt want the general public to raise the awareness of. and most singaporean also doesnt care or fear to care.
i cant agree with the thread starter comment on the govt of reduce govt expenditure base on %. we should base on dollars and cents as a benchmark instead of %. dispite the drop in % but actual govt spending goes up every year. Does increase in GDP necessary meant govt has to spent more?
anyway, i bet anyone here has a clear idea how govt spent their money and balances their balance sheets. if we arent clear, we cant comment whether they are doing a good job at hiding it or managing it. -
Yeah, it just goes to show that our govt doesn't spend much on its people. I think the wrong people have been taking medicine all this while!!
-
There is a difference between taxing $100, giving $90 back to support citizen, taking $10 salary; and giving $40 to support citizens, taking a $30 salary and putting $30 in reserves. The government also spends less for the latter, but excuses itself from the provision of affordable social services, like housing, healthcare, transport, electricty, etc.
-
of cuz la.
all privatised.
so no matter how much they lost oso not counted. -
anyone realises there's always a ton of junior members who registered in 04, 05 and 06 that suddenly appear and stand on the gahmen's side?
-
true...especially the 2 or 3 posts somewhere in the middle...
guess its the pap's cyber offense? -
Government Sleeper Cells!!!Originally posted by nismoS132:anyone realises there's always a ton of junior members who registered in 04, 05 and 06 that suddenly appear and stand on the gahmen's side?
Hehehehe........ -
woah, you're very observant indeed, you've outsmart them. pawnz!Originally posted by maurizio13:Government Sleeper Cells!!!
Hehehehe........