Taxes for permanent residents should be higher than citizens
-
I wonder how many would agree that the taxes paid by residents and permanent residents (compared to citizens) should be higher irrespective of their domicile.
Reasons:
1) They do not have a legal requirement to do national service, they are a free rider in the security provided by our forces. The provision of these security cost money, therefore the government should take the initiative to increase their taxes to recover the cost for the provision of this security.
2) These residents and permanent residents made Singapore their home because they feel safe here, a price must be paid for such safety. Like all Singaporean citizens who pay the price of such safety by serving their nation for 2 + 10 years.
3) These residents and permanent residents consume other economic resources (transport, water, electricity, medical, roads, HDB) which are also consumed by citizens, at the same price. Surely there must be a difference between citizens and non-citizens, if there isn't any; why even bother being a citizen.
For taxes, I mean income tax. -
Already reform taking place...
You are too slow... -
if you begin to tax the permanent residents, you probably going to chase them away, and beside, they don't have the privilege to apply for first hand HDB, so they already have less privilege, than singaporean
so in other words, i don't have a clue what you are talking about, and this will create an uproar, after all, this is a democracy country, everyone is suppose to be equal, so................. -
What reform? You talking about the medical subsidies?Originally posted by soulwinner:Already reform taking place...
You are too slow... -
but do u think the gahmen will want them to pay more lest they scare them away and the ruling party will encounter problems to fill the population up to 600m? and remember that jerk ever told singaporeans to be nice/kind to these people.Originally posted by maurizio13:I wonder how many would agree that the taxes paid by residents and permanent residents (compared to citizens) should be higher irrespective of their domicile.
Reasons:
1) They do not have a legal requirement to do national service, they are a free rider in the security provided by our forces. The provision of these security cost money, therefore the government should take the initiative to increase their taxes to recover the cost for the provision of this security.
2) These residents and permanent residents made Singapore their home because they feel safe here, a price must be paid for such safety. Like all Singaporean citizens who pay the price of such safety by serving their nation for 2 + 10 years.
3) These residents and permanent residents consume other economic resources (transport, water, electricity, medical, roads, HDB) which are also consumed by citizens, at the same price. Surely there must be a difference between citizens and non-citizens, if there isn't any; why even bother being a citizen.
For taxes, I mean income tax.
Besides the above, think Manpower should be strict to them, too. Set salary quota for them so that they will not be overpaid. -
Other than HDB they consume other resources which are consumed by citizens too.Originally posted by allentyb:if you begin to tax the permanent residents, you probably going to chase them away, and beside, they don't have the privilege to apply for first hand HDB, so they already have less privilege, than singaporean
so in other words, i don't have a clue what you are talking about, and this will create an uproar, after all, this is a democracy country, everyone is suppose to be equal, so.................
Frankly, is a permanent resident and a citizen equal? We serve our nation for 10 + 2 years, while the permanent resident just syphon our profits and go home when they have made enough. If you want fair, I think they should be conscripted into the army, that would be fair to all the citizens. -
to Thread Starter,
If you were persuing PR in another country, would you like to be on a different Tax Table? PRs and Citizens should be on almost equal standing. "Almost" being the operative word.
I think maybe Higher Taxes should be for FTs tho, but thats contrary to the Govts direction.
The high influx of FT is gradually dimishing the already dimished bargaining power of job hunters(citizens and PRs) here in SG. Govt should do something in the legislation that strongly encourages employers to hire local instead of FTs.
The high influx of FT to increase the GDP, its like a athlete using performance enhancing steroids, will all the included side effects... -
Originally posted by Jontst78:
Agree. They don't care as long as getting FTs can cater to what they want. They care less at the expense of the locals. Shiit gahmen!
I think maybe Higher Taxes should be for FTs tho, but thats contrary to the Govts direction.
The high influx of FT is gradually dimishing the already dimished bargaining power of job hunters(citizens and PRs) here in SG. Govt should do something in the legislation that strongly encourages employers to hire local instead of FTs.
The high influx of FT to increase the GDP, its like a athlete using performance enhancing steroids, will all the included side effects...[/b] -
Frankly, I don't think they would want to chase them away, afterall, money is involved. But then again, those that make below a certain annual income don't pay taxes, I think it's $20,000. Only high income earners pay taxes, therefore they have to weigh the benefits of security and low income tax rates. If I am rich and I would need to make a choice between the two, I would choose security, afterall what is a few more percentage points off my annual income. As you earn more diminishing return sets in, what is another $20,000 to $30,000 (2% to 3%), if you make $1,000,000 a year.Originally posted by rane:but do u think the gahmen will want them to pay more lest they scare them away and the ruling party will encounter problems to fill the population up to 600m? and remember that jerk ever told singaporeans to be nice/kind to these people.
Besides the above, think Manpower should be strict to them, too. Set salary quota for them so that they will not be overpaid.
If you are a millionaire, would you prefer the safety of Singapore or Indonesia? -
Cannot lar, like that how to attract them come here? oops.
-
If the PR is already making 1 mil from his business, its already benefiting the local economy, as he/she will be spending a substiantial amount of that money locally. Buy hse, car, living expenses...Originally posted by maurizio13:Frankly, I don't think they would want to chase them away, afterall, money is involved. But then again, those that make below a certain annual income don't pay taxes, I think it's $20,000. Only high income earners pay taxes, therefore they have to weigh the benefits of security and low income tax rates. If I am rich and I would need to make a choice between the two, I would choose security, afterall what is a few more percentage points off my annual income. As you earn more diminishing return sets in, what is another $20,000 to $30,000 (2% to 3%), if you make $1,000,000 a year.
If you are a millionaire, would you prefer the safety of Singapore or Indonesia?
PR is a 2 way thing, They have to have some sort of benefit for them to be PR, and hence bring thier money in here. -
Depends on what country you are talking about. Does the country have conscription? Seriously, are we equals with the permanent resident? We spend 2 + 10 years dress in green pyjamas running around dense forest donating blood to wildlife.Originally posted by Jontst78:to Thread Starter,
If you were persuing PR in another country, would you like to be on a different Tax Table? PRs and Citizens should be on almost equal standing. "Almost" being the operative word.
I think maybe Higher Taxes should be for FTs tho, but thats contrary to the Govts direction.
The high influx of FT is gradually dimishing the already dimished bargaining power of job hunters(citizens and PRs) here in SG. Govt should do something in the legislation that strongly encourages employers to hire local instead of FTs.
The high influx of FT to increase the GDP, its like a athlete using performance enhancing steroids, will all the included side effects...
How many would agree that we are equals? If we are equals, they should abolish national service, so that we can be on the same ground as the permanent resident. Else, start taxing non-citizens on a different tax schedule or conscript them to do national service. -
There are already differences with PRs and Citizens....
At the top of my head..
Medical costs are different
Cant buy new HDB flat
Childcare subsidies will be eventually withdrawn, 1st deductions start this year....
There are more, anyone else like to add?
Like I said, its almost equal, not completely equal...
Or the prospective PR can say, apply PR for what? Stay on Employment pass better -
Then withdraw all the tax rebates that NS Men get? you rather continue to recieve your rebates, or tax PRs higher?Originally posted by maurizio13:Depends on what country you are talking about. Does the country have conscription? Seriously, are we equals with the permanent resident? We spend 2 + 10 years dress in green pyjamas running around dense forest donating blood to wildlife.
How many would agree that we are equals? If we are equals, they should abolish national service, so that we can be on the same ground as the permanent resident. Else, start taxing non-citizens on a different tax schedule or conscript them to do national service.
Can anyone verify that FTs are also on the same Tax Table as PRs? -
They should pay taxes regardless how much they earn here. Nothing is free!!Originally posted by maurizio13:Frankly, I don't think they would want to chase them away, afterall, money is involved. But then again, those that make below a certain annual income don't pay taxes, I think it's $20,000. Only high income earners pay taxes, therefore they have to weigh the benefits of security and low income tax rates. If I am rich and I would need to make a choice between the two, I would choose security, afterall what is a few more percentage points off my annual income. As you earn more diminishing return sets in, what is another $20,000 to $30,000 (2% to 3%), if you make $1,000,000 a year.
If you are a millionaire, would you prefer the safety of Singapore or Indonesia? -
If the PR is already making $1 million from his business, it does not "necessarily" mean that he is benefitting the economy. If he uses Singapore as a transit point for his import / export business, re-routes the shipment to another country.Originally posted by Jontst78:If the PR is already making 1 mil from his business, its already benefiting the local economy, as he/she will be spending a substiantial amount of that money locally. Buy hse, car, living expenses...
PR is a 2 way thing, They have to have some sort of benefit for them to be PR, and hence bring thier money in here.
Buying house, car, living expenses only consumes our resources. Resources that citizens pay the same price for. If they decide to leave one day, they sell their house, they could possibility get an appreciated value for the house. Cars.... only benefits the government, cost more pollution, compete for road space causing more congestion (while paying the same price as citizens). Living expenses only inflates our own living cost.
Moreover the marginal propensity to save is always higher for high income earners. i.e. if a person makes $1 million, he can spend $0.5 million and save 50% of his income (high propensity to save). Whereas a person making $12,000 will probably spend everything to sustain himself or save 10% of his income (low propensity to save). The higher savings does not stimulate the economy any much further (through the multiplier). -
Medical cost are in the first place subsidised, removing the subsidies does not equalised the effects of the provision of security (army, air force, navy and police). If something cost $100, citizens pay $50, non-citizens pay $100; how are they going to recover the cost of the provision of security?Originally posted by Jontst78:There are already differences with PRs and Citizens....
At the top of my head..
Medical costs are different
Cant buy new HDB flat
Childcare subsidies will be eventually withdrawn, 1st deductions start this year....
There are more, anyone else like to add?
Like I said, its almost equal, not completely equal...
Or the prospective PR can say, apply PR for what? Stay on Employment pass better
Buying new HDB is the only privilege given to newly weds. Not sure if there are any other conditions.
If residents or permanent residents don't have children, obviously it's not going to affect them much. If they have children in their country of origin, it's also not going to affect them much, because I doubt the subsidies will be given if it's spend in another country. -
The Income Tax Act (ITA), as I know, does not distinguish between permanent resident and citizens. They only have a distinction for resident and non-resident, the resident will typically spend more than 183 days in Singapore (irregardless of your citizenship); whereas if you spend less than 183 days in Singapore, you will be regarded as a non-resident (unless you satisfy the criteria for qualitative test, which you might then elect to be a resident).Originally posted by Jontst78:Then withdraw all the tax rebates that NS Men get? you rather continue to recieve your rebates, or tax PRs higher?
Can anyone verify that FTs are also on the same Tax Table as PRs?
Abstract from Income Tax Act:
"resident in Singapore" —
(a) in relation to an individual, means a person who, in the year preceding the year of assessment, resides in Singapore except for such temporary absences therefrom as may be reasonable and not inconsistent with a claim by such person to be resident in Singapore, and includes a person who is physically present or who exercises an employment (other than as a director of a company) in Singapore for 183 days or more during the year preceding the year of assessment; and
(b) in relation to a company or body of persons, means a company or body of persons the control and management of whose business is exercised in Singapore;
The marginal tax rate for the resident is much lower than the non-resident. So permanent residents or P1 & P2 pass holder will also qualify for resident tax rates just like citizens.
Is this fair? Like they always say, if you don't have money, you provide labour (you qian chu qian, you li chu li).
How is the cost for the provision of national security allocated? Citizens and non-citizens pay the exact same tax rate, whereas citizens have to be conscripted to do national service.
Fair? Equal? -
Just for the record, I'm a citizen who has done NS.
Well then, should females be conscripted too? or should Females citizens pay higher Tax?
What about PRs who then become citizens? Should they then serve NS? Or should there be a seperate Tax table for Female citizens and citizen immigrants.
PRs are, in general already recieving less benefits than citizens, and they should be receiving much more than Pass holders.
As long as a resident is economically active in Singapore, they are already contributing to the economy, even the low income PRs. Even if they are misers, its still not a defecit for the economy. A substiantial amount of thier Money goes into Retail, Food, medical, banking, maybe even having to Pay for a COE. Most of which is unavoidable.
PR admission criteria has always been to determine whether the individual will be a positive contributor to the economy or a liability. As along as they are not a liability, I feel there shouldn't be an issue.
Then there is the choice that the government has to make then, between promoting PRs to come and casuing an uproar.
Or should Female citizens, immigrant citizens and PRs be on the same tax table? -
Singapore got citizens one meh? I thought got only coolies... ("coolies" is spelt C.O.O.L.I.E.S not C.I.T.I.Z.E.N.S)Originally posted by maurizio13:I wonder how many would agree that the taxes paid by residents and permanent residents (compared to citizens) should be higher irrespective of their domicile.
Reasons:
1) They do not have a legal requirement to do national service, they are a free rider in the security provided by our forces. The provision of these security cost money, therefore the government should take the initiative to increase their taxes to recover the cost for the provision of this security.
2) These residents and permanent residents made Singapore their home because they feel safe here, a price must be paid for such safety. Like all Singaporean citizens who pay the price of such safety by serving their nation for 2 + 10 years.
3) These residents and permanent residents consume other economic resources (transport, water, electricity, medical, roads, HDB) which are also consumed by citizens, at the same price. Surely there must be a difference between citizens and non-citizens, if there isn't any; why even bother being a citizen.
For taxes, I mean income tax.
Citizens got say in how the country is run one, you know. -
I think u r quite ignorant to start this topic.
what msg are u sending to foreigners?
no countries in this world is doing this double standards that u suggest...
the government is already doing the right thing by limiting the subsidies for PR.
w/o PR singapore economy would crash if u know ur economics well.... -
I think the TS just want to be a freeloader so that FT can work for him and he can shake his legs and "contribute" to singapore via Sgforums speaker's corner.Originally posted by curryman:I think u r quite ignorant to start this topic.
what msg are u sending to foreigners?
no countries in this world is doing this double standards that u suggest...
the government is already doing the right thing by limiting the subsidies for PR.
w/o PR singapore economy would crash if u know ur economics well.... -
You can claim that you are citizen and done NS, but who can testify to it. Who knows, I could be a PR fighting for equality for citizens.Originally posted by Jontst78:Just for the record, I'm a citizen who has done NS.
Well then, should females be conscripted too? or should Females citizens pay higher Tax?
What about PRs who then become citizens? Should they then serve NS? Or should there be a seperate Tax table for Female citizens and citizen immigrants.
PRs are, in general already recieving less benefits than citizens, and they should be receiving much more than Pass holders.
As long as a resident is economically active in Singapore, they are already contributing to the economy, even the low income PRs. Even if they are misers, its still not a defecit for the economy. A substiantial amount of thier Money goes into Retail, Food, medical, banking, maybe even having to Pay for a COE. Most of which is unavoidable.
PR admission criteria has always been to determine whether the individual will be a positive contributor to the economy or a liability. As along as they are not a liability, I feel there shouldn't be an issue.
Then there is the choice that the government has to make then, between promoting PRs to come and casuing an uproar.
Or should Female citizens, immigrant citizens and PRs be on the same tax table?
Well, the issue isn't about females and males, but permanent resident with citizens. They are two totally different issues. I am merely stating the disparity between permanent residents and citizens. Permanent residents are free riders in the security of our nation, they have no duty in serving Singapore, yet they derived benefits of security accruing to citizens (who serve National Service).
If you live in the same house, you either do your part in maintaining the house, else pay more money to get maids to do the work. No free loaders!!!
Permanent residents who ultimately become citizens should serve their time in national service too, like all Singaporeans do till a certain age. Like I said, issue isn't about females serving national service, as Singaporean females don't serve national service. If Singaporean females serve NS, then it's only right that permanent resident females serve NS. But they don't, so no point of contention here. Please argue logically.
PR receive less benefits than pass holder? Can you please clarify? Like you said, they are receiving less benefits than citizens, which means they are still receiving benefits. If you have no intention of staying on to help build Singapore, just treating it as a circumstance of opportunity. Why should Singapore provide you with benefits? Are permanent resident stakeholders or are they like migratory birds, ready to fly off to their country of origin at the first sign of trouble.
With the current high unemployment trend for Singaporean citizens. What makes you think that those jobs cannot be taken over by true blue Singaporean? Contributing to the economy for now maybe, but it will create long term ills. The money they save, if they use it for retirement in Singapore, there is no doubt that it will somehow contribute to the economy. If they decide to take the savings and go back China or Malaysia, it will be bad for the economy. The status of their citizenship shows their future intention, doesn't it? If you have your future retirement plans in Singapore, you take up citizenship. Why remain a permanet resident?
The status of PR only needs, I think 2 years of work in Singapore as P1 or P2 employment pass.
Permanent resident pay the same taxes as citizens, but citizens have the added disadvantage of having to serve national service 2 + 10 years. A higher tax rate of afew percent needs to recognise this disparity. -
PR also serve NS is they are around 18 years of age. I have men from CHINA.Originally posted by maurizio13:Permanent resident pay the same taxes as citizens, but citizens have the added disadvantage of having to serve national service 2 + 10 years. A higher tax rate of afew percent needs to recognise this disparity. -
I guess what he meant is that after serving your NS you can be a freeloader like him. I wondering how many Singaporeans actually KENG in NS. Isnt that call free loading as well, especially you still get allowance for doing that.