Taxes: Singapore Vs. Australia. Who is better off?
-
Originally posted by eagle:
ya right, u ave ur pay w the billion dollar civil servents????
How about using your calculations method on the average wage instead:
[b]Singapore:
Average income per month: SG$3654 (average of 1st 3 quarters of 2007)
http://www.mom.gov.sg/publish/momportal/en/communities/others/mrsd/statistics/Earnings_and_Wages.html
Average income per year: SG$43,848
Income Taxes: $900 + $327.08 = $1,227.08
http://www.iras.gov.sg/ESVPortal/iit/iit-se-a1.1.15+tax+rates+for+resident+individuals.asp
GST: 7%
Average income after Income Taxes: SG$42,620.92
Spending Power After GST: SG$39,637 [SG$42620.92 x 93%]
Australia:
Average income per year = $55,660 => translates to AU$4638 per month which is greater numerically than SG$3654 per month
http://www.britzinoz.com/info/wages.htm
Income Taxes: $2850 + $9198= $12,048
Australia Personal Tax Rates
Average income after Income Taxes: AU$43,612
GST: 10%
Spending Power After GST: AU$39,250.8 [AU$43,612 x 90%]
[/b] -
Ok, if you want to calculate till very exactOriginally posted by BaByBoY:ya right, u ave ur pay w the billion dollar civil servents????
let's say there are 30 ministers with 3 mil per year salary (This is almost the salary of GCT, LKY, LHL, and President Nathan. Other ministers definitely earn less)
Given that there is 2.75 mil in the labour force, with 3.1% unemployment
= 2.665 mil workers
So, if you want to take the pay of the ministers away,
{ (2.665 mil * $43,848) - (30 * 3,000,000) } / (2.665mil - 30)
= $43,814.70
Is there much difference?
Could you please do your calculations and analysis first next time? -
wow didnt knew 30 ppl can make so much diff in the national ave..Originally posted by eagle:Ok, if you want to calculate till very exact
let's say there are 30 ministers with 3 mil per year salary (This is almost the salary of GCT, LKY, LHL, and President Nathan. Other ministers definitely earn less)
Given that there is 2.75 mil in the labour force, with 3.1% unemployment
= 2.665 mil workers
So, if you want to take the pay of the ministers away,
{ (2.665 mil * $43,848) - (30 * 3,000,000) } / (2.665mil - 30)
= $43,814.70
Is there much difference?
Could you please do your calculations and analysis first next time? -
What are the averages for country A and country B?
Country A
1 person = $10,000,000 x 1 person = $10,000,000
100 people = $100 x 100 = $10,000
Average wage = 10,010,000 / 101 people = $99,109 per person
Country B
51 people = $100,000 x 51 people = $5,100,000
50 people = $1,000 x 50 people = $50,000
Average wage = $5,150,000 / 101 people = $50,990 per person
Which country has more citizens benefitting from the wage distribution?
Averages and statistics are used to deceive the common layman because it doesn't give you the exact information.
There are lies, damn lies and statistics. -- Mark Twain -
ERA's website has a few 3 room flats going for around the $300k mark...Originally posted by maurizio13:Likewise, there are cheaper suburbs housing in Australia.
The prices quoted by your are average prices, averages of what? Prices I took from the post office is transacted price in Marine Parade. I see 3 bedrooms and 4 bedrooms HDB in Marine Parade hitting close to half a million dollars. These are transacted price, not averages.
but your $345k for a 2-room flat is definitely an outliers case...
it's probably some ignorant buyer or someone who's really desperate.. -
With regards to this, how about the figures you have raised?Originally posted by maurizio13:There are lies, damn lies and statistics. -- Mark Twain
My main point is, figures do not show everything. It is how you twist them to suit your arguments.
The most accurate way of determining which side is better off is to have experienced both ways of living yourself. -
Australia has a population of 21 millionOriginally posted by maurizio13:What are the averages for country A and country B?
Country A
1 person = $10,000,000 x 1 person = $10,000,000
100 people = $100 x 100 = $10,000
Average wage = 10,010,000 / 101 people = $99,109 per person
Country B
51 people = $100,000 x 51 people = $5,100,000
50 people = $1,000 x 50 people = $50,000
Average wage = $5,150,000 / 101 people = $50,990 per person
Singapore has a population of 4.5 million
And as I have shown, removing 30 people with annual income of 3 million in Singapore reduces the annual wage by 30 dollars a month. Removing another 60 people of annual wage of 3 mil would only reduce it by another 60 dollars.
So, taking the top 90 earners in Singapore, do you think they earn a total of more than $270 mil a year? -
Don't you see, to them exceptions make the ruleOriginally posted by Father Lim:ERA's website has a few 3 room flats going for around the $300k mark...
but your $345k for a 2-room flat is definitely an outliers case...
it's probably some ignorant buyer or someone who's really desperate..
Yet when the PAP says many people live past age 85 thus requires annuity, they are condemned. How many people do we really see live past age 85?
And now people here makes the same mistake. How many 5-rm flats goes for 750k? How many 2-rm flats go for 345k?
If we are to condemn the PAP for this sort of conclusion, why are the people here making similar conclusions? -
hello..Originally posted by eagle:Australia has a population of 21 million
Singapore has a population of 4.5 million
And as I have shown, removing 30 people with annual income of 3 million in Singapore reduces the annual wage by 30 dollars a month. Removing another 60 people of annual wage of 3 mil would only reduce it by another 60 dollars.
So, taking the top 90 earners in Singapore, do you think they earn a total of more than $270 mil a year?
ave not like tt count de..... -
yes statistics do lie... but your example is not even real life statistics...Originally posted by maurizio13:What are the averages for country A and country B?
Country A
1 person = $10,000,000 x 1 person = $10,000,000
100 people = $100 x 100 = $10,000
Average wage = 10,010,000 / 101 people = $99,109 per person
Country B
51 people = $100,000 x 51 people = $5,100,000
50 people = $1,000 x 50 people = $50,000
Average wage = $5,150,000 / 101 people = $50,990 per person
Which country has more citizens benefitting from the wage distribution?
Averages and statistics are used to deceive the common layman because it doesn't give you the exact information.
There are lies, damn lies and statistics. -- Mark Twain
i understand u are trying to prove your point.. but eagle's calculations make more sense than yours... prob because he used the whole sample size...
whereas your sample size is quite biased...
anyway GCT definitely doesn't earn a million times more than me
-
Now school going kids is trying to misquote me by saying that I used $345,000 for comparison with equivalent housing in Australia.
Say this average Singaporean making SG$11,160 (p.a. after taxes) uses all his income to pay for his PUBLIC Housing (99 year leasehold) 2 bedroom HDB of SG$183,000. At mortgage rate of 2.60% (fixed rate), he would need some 21.65 years to pay off his HDB flat. On top of this loan repayment, this Singaporean would still need to pay Property Tax + SG$110 (TV Licence)every year.
http://www.realestate.com.au/cgi-bin/rsearch?a=o&id=104489212&f=0&p=10&t=res&ty=&fmt=&header=&c=61344252&s=wa&snf=rbs&tm=1198873313
Say if an Australian making AU$26,865 (p.a. after taxes) uses all his income on an equivalent PRIVATE Landed House in Perth for AU$250,000. At a mortgage rate of 8.29% (fixed rate), he would need some 18.53 years to pay off his landed townhouse. An Australian citizen ends up in a 2 storey landed property with less than the number of years repayment, as compared to a Singaporean citizen buying a 2 bedroom HDB flat (99 year leasehold). -
then how... both eagle's and maurizio's methods are the same wor...Originally posted by BaByBoY:hello..
ave not like tt count de..... -
so do you need me to prove to you again my estimation?Originally posted by BaByBoY:hello..
ave not like tt count de.....
Of cuz I also know it is not counted like that, but you can do your own calculations. I'm pretty sure the extra amount reduced will be near to 60 dollars per year. -
Firstly, I wonder who said you use it as comparison with equivalent housing in AustraliaOriginally posted by maurizio13:Now school going kids is trying to misquote me by saying that I used $345,000 for comparison with equivalent housing in Australia.
Secondly,Originally posted by maurizio13:I am surprised, 2 bedroom HDB (Marine Parade) in Marine Crescent can hit a high of $345,000 in Dec 2007.
http://www.hdb.gov.sg/bb33/ispm051p.nsf/Search -
both wrong lohzOriginally posted by Father Lim:then how... both eagle's and maurizio's methods are the same wor...
i nv say he rite also....
but he is not generalising, it did happen mah...
but haf to admit... it`s like one in a blue moon...
but genrally
HDB are exp, don agree?
and it`s lease, not ownership mahz -
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Why consider the life of a waiter instead of the average wage rate of the general work force when you want to compare Singapore and Australia?
Say this average Singaporean making SG$11,160 (p.a. after taxes) uses all his income to pay for his PUBLIC Housing (99 year leasehold) 2 bedroom HDB of SG$183,000. At mortgage rate of 2.60% (fixed rate), [b]he would need some 21.65 years to pay off his HDB flat. On top of this loan repayment, this Singaporean would still need to pay Property Tax + SG$110 (TV Licence)every year.
http://www.realestate.com.au/cgi-bin/rsearch?a=o&id=104489212&f=0&p=10&t=res&ty=&fmt=&header=&c=61344252&s=wa&snf=rbs&tm=1198873313
Say if an Australian making AU$26,865 (p.a. after taxes) uses all his income on an equivalent PRIVATE Landed House in Perth for AU$250,000. At a mortgage rate of 8.29% (fixed rate), he would need some 18.53 years to pay off his landed townhouse. An Australian citizen ends up in a 2 storey landed property with less than the number of years repayment, as compared to a Singaporean citizen buying a 2 bedroom HDB flat (99 year leasehold).
[/b]
Any special reason?
I would rather say the following:
My average wage calculations shows similar amount of spending power for both Singaporeans and Australia.
Yet if we are talking about property, Singapore's properties are definitely more expensive. In that case, we can never afford the same type of property that we can afford in Australia. -
Little boy,Originally posted by eagle:
Did I use the $345,000 for comparison in the post?
Or
Did I merely made a statement that the HDB flat in Marine Parade cost $345,000?
I DID NOT make the comparison of $345,000 with any house or apartment in Australia.
Read carefully, don't let emotions side track you, just because you argue to win. -
Sometimes, to drive in a point, you have to use the same calculations and methods that the original poster use.Originally posted by BaByBoY:both wrong lohz
i nv say he rite also....
but he is not generalising, it did happen mah...
but haf to admit... it`s like one in a blue moon...
but genrally
HDB are exp, don agree?
and it`s lease, not ownership mahz
HDB are definitely expensive. But it is not only HDB, every single residential property in Singapore is expensive. -
Uncle,Originally posted by maurizio13:Little boy,
Did I use the $345,000 for comparison in the post?
Or
Did I merely made a statement that the HDB flat in Marine Parade cost $345,000?
I DID NOT make the comparison of $345,000 with any house or apartment in Australia.
Read carefully, don't let emotions side track you, just because you argue to win.
did I mention that you used $345k as comparison in any post?
Or
Did I merely ask a question on how many 2-rm flats are going for $345k -
I am thru talking to the small boy (eagle) about using waiter in Australia and Singapore for comparison.Originally posted by BaByBoY:both wrong lohz
i nv say he rite also....
but he is not generalising, it did happen mah...
but haf to admit... it`s like one in a blue moon...
but genrally
HDB are exp, don agree?
and it`s lease, not ownership mahz
We might as well end up comparing engineer eagle in Singapore with a waiter in Australia. -
I'm surprised that in a thread about Taxes: Singapore Vs. Australia, you would only consider the plight of waiters.Originally posted by maurizio13:I am thru talking to the small boy (eagle) about using waiter in Australia and Singapore for comparison.
We might as well end up comparing engineer eagle in Singapore with a waiter in Australia.
Talk about being objective. -
Check out your post at 2:40am, aren't you implying that.Originally posted by eagle:Uncle,
did I mention that you used $345k as comparison in any post?
Or
Did I merely ask a question on how many 2-rm flats are going for $345k
Don't you see, to them exceptions make the ruleOriginally posted by Father Lim:ERA's website has a few 3 room flats going for around the $300k mark...
but your $345k for a 2-room flat is definitely an outliers case...
it's probably some ignorant buyer or someone who's really desperate..
Yet when the PAP says many people live past age 85 thus requires annuity, they are condemned. How many people do we really see live past age 85?
And now people here makes the same mistake. How many 5-rm flats goes for 750k? How many 2-rm flats go for 345k?
If we are to condemn the PAP for this sort of conclusion, why are the people here making similar conclusions? -
You need to check your comprehension skills.Originally posted by maurizio13:Check out your post at 2:40am, aren't you implying that.
Either that or you think too much into things.
Even Father Lim is implying that your $345k is an exception, and not even hinting that you are making a comparison -
How fair is it to use average wages to make comparisons when 20% of top income earners make at least 50% to 60% of the total income?
Which leaves 50% to 40% of total income to the remainder 80% of the population.
Don't have the actual raw data, so calculations are just estimates. It shows that 20% of Top Income Earners make 60% of Total Income, while 80% of Middle and Low Income Earners make 40% of Total Income.
Apologies for the information overload.
Assumptions:
1) Total taxpayers are only 731,348, while CPF Board shows 1,324,368 active members. Therefore the difference between the two figures are assumed to be the low income earners, who make less than $20,000 a year and shown in IRAS's statement as zero (under IRAS's below $20,000 row and Resident column).
2) MOM claims that there are 2,341,900, but on checking the Department of Statistics website population statistics, there are around 2.3 million males and females ranging from ages 20-60. I cannot reconcile the difference between CPF Board's 1.3 million and MOM's 2.3 million. Are there 1 million self-employed (CPF Board does not take into account self-employed), housewives, early retirees and handicapped around? Self-employed equals taxi drivers and hawkers? If it's true, then it will increase the high income earners percentage very very substantially.
Source: IRAS
Source: CPF Board
-
This is a good post. More relevant than all our irrelevant posts before.Originally posted by maurizio13:How fair is it to use average wages to make comparisons when 20% of top income earners make at least 50% to 60% of the total income?
Which leaves 50% to 40% of total income to the remainder 80% of the population.
Don't have the actual raw data, so calculations are just estimates. It shows that 20% of Top Income Earners make 60% of Total Income, while 80% of Middle and Low Income Earners make 40% of Total Income.
Apologies for the information overload.
Assumptions:
1) Total taxpayers are only 731,348, while CPF Board shows 1,324,368 active members. Therefore the difference between the two figures are assumed to be the low income earners, who make less than $20,000 a year and shown in IRAS's statement as zero (under IRAS's below $20,000 row and Resident column).
2) MOM claims that there are 2,341,900, but on checking the Department of Statistics website population statistics, there are around 2.3 million males and females ranging from ages 20-60. I cannot reconcile the difference between CPF Board's 1.3 million and MOM's 2.3 million. Are there 1 million self-employed (CPF Board does not take into account self-employed), housewives, early retirees and handicapped around? Self-employed equals taxi drivers and hawkers? If it's true, then it will increase the high income earners percentage very very substantially.
Using the same argument, how fair is it to consider only the wages of waiters?
In addition, Australia's income equality is not exactly very great either.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1868
http://www.ecoteacher.asn.au/unemploy/a28.htm
Although I admit that my the source is rather old.