Free Education and Medical Care : Fact or Myth?
-
I have read through your first 3 links. I have just noticed there are 1 or 2 more. Given the number of figures and this concept of "superannuation", would it hurt you to re-highlight the link? Don't you want readers to have an easier time comprehending your posts by pointing out the exact spot where you extracted your information from?Originally posted by Gazelle:Rock_Star,
a) There is no point showing you the links to the source of information because you donÂ’t look like someone that will take times to read. You know why I said that? Its because the links are already provided and you donÂ’t need to be a finance minister to know where to look Singapore income tax collection.
b) You are asking about Tax/Benefit ratio, can you tell us what is the purpose and how we should compute this ratio and if you are prepare to comment on the ratio?
The purpose of this thread is to clear the myth that the so-called free health care and education benefit in australia is not free afterall and infact you will usually end up paying more than you use unless you are a beach bumer
I'm just asking how you derived your figure of Income Tax Revenue : S$149.3 billion / yr (including superannuation tax and fringe benefit tax).
Tax/Benefit ratio: take the total benefits allocated by the Australian and Singaporean governments in their budgets and divide by the total tax collected respectively. Compare the ratios and see which government offers more value as per tax collected.
Wouldn't that shut people up who say that Australia is better? -
M13, the purpose of this thread is about clearing the myth that the so-called free education and healthcare in Australia is infact not free and as an australian you will usually end up paying more than what you will get.Originally posted by maurizio13:Isn't this clear now!!!
First you included superannuation, when it is shown that it doesn't suit your purpose, you exclude it from your calculation to present a contrasting picture.
Goes to show what your ulterior motives are, mislead the public with misinformation, then coax them to the government's side.
Irregardless if I include the super fund or not, it will still be the same, ie., australian are paying more than twice the amount of income tax Singaporeans are paying and only fraction of these extra is going to funding their healthcare, education and unemployment. -
What about Singapore? The high income earners pay much more tax than the average joe but still have to pay fees upon their own hospitalisation. Isn't this paying even more?Originally posted by Gazelle:Rock_Star,
The purpose of this thread is to clear the myth that the so-called free health care and education benefit in australia is not free afterall and infact you will usually end up paying more than you use unless you are a beach bumer -
1) Majority of high income doesnt seek public healthcare they go for private hospitalOriginally posted by Rock^Star:What about Singapore? The high income earners pay much more tax than the average joe but still have to pay fees upon their own hospitalisation. Isn't this paying even more?
2) Top income bracket tax rate for australia and singapore is 45% and 20% respectively. Hence i wont consider high income singaporeas as paying alot for tax -
-
Originally posted by Gazelle:1) Majority of high income doesnt seek public healthcare they go for private hospital
Not necessary.
2) Top income bracket tax rate for australia and singapore is 45% and 20% respectively. Hence i wont consider high income singaporeas as paying alot for tax
Subjective. If the right insurance is not purchased, a cancer that costs $200,000 to treat in Singapore is not worth it. -
Originally posted by Rock^Star:
In order to qualify as top bracket income earner, you need to hit an annual income of $320,000, which is about $26,000 per month.
Majority of high income doesnt seek public healthcare they go for private hospital
Not necessary.
2) Top income bracket tax rate for australia and singapore is 45% and 20% respectively. Hence i wont consider high income singaporeas as paying alot for tax
Subjective. If the right insurance is not purchased, a cancer that costs $200,000 to treat in Singapore is not worth it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a) Do you have reasons to believe these people will lead a life without a comprehensive insurance portfolio?
b) And these people will have the patience to spend 3 to 4 hours waiting time at government clinic and hospital, and not get the best medical care money can buy? -
Have you spoken with this echelon of people about insurance planning before? I sure have not spoken to many but from those I have had the pleasure to interact with, most buy because of relationship. And relationship does not equate a comprehensive planning.Originally posted by Gazelle:In order to qualify as top bracket income earner, you need to hit an annual income of $320,000, which is about $26,000 per month.
a) Do you have reasons to believe these people will lead a life without a comprehensive insurance portfolio?
b) And these people will have the patience to spend 3 to 4 hours waiting time at government clinic and hospital?
Why wouldn't rich people who earn $26,000 month go SGH or TTSH? High income also means high expenses. A car instalment can go as high as $10,000 per month.
And are you going to do the benefit/tax ratio and follow up your argument a not? I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt, accept and comment on the truth you bring out. -
a) I buy insurance because I want to ensure that my families will sitll be able to enjoy the same standard of living if something happen to me. Yes, that is relationship, but not with insurance agent, but with my family.Originally posted by Rock^Star:Have you spoken with this echelon of people about insurance planning before? I sure have not spoken to many but from those I have had the pleasure to interact with, most buy because of relationship. And relationship does not equate a comprehensive planning.
Why wouldn't rich people who earn $26,000 month go SGH or TTSH? High income also means high expenses. A car instalment can go as high as $10,000 per month.
And are you going to do the benefit/tax ratio and follow up your argument a not? I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt, accept and comment on the truth you bring out.
b) Why no SGH or TTS? because there is a long waiting time, they dont have the best equipment, facilities, high profile doctors and service like those you find in the private hospital.
(Anyway, this thread is not aboue speculating how a millionaire should be spending his money. I dont see a need to continue this discussion)
c) Since you are one that suggested the tax/benefit ratio, I think you will be the best person in this forum to compile it. And I will be most willing to help you by providing some links which may be useful.
http://www.mof.gov.sg/budget_2007/revenue_expenditure/attachment/Revenue_Estimates.pdf
http://www.mof.gov.sg/budget_2007/revenue_expenditure/attachment/Expenditure_Estimates.pdf
http://www.budget.gov.au/2006-07/myefo/html/index.htm#TopOfPage -
Haven't you always wanted to show the "naysayers" that Singapore is not what they claim?Originally posted by Gazelle:c) Since you are one that suggested the tax/benefit ratio, I think you will be the best person in this forum to compile it. And I will be most willing to help you by providing some links which may be useful.
http://www.mof.gov.sg/budget_2007/revenue_expenditure/attachment/Revenue_Estimates.pdf
http://www.mof.gov.sg/budget_2007/revenue_expenditure/attachment/Expenditure_Estimates.pdf
http://www.budget.gov.au/2006-07/myefo/html/index.htm#TopOfPage
Though I do not agree with many of your posts but this thread of yours has certainly incited this benefit/tax ratio thought. I admire your resilience (though I think you tend to twist words very much). If you have got your own way to prove Singapore is better than Australia in terms of benefits per amount of tax paid, why not? We don't want to see an NKF where out of $1, only $0.10 went to charity, do we?
I would like to see the truth too.
The ball is in your court. -
When you find that you are losing the logic in the argument, you retreat to higher ground (it's still not high ground, you are still standing in a ravine), you change your argument to "free education and healthcare in Australia is infact not free", whatever it is, it is still free to the common folks, because they don't pay for it, although they pay for it in taxes. But look at their country statistics, they have literacy rate of 99% and doctors to 1,000 population of 2.5.Originally posted by Gazelle:M13, the purpose of this thread is about clearing the myth that the so-called free education and healthcare in Australia is infact not free and as an australian you will usually end up paying more than what you will get.
Irregardless if I include the super fund or not, it will still be the same, ie., australian are paying more than twice the amount of income tax Singaporeans are paying and only fraction of these extra is going to funding their healthcare, education and unemployment.
If your intentions are just to show that it's not free, then there would be no need for you to put Singapore's figures against Australia's, you are making a comparison, but a very distorted comparison.
Australian paying twice the amount? Another distorted comparison, Australians like you say, don't have to pay for education and healthcare. It's like comparing an Australian company that sells you product A and B for $100 and a Singaporean company that sells you product A for $60, then charge you another $60 for product B.
Their payment of taxes pays for all their healthcare and education, whereas we pay less tax on paper, but we end up paying all the education and healthcare cost.
As a result of our system, we have an adult literacy rate of 92.5%, while Australia has an adult literacy rate of 99.0%.
Singapore has 1.4 doctors per 1,000 population, while Australia has 2.5 doctors per 1,000 population. -
RS, since you are the ONLY one that has initiated us to use this benefit/tax ratio to measure the attractiveness of both countries, I am sure you must have had the experience and neccessary knowledge in using them cause you cant be so stupid to be asking something which you are incapable of explaining right?Originally posted by Rock^Star:Haven't you always wanted to show the "naysayers" that Singapore is not what they claim?
Though I do not agree with many of your posts but this thread of yours has certainly incited this benefit/tax ratio thought. I admire your resilience (though I think you tend to twist words very much). If you have got your own way to prove Singapore is better than Australia in terms of benefits per amount of tax paid, why not? We don't want to see an NKF where out of $1, only $0.10 went to charity, do we?
I would like to see the truth too.
The ball is in your court.
As I am new to this ratio, hence i would like to ask you
a) What should be classified under benefits from the government expenditure?
e.g Is buying weapons to protect our country consider as benefits?
e.g Is running our country will little debt consider as benefit
e.g. Is building MRT and new highway consider as benefits.
b) Who is to decide what is and what is not consider as benefits?
If you want to teach us a new ball game, I think it is better that you first spell out the rule of the game or else you will always be the meaningless winner.
So Mr. Rock_Star, the ball is now in your hand, you got to tell us what to do with it because we can play!! -
I still cannot figure out how you derived your figure of Income Tax Revenue : S$149.3 billion / yr (including superannuation tax and fringe benefit tax).Originally posted by Gazelle:
Based on the the above information:
Total individuals and others withholding taxation + fringe benefits tax + Total superannuation taxation = A$116.14 b + A$3.73 b + A$6.97 b
The above = A$126.84 billion
Convert it to S$ based on your provided exchange rate of A$1=S$1.25, that means a sum of A$126.84 b x 1.25 = S$158.5 billion.
Kindly enlighten me. -
It is good that you finally decided do stop hiding under the skirt, as per your request,Originally posted by maurizio13:When you find that you are losing the logic in the argument, you retreat to higher ground (it's still not high ground, you are still standing in a ravine), you change your argument to "free education and healthcare in Australia is infact not free", whatever it is, it is still free to the common folks, because they don't pay for it, although they pay for it in taxes. But look at their country statistics, they have literacy rate of 99% and doctors to 1,000 population of 2.5.
If your intentions are just to show that it's not free, then there would be no need for you to put Singapore's figures against Australia's, you are making a comparison, but a very distorted comparison.
Australian paying twice the amount? Another distorted comparison, Australians like you say, don't have to pay for education and healthcare. It's like comparing an Australian company that sells you product A and B for $100 and a Singaporean company that sells you product A for $60, then charge you another $60 for product B.
Their payment of taxes pays for all their healthcare and education, whereas we pay less tax on paper, but we end up paying all the education and healthcare cost.
As a result of our system, we have an adult literacy rate of 92.5%, while Australia has an adult literacy rate of 99.0%.
Singapore has 1.4 doctors per 1,000 population, while Australia has 2.5 doctors per 1,000 population.
a) Are you sure that all healthcare and education in Australia are provided by the government and you dont need to pay a single cent the moment you are born into the country? Or you have no clue what you are talking about?
b) This thread is talking about is the healthcare and education COST in Australia, we are not talking about the quality of heathcare and education in Australia. Hence I dont see your point of comparing the above statistic. If this is of great interest to you, why dont you start a thread just focusing on that subject?
If you want to challenge what I have posted, I suggest you do it with facts that is related to our discussion. -
Oh cool it cool it, I broached this issue with sincerity. Do not test me with challenges issued with sarcasm, for there's nothing that I do without confidence.Originally posted by Gazelle:RS, since you are the ONLY one that has initiated us to use this benefit/tax ratio to measure the attractiveness of both countries, I am sure you must have had the experience and neccessary knowledge in using them cause you cant be so stupid to be asking something which you are incapable of explaining right?
As I am new to this ratio, hence i would like to ask you
a) What should be classified under benefits from the government expenditure?
e.g Is buying weapons to protect our country consider as benefits?
e.g Is running our country will little debt consider as benefit
e.g. Is building MRT and new highway consider as benefits.
b) Who is to decide what is and what is not consider as benefits?
If you want to teach us a new ball game, I think it is better that you first spell out the rule of the game or else you will always be the meaningless winner.
So Mr. Rock_Star, the ball is now in your hand, you got to tell us what to do with it because we can play!!
Explain to my post at 11:27pm, give me the right figure with a proper breakdown and I shall quench your thirst for knowledge. -
Even taking his flawed logic at face value and analyse it from a consumer protection perspective, I struggle to come to terms with how free education and medical care are actually "myths".
If a shop advertised a product as "Buy 1 Get 1 Free"(which, no doubt, would have factored in the cost of the second item which is free), I don't suppose you could accuse the proprietor of fraud through deception(as a matter of fact, there'd be no case even in countries with the most stringent consumer protection laws), could you?
-
RS, If you are sincere, why dont you just explain to us how we should calculate and use tax/benefit ratio, i think that is more important than discussing your post of 11.27pm isnt it?Originally posted by Rock^Star:Oh cool it cool it, I broached this issue with sincerity. Do not test me with challenges issued with sarcasm, for there's nothing that I do without confidence.
Explain to my post at 11:27pm, give me the right figure with a proper breakdown and I shall quench your thirst for knowledge. -
Ermmmmm.....Originally posted by Gazelle:It is good that you finally decided do stop hiding under the skirt, as per your request,
a) Are you sure that all healthcare and education in Australia are provided by the government and you dont need to pay a single cent the moment you are born into the country? Or you have no clue what you are talking about?
b) This thread is talking about is the healthcare and education COST in Australia, we are not talking about the quality of heathcare and education in Australia. Hence I dont see your point of comparing the above statistic. If this is of great interest to you, why dont you start a thread just focusing on that subject?
If you want to challenge what I have posted, I suggest you do it with facts that is related to our discussion.
a) Are you an imbecile, of course the cost of providing healthcare and education has to come from somewhere. Unless the government employs people like you, who can't do a good job and cause a disservice to the person you are serving.
I suppose all the other countries, when they mean free healthcare, nobody has to pay for it, it's all free. You are really thick!!! Ultimately, somebody has to pay for it, but it's not the poor who pays the majority of it, it's the rich who pays more, due to the progressive nature of the tax structure in Australian tax system. You can see from the tax rates you pasted in "why people leaving SG?".
b)First you wanted to compare tax system, you lost because the figures were not favourable to your logic. Now you want to talk about healthcare and education, but you want to leave out the gist of those services.
If I don't bring in the adult literacy rate of 99% for Australia and 2.5 doctors per 1,000 population. Then how can we form any opinion from the data you provided, if Australia has a adult literacy rate of 10%, then obviously something is wrong with the system, but it has adult literacy rate of 99%, which justifies it's taxes and spending. They don't have 10-20 ministers pilfering from the system by demanding that all their salaries be 2-4 times that of the President of the United States of America.
When you buy pay $1,000 for a Louis Vuitton, do you want to get a fake one sold in the streets. Therefore there is justification for the comparison, based on the inputs, we observe the quality of outputs.
Singapore
Adult literacy rate: 92.5%
Doctors per 1,000 population: 1.4
Australia
Adult literacy rate: 99.0%
Doctors per 1,000 population: 2.5 -
You are right, thats probably the no.1 marketing gimmick many australian bound forumers are trying to sell australia,Originally posted by walesa:Even taking his flawed logic at face value and analyse it from a consumer protection perspective, I struggle to come to terms with how free education and medical care are actually "myths".
If a shop advertised a product as "Buy 1 Get 1 Free"(which, no doubt, would have factored in the cost of the second item which is free), I don't suppose you could accuse the proprietor of fraud through deception(as a matter of fact, there'd be no case even in countries with the most stringent consumer protection laws), could you?
if you become an australian, you get free education and healthcare etc, however they didnt realise that before you even get to enjoy such benefits, you are already paying more than what you need through income taxes. -
I suppose you go to those free public clinics in Singapore, when you use the services, it's free, nobody has to pay for the salary of those doctors and nurses.Originally posted by Gazelle:You are right, thats probably the no.1 marketing gimmick many australian bound forumers are trying to sell australia,
if you become an australian, you get free education and healthcare etc, however they didnt realise that before you even get to enjoy such benefits, you are already paying more than what you need through income taxes.
You are really thick!!! -
Originally posted by maurizio13:
M13, honestly I dont see a point of discussing anything with you because of your lack in maturity and knowledge in the subject your are discussion.
Ermmmmm.....
a) Are you an imbecile, of course the cost of providing healthcare and education has to come from somewhere. Unless the government employs people like you, who can't do a good job and cause a disservice to the person you are serving.
I suppose all the other countries, when they mean free healthcare, nobody has to pay for it, [b]it's all free. You are really thick!!! Ultimately, somebody has to pay for it, but it's not the poor who pays the majority of it, it's the rich who pays more, due to the progressive nature of the tax structure in Australian tax system. You can see from the tax rates you pasted in "why people leaving SG?".
b)First you wanted to compare tax system, you lost because the figures were not favourable to your logic. Now you want to talk about healthcare and education, but you want to leave out the gist of those services.
If I don't bring in the adult literacy rate of 99% for Australia and 2.5 doctors per 1,000 population. Then how can we form any opinion from the data you provided, if Australia has a adult literacy rate of 10%, then obviously something is wrong with the system, but it has adult literacy rate of 99%, which justifies it's taxes and spending. They don't have 10-20 ministers pilfering from the system by demanding that all their salaries be 2-4 times that of the President of the United States of America.[/b]
You said that my figures doesnt favour my logic, can you tell me why you said that? Are you suggesting that CPF should be treated like income tax so that it will inflat Singapore government revenue to be similar level to australia?
If so, my questions to you are
a) Does CPF money belongs to you and you are entile to use them to purchase both private and public property and invest in selected funds, gold and stock? Can the Australian do that with their income tax?
b) Does the income tax australian paid to the government provide a 2.5% to 3.5% return like CPF?
c) Singaporeans can draw down their CPF when they reach 65, does the australia government give bacl the income taxes to its people in the form of cash? -
If you are an unemployed Australian with no savings, you end up with a debilitating illness, you end up in the hospital. Will the hospital provide you with the standard medical care as provided to others?Originally posted by Gazelle:You are right, thats probably the no.1 marketing gimmick many australian bound forumers are trying to sell australia,
if you become an australian, you get free education and healthcare etc, however they didnt realise that before you even get to enjoy such benefits, you are already paying more than what you need through income taxes.
If you are an unemployed Singaporean with no savings, you end up with a debilitating illness, you end up in one of the government hospitals. Will the hospital provide you with the standard medical care as provided to others? -
a) It does not really belong to me, because I cannot use the funds in an unrestricted way. It's like having bought a car, but it's kept in the showroom, you can't use it till you are about to die. Moreover the rate of 2.5% the CPF pays, is too little, not may knowledgable people would know how to invest their funds wisely. Some may not have enough funds to make any major investments. As a results, the government makes use of those funds to invest in stocks and gets a profits from making use of those low interest funds. The CPF should legislate interest rates which is comparable to those of insurance schemes provided by insurance companies like AIA, Great Eastern and Prudential.Originally posted by Gazelle:M13, honestly I dont see a point of discussing anything with you because of your lack in maturity and knowledge in the subject your are discussion.
You said that my figures doesnt favour my logic, can you tell me why you said that? Are you suggesting that CPF should be treated like income tax so that it will inflat Singapore government revenue to be similar level to australia?
If so, my questions to you are
a) Does CPF money belongs to you and you are entile to use them to purchase both private and public property and invest in selected funds, gold and stock? Can the Australian do that with their income tax?
b) Does the income tax australian paid to the government provide a 2.5% to 3.5% return like CPF?
c) Singaporeans can draw down their CPF when they reach 65, does the australia government give bacl the income taxes to its people in the form of cash?
b) The system is different from Singapore's CPF system. How do you compare?
c) You mean the superannuation is pure bullsh|t like you? The government keeps the money for itself without returning to pensioners?
"When faced with choosing the pension options available to you on retirement, either voluntary or involuntary, it’s important you understand what options your superannuation (‘super’) fund offers you. When you reach retirement age, the CSS (‘the Fund’) offers you the choice of taking your benefit either as a pension or a combination of a pension and lump sum. You also have the option of resigning prior to age 55 and deferring payment of your benefit until age 55 or later."
I think the Australian superannuation is more pro citizens, they allow you to withdraw when you reach 55 (at least they can still enjoy their retirement), unlike Singapore, which you say is 65. Hell, they might even raise it to 70 next time, in which case, you will never see your CPF money. -
a) There is a difference between public and private hospital in Australia? Who are the others?Originally posted by maurizio13:If you are an unemployed Australian with no savings, you end up with a debilitating illness, you end up in the hospital. Will the hospital provide you with the standard medical care as provided to others?
If you are an unemployed Singaporean with no savings, you end up with a debilitating illness, you end up in one of the government hospitals. Will the hospital provide you with the standard medical care as provided to others?
b) What is the % of unfortunate soul like what you said in Australia?
c) The most important question you should ask yourself is, what is the chance of a singapore migrating to australia to be unemployed and be enjoying such healthcare funding? -
I am not interest in what you said above, and please to compare owning a car that you cant drive to CPF is pure stupidOriginally posted by maurizio13:a) It does not really belong to me, because I cannot use the funds in an unrestricted way. It's like having bought a car, but it's kept in the showroom, you can't use it till you are about to die. Moreover the rate of 2.5% the CPF pays, is too little, not may knowledgable people would know how to invest their funds wisely. Some may not have enough funds to make any major investments. As a results, the government makes use of those funds to invest in stocks and gets a profits from making use of those low interest funds. The CPF should legislate interest rates which is comparable to those of insurance schemes provided by insurance companies like AIA, Great Eastern and Prudential.
b) The system is different from Singapore's CPF system. How do you compare?
c) You mean the superannuation is pure bullsh|t like you? The government keeps the money for itself without returning to pensioners?
"When faced with choosing the pension options available to you on retirement, either voluntary or involuntary, it’s important you understand what options your superannuation (‘super’) fund offers you. When you reach retirement age, the CSS (‘the Fund’) offers you the choice of taking your benefit either as a pension or a combination of a pension and lump sum. You also have the option of resigning prior to age 55 and deferring payment of your benefit until age 55 or later."
I think the Australian superannuation is more pro citizens, they allow you to withdraw when you reach 55 (at least they can still enjoy their retirement), unlike Singapore, which you say is 65. Hell, they might even raise it to 70 next time, in which case, you will never see your CPF money.
a) Money dont get outdated like cars
b) Car is never an asset unless its a collectors item.
c) You cant use your CPF monies is probably you are still a student and the only money you have in there is government give out.
To cut the story short, I am still waiting for your to explain to me why the figures I provided doesnt favour my logic?