All out to defame our governement
-
[quote047WYL18RW wrote:
define poor
define rich
define limitations of equal but seperate opportunities
define taxing 4 rich to compensate 4 poor.
it is easy to chain a few words to make sentences --likewise--it is so subjective that 1 has got to see a personal agenda in the making.
don't just hark bact. to historical water over the bridge kinda of stories.
if u hv. gripes --speak out but hv. the guts and the intelligence to offer CONSTRUCTIVE ALTERNATIVES LIKE:
If I were to do it --i would.................................and see the immediate successes...'
alast--u just talk-----no impressive.
a bundle of words for the fire place or bottom of bird cage.
nobody cares. [/quote]
If you want to make sense of your posts you do not keep repeating the same meaningless "define this define that, prove this prove that" when posts are already self-explanatory with sufficient facts and logics.
Tell me do you understand GRC is restricting citizens' right in standing for election or electing the best individual candidates of their free choice.
If you cannot understand this sort of straightforward logical questions, how then can you engage in any so-called robust debating of policies of the government.
If all citizens end up like you expect always listening to whatever being done by ministers and government what will happen to this place one day?
Will globalization happen just by taxing and recovering the fullest costs or double-taxing on lands already owned and paid by citizens? -
Multiple factors. The economy is doing well currently, the bank interest rates are too low, the stocks market is booming but there are concerns over the Chinese and US stock markets...people looking for ways to take profits and park their money elsewhere, the IR coming and expected to bring in more tourists...more accommodation and higher rental prices, more FTs coming in along with government's plan to increase population further to support economic growth....Originally posted by Rock^Star:This move by the govt is the right one: not setting a cap on HDB prices.
But then again, what caused prices to spiral till today's astronomical level? Market forces? Partially yes. But what catalysed these market forces?
-
I'm afraid you haven't answered my question.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Japanese and Korean workers are on average, better educated and more productive. One must not forget that these countries are also more expensive...there is a general correlation between cost of living and salaries.
Think of Sweden, it has a very narrow wage gap. They have high taxes and a generous welfare scheme. But the richest man in the world, the Ikea boss, is from Sweden. Many of the high net-worth individuals escape the taxes by financial arrangements that on paper, shows them as earning very little:
" In total, these two groups suffered tax bills of a mere €19m in 2004 on their combined profits of €553m. Clearly, the Kamprad family pays the same meticulous attention to tax avoidance as IKEA does to low prices in its stores."
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=6919139
It is the richest people that can hire the top lawyers and accountants to avoid taxes legally through every loophole possible. There was even recent news about a member of the House of Lords in UK who is non-resident in Britain...a tax exile.
You can keep the salary gap small by protectionism against the forces of globalisation. But Singapore is a small economy. We have come so far through globalisation. Protectionism will be work for us.
You said: At the moment, our workers are still paid much higher salaries than their counterparts in China/India but our productivity is not rising fast enough to justify the salary differential. In contrast, the skills of our top earners, the professionals and high level managers are in demand because their salaries, though high, are not as high as their competitors in the MNCs and foreign firms. Therefore the salaries of our top earners will only rise.
I asked: Based on the above in relativity to China and India, please educate me on how Japan, South Korea and even EU countries can keep their income disparity lower than us?
Are Chinese and Indian workers not cheaper but also equally productive compared to the Japanese, Koreans and EU nations?
So please answer in relativity to China and India. -
If you want to make sense of your posts you do not keep repeating the same meaningless "define this define that, prove this prove that" when posts are already self-explanatory with sufficient facts and logics.
Actually, it would be better to define.
I'm just going to reuse examples.
In the case of GST, why not have luxuries tax, necessities tax, tech tax, etc?
Simple. Can't classify even when you go into the nitty gritty details.
Take a mobile phone. How would you want to tax it? Assume a tech goods tax is higher.
Mobile phone can be used to surf the web, call, SMS. That would make it a tech goodie.
But someone who doesn't use all these services will complain. He will argue that it is very unlike a computer and laptop, so it can't be charged this way.
And the yada yada reasons if both parties start.
Some things cannot simply say use logic and some facts to substantiate it. Most, if not all, will often cut across boundaries.
What is poor? What is rich? What is just nice?
All by your definitions. -
Yes, but a company can only employ 10% of foreigners for such low-paid jobs under the S pass. Those on work permits or R passes have to come from more developed countries like South Korea, taiwan or malaysia, where you cannot get a worker for $300 a month.Originally posted by bigmouthjoe:But what if you have a china worker here also earning $300 a month? Would the Singaporean be unemployed too? We can have many senarios, but the truth is that production and manufacturing factories are moving out and cheaper labours are coming in.
http://www.mom.gov.sg/publish/momportal/en/communities/work_pass/overview_of_work_passes.html -
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=259359&page=15Originally posted by Rock^Star:I'm afraid you haven't answered my question.
You said: At the moment, our workers are still paid much higher salaries than their counterparts in China/India but our productivity is not rising fast enough to justify the salary differential. In contrast, the skills of our top earners, the professionals and high level managers are in demand because their salaries, though high, are not as high as their competitors in the MNCs and foreign firms. Therefore the salaries of our top earners will only rise.
I asked: Based on the above in relativity to China and India, please educate me on how Japan, South Korea and even EU countries can keep their income disparity lower than us?
Are Chinese and Indian workers not cheaper but also equally productive compared to the Japanese, Koreans and EU nations?
So please answer in relativity to China and India. -
Bank interst rates I agree but the 'Chinese and US stock markets' is subjective. Any statistics to show that many Singaporeans who want to purchase HDBs have invested there?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Multiple factors. The economy is doing well currently, the bank interest rates are too low, the stocks market is booming but there are concerns over the Chinese and US stock markets...people looking for ways to take profits and park their money elsewhere, the IR coming and expected to bring in more tourists...more accommodation and higher rental prices, more FTs coming in along with government's plan to increase population further to support economic growth....
As for IR, tourists coming is a factor? HDBs are only open to Singaporeans and PRs. So it's not an issue.
More FTs coming in and purchasing flats. Yes, that's a factor.
Anyway, a major and fundamental catalyst was the time when CPF was liberalised to purchase HDBs. The sudden amount of funds available to buy HDBs created a sharp increase in demand and hence, the upward spiral of prices.
Anyway who decides HDB prices eventually? Well, the HDB. -
How did they create level playing field?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:The govt's job is to create a level playing field. Those who do well in the global market are rewarded more and can afford more. Those who do less well have less and have to learn to live with less. The state should provide a small safety net for the very poor who cannot survive the global competition but the net cannot be too attractive, or it will discourage hardwork.
Live within your means.
Impose GST so that those poor people that don't pay income tax at all end up paying GST? Decreasing their disposable income, making them poorer than China/India (FT) labourers, so that we can stoop to their standard of living?
Maybe you can provide an explanation of how the government creates a level playing field?
"Those who do well in the global market are rewarded more and can afford more. Those who do less well have less and have to learn to live with less."
Your logic is bloody linear, equivalent to me saying, "If your coffee shop sells more drinks today, you have more money to spend. If your coffee shop sells less drink you have less money to spend." Isn't that a known fact, even idiots know this basic concept, you don't have to tell us the basics. All the more, this convinces me that you are nothing more than an idiot incapable of thinking, only good at sprouting government propaganda. -
Pls answer the underlined in my 4:45 pm post. The above talks about Singapore's income disparity.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=259359&page=15 -
A nanny state does not always mean there is a need to restrict info. That may be a useful tool in the past but that is no longer possible with the internet. Of all people, the government knows that. They are the ones encouraging broadband and free wireless!Originally posted by Rock^Star:Question 1) So do you concur that a nanny state, restricting outflow of info through the media is detrimental?
Why were reports of Shin Corp so limited and so different from Thai papers and AFP? Is that justifiable towards Singaporeans' tax money? We are not saying that a loss is inexcusable but why the limited coverage?
Does it help Temasek to progress?
Question 2) If SPH and Mediacorp have withheld the news on income disparity by World Bank and CIA, how is that "already well publicised"?
Everyone knows about Shin Corp already from the papers. There is a difference between dissemination of info and propaganda to create an opinion over the info. The Thai papers reflect the political motivation behind the entire affair. Our papers are not allowed to do that.
The PM has said that if Temasek ends up with big losses over this investment decision, they will suffer the consequences as with all commercial companies. Why not wait and see the annual reports over the next few years. Temasek has a big portfolio and as with all investment decisions, some make money, some don't. The management is judged on the overall performance and rewarded/penalized accordingly.
How do you know that "SPH and Mediacorp have withheld the news on income disparity by World Bank and CIA"? An editorial decision to the effect that this piece of news is already known and is of not particular interest to the public is not 'witholding information'.
The Ministers have already admitted there is a growing income disparity in Singapore and that is widely reported in the press. If I were the editor, I should think that if the World Bank says the opposite, that would be newsworthy. -
Becareful arguing with him, he will concoct words to put in your mouth.Originally posted by Rock^Star:Don't put words in me, I have never mentioned the above underlined.
Widening income gap is indeed a problem faced by many countries the world over. Singapore is no different. However, why did ST not publish the statistics as researched by the World Bank and CIA? Isn't our democratic society one of free press?
LHL once said: "You can get anything you want in Singapore. You can travel, you can bring it in. You can - you can organize what you want. You can say anything you want, and all sorts of things are said and debated in Singapore."
Look at these links and one will know why such info is withheld.
http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html
http://devdata.worldbank.org/wdi2005/Section2.htm
With such results, are they still worthy of their exorbitant salaries when other nations are doing better and their ministers paid much less? Since they are paid so much, shouldn't Singaporeans deserve better? Isn't this why the govt stood for elections in the very first place?
Can TS still say that we are defaming our govt? Or is the hard truth too hard to swallow?
What about you? Can you handle the truth? Or too big a pill for you to swallow? Which explains why your rebuttals are sorely lacking in substance?
He will imply if C is a subset of B, B a subset of A, so therefore A = C. -
Income disparity has been admiited by the Spore govt n this is the reason theOriginally posted by Rock^Star:Pls answer the underlined in my 4:45 pm post. The above talks about Singapore's income disparity.
govt is trying to help people thru workfar bonus.
Govt is also quite worried about oming election in year to come also. -
I can explain to you. I cannot understand for you. This was my reply 9edited typo errors), what is it you do not understand?Originally posted by Rock^Star:Pls answer the underlined in my 4:45 pm post. The above talks about Singapore's income disparity.
"Japanese and Korean workers are on average, better educated and more productive. One must not forget that these countries are also more expensive...there is a general correlation between cost of living and salaries.
Think of Sweden, it has a very narrow wage gap. They have high taxes and a generous welfare scheme. But one of the richest man in the world, the Ikea boss, is from Sweden. Many of the high net-worth individuals escape the taxes by financial arrangements that on paper, shows them as earning very little:
" In total, these two groups suffered tax bills of a mere €19m in 2004 on their combined profits of €553m. Clearly, the Kamprad family pays the same meticulous attention to tax avoidance as IKEA does to low prices in its stores."
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=6919139
It is the richest people that can hire the top lawyers and accountants to avoid taxes legally through every loophole possible. There was even recent news about a member of the House of Lords in UK who is non-resident in Britain...a tax exile.
You can keep the salary gap small by protectionism against the forces of globalisation. But Singapore is a small economy. We have come so far through globalisation. Protectionism will not work for us."
Income disparity can be narrowed if our low paid workers work in wafer fabs instead of selling cosmetic jewelry, or work in shipyards instead of doing general clerical work. However, I do not think we should aim for income parity...even the communists have learnt that it does not work. What we should go for is an increasing pay for all workers with the possibility of social mobility up the ladder. -
Ha...finally a post without vulgarities. What happened? Did your mother wash your mouth out with soap?Originally posted by maurizio13:Becareful arguing with him, he will concoct words to put in your mouth.
He will imply if C is a subset of B, B a subset of A, so therefore A = C.
-
Originally posted by Jontst78:Don't mean to split hairs with you, but the above 2 assumptions are incorrect. You seem to forget the poorest of the poor, not really a fault of yours, but a common trait among middle income earners and above. Why? Because the govt deserve credit for scattering them apart, to prevent slums, but thats just on the surface. Not highly visible as they are scattered.
Sorry, unclear post. To add on to my paragraph above, there are people who cannot afford mobility, or an education in Singapore. In your response to your post about education being available to all.Originally posted by oxford mushroomWhat are you saying? -
As I said, private property prices influence HDB prices. Increase in rental prices of serviced apartments etc will push expatriates down into the HDB market. There is also speculation that the increase in demand for new hotels will push up prices for the en bloc sale markets.Originally posted by Rock^Star:Bank interst rates I agree but the 'Chinese and US stock markets' is subjective. Any statistics to show that many Singaporeans who want to purchase HDBs have invested there?
As for IR, tourists coming is a factor? HDBs are only open to Singaporeans and PRs. So it's not an issue.
More FTs coming in and purchasing flats. Yes, that's a factor.
Anyway, a major and fundamental catalyst was the time when CPF was liberalised to purchase HDBs. The sudden amount of funds available to buy HDBs created a sharp increase in demand and hence, the upward spiral of prices.
Anyway who decides HDB prices eventually? Well, the HDB.
Yes, if CPF funds were not allowed to be used to buy property, most Singaporeans will not own their homes today. HDB prices are still much lower than private properties. If the price of an HDB flat goes up too much, people will buy private property instead, pushing up prices of private condos...the two are linked. -
I think we are digressing from the point of this HDB topic again.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:As I said, private property prices influence HDB prices. Increase in rental prices of serviced apartments etc will push expatriates down into the HDB market. There is also speculation that the increase in demand for new hotels will push up prices for the en bloc sale markets.
Yes, if CPF funds were not allowed to be used to buy property, most Singaporeans will not own their homes today. HDB prices are still much lower than private properties. If the price of an HDB flat goes up too much, people will buy private property instead, pushing up prices of private condos...the two are linked.
The point is, why are the flats sold direct from HDB so expensive? If they had been cheaper, then most of the lower-income people would not have their savings and CPF wiped out.
This has nothing to do with influx of FTs, IRs, rising private property etc. -
Originally posted by Jontst78:
Not true. If you have the talent, you are not denied educational opportunities in Singapore. I know that from my own experience and I have also mentioned the ST senior writer whose father is a cab driver. My father earned even less than a cab driver...he couldn't have afforded the education I had. There are scholarships and busaries available. If you have the talent, you can go all the way to Oxbridge and Ivy league colleges...the government and various stat boards will fund you. Those who are not good enough for a scholarship can get bank loans and busaries...if you can get into one of our local Unis, you will not be denied an education because you cannot afford the fees.
[quote]Originally posted by Jontst78:
[b]
What are you saying?
Sorry, unclear post. To add on to my paragraph above, there are people who cannot afford mobility, or an education in Singapore. In your response to your post out education being available to all.[/b]
Those who are less talented will not do as well, but not because of financial reasons. -
flats are expensive because the gahmen won't sell them too cheap otherwise people will buy and sell property as investment when it should not be treated as so....
-
Man!!!Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Skills that are in demand command higher salaries..the market decides your value. When we negotiate a new job, it's common practice to quote the salaries offered by other employers...if the civil service or whoever wants you that bad;y, they must up the salary.
You advertised your level of intelligence by stating the obvious.
Nobody is arguing that those of higher skills should receive less salary and those that have less skills should get less salary.
The issue is, the salary of the poor gets lower, while the salary of the rich gets higher. The poorer Singaporeans have no place to immigrate to, while the government keeps letting in FT to compete with the poor for yet lower wages. The results of these lower labour cost did not result in lower basic necessities (food, transport, clothing and utilities), but resulted in companies making more profits. Those in the higher salary bracket can afford to emigrate (outflow) to other countries (since they didn't like the way Singapore is run), while there are less immigration (inflow) of these higher salaried professionals (because the way the country is run doesn't attune to their lifestyle), thereby creating an increase or maintenance of their salary levels.
That's why the poor gets poorer while the rich gets richer. -
Haha great to see everyone discussing like proper ladies and gentlemen with no flaming.
PS: can't participate in this friendly discussion yet due to work. -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
A nanny state does not always mean there is a need to restrict info. That may be a useful tool in the past but that is no longer possible with the internet. Of all people, the government knows that. They are the ones encouraging broadband and free wireless!
Then why were political podcasts banned during elections?
What about Mr Brown's column that was shut down by Today?
Everyone knows about Shin Corp already from the papers. There is a difference between dissemination of info and propaganda to create an opinion over the info. The Thai papers reflect the political motivation behind the entire affair. Our papers are not allowed to do that.
Debatable though I do not deny that the papers were politically motivated.
The PM has said that if Temasek ends up with big losses over this investment decision, they will suffer the consequences as with all commercial companies. Why not wait and see the annual reports over the next few years. Temasek has a big portfolio and as with all investment decisions, some make money, some don't. The management is judged on the overall performance and rewarded/penalized accordingly.
How do you know that "SPH and Mediacorp have withheld the news on income disparity by World Bank and CIA"? An editorial decision to the effect that this piece of news is already known and is of not particular interest to the public is not 'witholding information'.
The Ministers have already admitted there is a growing income disparity in Singapore and that is widely reported in the press. If I were the editor, I should think that if the World Bank says the opposite, [b]that would be newsworthy
What the ministers announced was the growing income disparity in Singapore. It's a world of difference from news about income disparity compared with other developed nations. In this global economy, shouldn't we benchmark our performance against that of other countries? And Singaporeans have right to be informed through the media..[/b] -
It does. The new flats from HDB are not overpriced. If they are, we won't have 80% of Singaporeans living in them. Consider this, do you expect the government to sell you a heavily subsidised, new 5-room flat for only 50k, so that you can sell it in the resale market for 250k? The government has 2-room flats and rental flats for the very poor for almost nothing. But for the rest of Singaporeans, the CPF investment in a new subsidized HDB flat is almost guranteed to increase the value of your assets.Originally posted by sourketchup:I think we are digressing from the point of this HDB topic again.
The point is, why are the flats sold direct from HDB so expensive? If they had been cheaper, then most of the lower-income people would not have their savings and CPF wiped out.
This has nothing to do with influx of FTs, IRs, rising private property etc.
But I do not think it is fair for the government to subsidize too much using tax payers' money. If you think the private sector can build HDB flats more cheaply, then they are welcome to bid for it, as they now do. -
What?Originally posted by fire & ice:flats are expensive because the gahmen won't sell them too cheap otherwise people will buy and sell property as investment when it should not be treated as so....
Many spend their whole lives paying off the flats, don't think they would be too impressed by that reasoning.
If there are some people who are rich enough to play around property, so be it.
Point is, the flats sold by HDB should be affordable, without causing years of salary to pay off. -
Exactly as my last post.Originally posted by fire & ice:flats are expensive because the gahmen won't sell them too cheap otherwise people will buy and sell property as investment when it should not be treated as so....