MM Lee told the Russians western democracy not the solution
-
Such a statement only reflects the in-born nature of this man.
He was probably born with a suspicious nature perceiving all fellow citizens as negative, lawless, disorderly and potential trouble makers. By regarding all citizens negatively, at the end it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Just look at all the laws passed from the early days of his career and we can better understand his negative perception of his people.
Based on such negative outlook or perception, he passed all sorts of law to deprive freedom of expressions, control of newspaper media, prohibit public assembly of 5 persons even for not non-political civil purposes, Professions like the legal profession are tightly controlled. There is a heavy presumptuous Ipower of arrest of any one suspected of threat to government under the SA laws. Election processes were bent to prevent anyone from standing freely for elections and civil defamation laws twisted for persecution of political oppositions.
Government over-taxes the people both in direct as well as indirect and over-charges on basic necessities from medicare to housing and sets up all sorts of GLCs to profiteer while hoarding tax monies for his own glory and other hidden agenda.
Unions are tamed, Workers are controlled and kept as slaves.
Despite such controls citizens are not cooperating or loyal, Thousands have migrated to seek refuge from such oppressions or better opportunities elsewhere.Controls beget controls so gradually controls justify need for more controls ad nausem.
Such controls up to a certain points require even harder and sterner controls leading to controls for the sake of controls and runaway of control now.
More laws and regulations have to be put up for additional controls to control any loopholes to prevent disarray.
What is the alternative to controls? Think out of the box and stop assuming citizens are potential enemies to be controlled or punished and let people look after certain behavioral problems.
People can govern themselves without so much government interventions or interferences by laws.
Look at an average family behavior. The more a parent tries to discipline his or her children with punishments based on over-tight controls or criticisms the more the children end up as rebellious and uncooperative.
Now how are we to build a more cooperative and cohesive society with so much controls and curbs on their basic freedoms. Even participating in internet forums are heavily intervened with so much loud and rowdy counter-insurgency threats and name-calling of all kinds by gazelle or point_blank.
Will this kind of human nature succeed in building a competitive and vibrant society with so much controls and deprivations going on for years to no end.
Does he know that many successful Fortune 500 companies of which Singapore has not yet produce many yet are better run than such control model?So he needs to know a bigger world exists outside his little red dot and there are many better and greater solutions to our type of control freakish dictatorship.
Does he know he has lost controls of his bureaucracy as demonstrated in Mas Selamat despite his famous legalistic control methodology ?
With such records what right has he to advice the Russians that the Western democracy promoting liberties is not the only solution implying his control freakish dictatorship is more successful? Why?
If he truly hopes to convince others of his own superiority he ought to examine the reactions of his own fellow citizens and how they prefer to regard him in the internet and coffee shops.With such general widespread unhappiness one wonders how is he going to back up his advice with facts from his own turfs.
He probably needs to consult a psychologist to gain a more greater insightful understand why while he keeps trying to control people ad nausem yet he is not producing any unity, loyalty, cooperations or cohesiveness among his own people. -
...he is just desperate... he wants the whole world to be dishonorable to justify his behavior... unfortunately for him, while prostituition is profitable, it is unlikely to become an ideal job in the eyes of humans.... just as his behavior will always be associated with gorrillas and big apes.....
...every time he steps out of Singapore, where there the propaganda cannot reach, he can feel the disgusted looks on him the way people look at Mugabe...
...he is condemned to be viewed by history as a shameless cad for persecuting the opposition and changing the laws for his own advantage to stay in power and taking massive amounts of public money for himself and his family (another TT Durai character), nepotism.....
-
...and worse of all, he brings up his son to be as SHAMELESS as himself.... raising GST to "help the poor"? !!!!?????
...increasing his own salaries to obscene levels to attract people to join his dishonorable party because good men refuse to be so dishonorable.... like father and son....
... whatever happened to their dishonorable FEER suit?
-
...they should visit the Intensive care ward everyday instead of trying to spread dishonor in Moscow and in the courts and stare at their own future....
-
Honorable societies
Democratic Primary Boosts US Image Around the World
Washington Post - 1 hour ago
By Kevin Sullivan LONDON, June 4 -- For much of the world, Sen. Barack Obama's victory in the Democratic primaries was a moment to admire the United States, at a time when the nation's image abroad is in tatters.
Obama seeks to reassure Jewish Americans, supporters of Clinton Los Angeles Times
Obama toughens Iran stance, backs Israel on Jerusalem Reuters
CNN - New York Times - The Associated Press - Voice of America
all 1,141 news articles »Remembering Tiananmen Square
Nolan Chart LLC, VA - May 30, 2008
The Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China will hold the candle light vigil for the 19th anniversary of the Tiananmen ...Babaric Societies headed by babarians
Zimbabwe police hold MDC leader Tsvangirai - party
Reuters - 1 hour ago
By Nelson Banya HARARE, June 4 (Reuters) - Zimbabwe's opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai was detained on Wednesday as he campaigned for a presidential election run-off, his party said.
Tsvangirai arrested at Zimbabwe roadblock United Press International
Zimbabwe presidential candidate Tsvangirai detained without charges Los Angeles Times
Monsters and Critics.com - AllAfrica.com - Voice of America - International Herald Tribune
all 1,513 news articles »10-day jail term forChee’s sister Siok Chin
TODAYonline, Singapore - Jun 2, 2008
YESTERDAY, Dr Chee Soon Juan (picture) had the man he wanted by his side in the High Court but could not get from the court the extra time Mr JB Jeyaretnam ...
American jailed for insults TODAYonline
all 2 news articles » -
This must be a sick joke - an Autocrat talking to a sublimal Communist whom he loathe all his life, and now attempt to teach the Communist how not to follow Western Democracies ?
It is surely presumptious of MM LKY to believe that he is in any position to teach the Russian nation that has experienced more tumultuous revolutions in their long history than MM LKY has gone through in his own life time.
Russians have suffered miserble hardships from the rule of the Czar, to Communist Dictatorship, to Glasnotz, and now a return to Autocracy under Putin
Is MM LKY more qualified than Putin, to tell him how to govern Russia ?
A ''Little Red Dot'' teaching a ''Big Pink Blob'' how to stay pink, and not turn ''Blue'' ?
-
Giving equal access to social benefits
4 June 2008
Tan Kin LianA Government needs to collect sufficient tax to pay the expenses of running the country and to provide the social benefits to its citizens.
The tax should be collected fairly from the citizens. Those with higher incomes should pay more tax. A high income earner should pay more tax willingly. It is better to earn more and pay more tax, rather than be in the opposite situation.
After paying a higher amount of tax, the high income earner should be entitled to the same social benefits as other citizens. They do not expect to receive more social benefits, but they should not be given less.
Subsidised Healthcare
I am against means testing for subsidized health care. I believe that all citizens should be entitled to education, safety, security and the other benefits of living in Singapore, including access to subsidized health care.
We should avoid the requirement for people to provide proof and be labeled as “poor” in order to receive subsidized health care. It is best that this type of classification be avoided.
Type of Housing
The Government now distributes budget surpluses to the citizens in some years, based on income tax level or type of housing.
I prefer the distribution to be made equally to all citizens or be based on objective criteria such as age or number of members in the family.
There is some inequity in distributing the benefits based on type of housing. Some retirees have little or no income, but live in private properties bought at a low price many years ago. Some live in the private property as tenants, not owners. These people are not as well-off as the owners.
We also have the cases where the residents of HDB flats own expensive cars and are quite wealthy. They enjoy the higher payouts based on their type of housing.
It may be argued by the proponents of the current method of distribution that the percentage of odd cases (i.e. those who receive more or less than they should be entitled to) is small. Nonetheless, it is better to avoid this anomaly entirely.
Types of taxes
I prefer a system of taxation where more revenue is collected from income tax. Those who earn more, pay more tax.
In recent years, there has been a move to shift taxation from income tax to consumption tax, which is known as goods and services tax (GST) in Singapore. GST has increased the cost of living for everyone and has hit the lower income people hardest.
I hope that the GST will not be increased further from the current level. If possible, it should be reduced to 5 percent or lower. If more tax revenue is required, it can be collected from income tax, property tax and other sources.
Minimum Wage
I recent years, the low wage earners in Singapore are hit hard from two sources – lower wages due to competition from the influx of foreign workers and a higher cost of living.
It is time for us to consider the need for all workers to be given a minimum wage that will allow them to earn enough for a hard day’s work to maintain a basic standard of living for the family. The same minimum wage can apply for foreign workers, but as the foreign worker’s levy is deducted, their net wage will be lower.
A minimum wage will raise the operating cost for some businesses. The business can still be made competitive through lower rents, levies and a lower profit margin (but still attractive to the investor). If wages are raised to the minimum, it is likely that there is less demand for business premises. This will lead to lower rentals that will offset the higher wages.
Foreign Investments
The low corporate tax strategy is aimed at attracting foreign investments into Singapore. We should examine some of its negative impact.
I observe that some foreign investors set up businesses in Singapore but depend heavily on low cost foreign workers. These businesses create few jobs for Singaporeans. They create a high social cost – depressed wages of local workers, congestion in housing and public transport and changes to the social fabric.
We have also attracted many wealthy foreigners to bring large sums of money into Singapore. They increase the prices of private property to levels that are not affordable to most citizens.
Low interest rate
Even the money brought into Singapore by foreign investors has a negative impact on Singaporeans. They cause interest rate to be at a low level, among the lowest in the world. The low interest rate means less interest income on the savings of Singaporeans, especially the retired persons. The low interest rate makes it difficult for them to have a sufficient income to meet the cost of living.
Conclusion
Our past economic strategy has contributed to the economic success of Singapore. They have also contributed to social problems. Some of these problems have not been understood or analysed.
I believe that a system of higher corporate and income taxes, and lower consumption tax (i.e. GST) may be more beneficial to citizens and permanent residents living in Singapore.
We also need to review the current policy on “means testing” and also the manner of distributing budget surpluses based on type of housing. I prefer a system of equal access to the social benefits. I hope that these issues can now be considered.
-
Originally posted by HyperFocal:
Giving equal access to social benefits
4 June 2008
Tan Kin LianThe tax should be collected fairly from the citizens. Those with higher incomes should pay more tax. A high income earner should pay more tax willingly. It is better to earn more and pay more tax, rather than be in the opposite situation.
After paying a higher amount of tax, the high income earner should be entitled to the same social benefits as other citizens. They do not expect to receive more social benefits, but they should not be given less.
Subsidised Healthcare
I am against means testing for subsidized health care. I believe that all citizens should be entitled to education, safety, security and the other benefits of living in Singapore, including access to subsidized health care.
We should avoid the requirement for people to provide proof and be labeled as “poor” in order to receive subsidized health care. It is best that this type of classification be avoided.
Type of Housing
The Government now distributes budget surpluses to the citizens in some years, based on income tax level or type of housing.
I prefer the distribution to be made equally to all citizens or be based on objective criteria such as age or number of members in the family.
There is some inequity in distributing the benefits based on type of housing. Some retirees have little or no income, but live in private properties bought at a low price many years ago. Some live in the private property as tenants, not owners. These people are not as well-off as the owners.
We also have the cases where the residents of HDB flats own expensive cars and are quite wealthy. They enjoy the higher payouts based on their type of housing.
It may be argued by the proponents of the current method of distribution that the percentage of odd cases (i.e. those who receive more or less than they should be entitled to) is small. Nonetheless, it is better to avoid this anomaly entirely.
Types of taxes
I prefer a system of taxation where more revenue is collected from income tax. Those who earn more, pay more tax.
In recent years, there has been a move to shift taxation from income tax to consumption tax, which is known as goods and services tax (GST) in Singapore. GST has increased the cost of living for everyone and has hit the lower income people hardest.
I hope that the GST will not be increased further from the current level. If possible, it should be reduced to 5 percent or lower. If more tax revenue is required, it can be collected from income tax, property tax and other sources.
Minimum Wage
I recent years, the low wage earners in Singapore are hit hard from two sources – lower wages due to competition from the influx of foreign workers and a higher cost of living.
It is time for us to consider the need for all workers to be given a minimum wage that will allow them to earn enough for a hard day’s work to maintain a basic standard of living for the family. The same minimum wage can apply for foreign workers, but as the foreign worker’s levy is deducted, their net wage will be lower.
A minimum wage will raise the operating cost for some businesses. The business can still be made competitive through lower rents, levies and a lower profit margin (but still attractive to the investor). If wages are raised to the minimum, it is likely that there is less demand for business premises. This will lead to lower rentals that will offset the higher wages.
Foreign Investments
The low corporate tax strategy is aimed at attracting foreign investments into Singapore. We should examine some of its negative impact.
I observe that some foreign investors set up businesses in Singapore but depend heavily on low cost foreign workers. These businesses create few jobs for Singaporeans. They create a high social cost – depressed wages of local workers, congestion in housing and public transport and changes to the social fabric.
We have also attracted many wealthy foreigners to bring large sums of money into Singapore. They increase the prices of private property to levels that are not affordable to most citizens.
Low interest rate
Even the money brought into Singapore by foreign investors has a negative impact on Singaporeans. They cause interest rate to be at a low level, among the lowest in the world. The low interest rate means less interest income on the savings of Singaporeans, especially the retired persons. The low interest rate makes it difficult for them to have a sufficient income to meet the cost of living.
Conclusion
Our past economic strategy has contributed to the economic success of Singapore. They have also contributed to social problems. Some of these problems have not been understood or analysed.
I believe that a system of higher corporate and income taxes, and lower consumption tax (i.e. GST) may be more beneficial to citizens and permanent residents living in Singapore.
We also need to review the current policy on “means testing” and also the manner of distributing budget surpluses based on type of housing. I prefer a system of equal access to the social benefits. I hope that these issues can now be considered.
"The tax should be collected fairly from the citizens. Those with higher incomes should pay more tax. A high income earner should pay more tax willingly."
How can tax be collected fairly when you make those with higher incomes pay more ?
This in itself is a class discrimination.
And why should the higher income group pay more willingly ?
Is the author implying people from higher income group don't deserve the income they work for ?
While it is agreeable that people of higher income group can afford to contribute more, the current tax structure is already an unfair one. One that penalize success.
A better system is one that applies a fixed percentage across all income level.
10% of $100,000 is $10,000
10% of 50,000 is $ 5,000
10% of 20,000 is $2,000
10% of 8,000 is $800
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
"The tax should be collected fairly from the citizens. Those with higher incomes should pay more tax. A high income earner should pay more tax willingly."
How can tax be collected fairly when you make those with higher incomes pay more ?
This in itself is a class discrimination.
And why should the higher income group pay more willingly ?
Is the author implying people from higher income group don't deserve the income they work for ?
While it is agreeable that people of higher income group can afford to contribute more, the current tax structure is already an unfair one. One that penalize success.
A better system is one that applies a fixed percentage across all income level.
10% of $100,000 is $10,000
10% of 50,000 is $ 5,000
10% of 20,000 is $2,000
10% of 8,000 is $800
Your system of taxation will widen the Gini and create more income disparity.
The rich should pay more because they are more likely to suffer greater financial loss than the poor should any unfavourable events occur.
The taxes paid by the rich goes into financing defence, homeland security and healthcare.
-
yesterday in the news, GCT openly extended an open invitation to all russians to come live in singapore; as investor, student, FTs, tourist, et al.
i think he is trying to mask the message of him asking russian mafias to park their black money in singapore.
-
...just like prostitutes that have no shame and all they think is how much money they can put into their own pockets.... those of us that are already old cannot be bothered but how the Singapore youths can tolerate this type behavior that brings shame on to the country and themselves is mindboggling....
-
MM Lee should have said these to the folks at the US Senate.
Maybe Bush will throw him in prison and charge him for defamation of western democracies; failing which will devolve into charging him for insulting western democracies.
-
I also heard him say on the news that there are widespread corruption in China and Vietnam as they progress towards capitalism. What has brought about this corruption? The vesting of powers in a single dominant figure. In auditing, fraud and corruption is highly probable if too much powers rested in one individual (Director), that's why there are different individual heads CFO, CIO and CMO. With the saggregation of duties, corruption is still possible with collusion, but there would be more mouths to gag. Provided all your department heads are independent and not being controlled like our MM. In the words of Francis Seow, "they are all scared of him....it's just pathetic....they hold him in awe".
I finally understood the meaning of MM, it's Marionette Master.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Your system of taxation will widen the Gini and create more income disparity.
The rich should pay more because they are more likely to suffer greater financial loss than the poor should any unfavourable events occur.
The taxes paid by the rich goes into financing defence, homeland security and healthcare.
The rich are already paying more based on a percentage structure.Narrowing the Gini gap should not be so dependent on fleecing the rich to fill the poor.
The government should focus more on the Human Development Index and help bridge the gap by introducing better policies to push the bottom up instead of pulling the top down.
Healthcare, securities, infrastructure and educations are services all income level gets to benefit from.
Further penalizing the rich will only result in economic backlash when they decide to pull out of this country and invest their money elsewhere.
Then perhaps it will be more ideal for you to have the poor employing the poor ? So your Gini coefficient will finally even out eh ?
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
The rich are already paying more based on a percentage structure.Narrowing the Gini gap should not be so dependent on fleecing the rich to fill the poor.
The government should focus more on the Human Development Index and help bridge the gap by introducing better policies to push the bottom up instead of pulling the top down.
Healthcare, securities, infrastructure and educations are services all income level gets to benefit from.
Further penalizing the rich will only result in economic backlash when they decide to pull out of this country and invest their money elsewhere.
Then perhaps it will be more ideal for you to have the poor employing the poor ? So your Gini coefficient will finally even out eh ?
The rich are rich because of market failure, that's why government has taxation policies to redistribute income to correct for this market failure.
Not everybody benefits from these public services equally. If robbery is rampant, the poor does not have much luxury goods if robbed, whereas the rich will lose their Patek, Franck Muller, Piaget, Ferrari, Porsche, etc. Therefore the rich utilised these public services more.
Same with healthcare, if the poor cannot afford to go to hospital for treatment of a contagious disease, who's the lose more financially if he/she contracts the contagious disease.
If everybody does that, then the destination country will have lower and lower investment returns as they have an over abundance of funds.
Does not have to be a situation of poor employing the poor, the current system could be fine tuned with more redistribution of wealth to the lower wage earners.
You can never be too rich or too thin, even if the tax rate is higher for the top bracket, greedy folks will still attempt to make more and more money. I don't know of any country in the world that follows your system of 10% fix rate tax to encourage income disparity, make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Is there any country following your system?
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
The rich are rich because of market failure, that's why government has taxation policies to redistribute income to correct for this market failure.
Not everybody benefits from these public services equally. If robbery is rampant, the poor does not have much luxury goods if robbed, whereas the rich will lose their Patek, Franck Muller, Piaget, Ferrari, Porsche, etc. Therefore the rich utilised these public services more.
Same with healthcare, if the poor cannot afford to go to hospital for treatment of a contagious disease, who's the lose more financially if he/she contracts the contagious disease.
If everybody does that, then the destination country will have lower and lower investment returns as they have an over abundance of funds.
Does not have to be a situation of poor employing the poor, the current system could be fine tuned with more redistribution of wealth to the lower wage earners.
You can never be too rich or too thin, even if the tax rate is higher for the top bracket, greedy folks will still attempt to make more and more money. I don't know of any country in the world that follows your system of 10% fix rate tax to encourage income disparity, make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Is there any country following your system?
So the rich are all greedy people ah ? They don't deserve to be rich issit ?
So you are not rich.. does not mean you should insult them ok ?
Are you singing the socialist/communist song ? Where everyone eats from the same big bowl ?
The flat tax is nothing new.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
So the rich are all greedy people ah ? They don't deserve to be rich issit ?
So you are not rich.. does not mean you should insult them ok ?
Are you singing the socialist/communist song ? Where everyone eats from the same big bowl ?
The flat tax is nothing new.
Nobody's insulting them, rich will always want to be richer, you can never be too rich, it's call greed. You rich that's why you are insulted?
Incidentally those countries that use flat tax are former communist countries. Most democratic countries follow a progressive tax system.
Advocates of the flat tax argue that the former-Communist states of Eastern Europe have benefited from the adoption of a flat tax. Most of these nations have experienced strong economic growth of 6% and higher in recent years, some of them, particularly the Baltic countries, experience exceptional GDP growth of around 10% yearly. Some economists, however, express concerns of the overall effect that flat rates of taxation are having on these countries, both socially and politically, and argue that flat tax has had less influence on economic growth than previously thought.
- In Estonia, which has had a 26% (24% in 2005, 23% in 2006, 22% in 2007, 21% in 2008, planned 20% in 2009, 19% in 2010, 18% in 2011) flat tax rate since 1994, studies have shown that the significant increase in tax revenue experienced was caused partly by a disproportionately rising VAT revenue.[19] Moreover, Estonia and Slovakia have high social contributions, pegged to wage levels.[19] Both matters raise questions regarding the justice of the flat tax system, and thus its long-term viability. The Estonian economist and former chairman of his country's parliamentary budget committee Olev Raju, stated in September 2005 that "income disparities are rising and calls for a progressive system of taxation are getting louder - this could put an end to the flat tax after the next election" [35].
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Nobody's insulting them, rich will always want to be richer, you can never be too rich, it's call greed. You rich that's why you are insulted?
Incidentally those countries that use flat tax are former communist countries. Most democratic countries follow a progressive tax system.
- In Estonia, which has had a 26% (24% in 2005, 23% in 2006, 22% in 2007, 21% in 2008, planned 20% in 2009, 19% in 2010, 18% in 2011) flat tax rate since 1994, studies have shown that the significant increase in tax revenue experienced was caused partly by a disproportionately rising VAT revenue.[19] Moreover, Estonia and Slovakia have high social contributions, pegged to wage levels.[19] Both matters raise questions regarding the justice of the flat tax system, and thus its long-term viability. The Estonian economist and former chairman of his country's parliamentary budget committee Olev Raju, stated in September 2005 that "income disparities are rising and calls for a progressive system of taxation are getting louder - this could put an end to the flat tax after the next election" [35].
I am responding to Hyperfocal's posting.
In which here it states fair tax collection.
"
The tax should be collected fairly from the citizens. Those with higher incomes should pay more tax. A high income earner should pay more tax willingly. It is better to earn more and pay more tax, rather than be in the opposite situation.
After paying a higher amount of tax, the high income earner should be entitled to the same social benefits as other citizens. They do not expect to receive more social benefits, but they should not be given less."
A progressive tax is not a FAIR tax structure.
Did you not read the other parts on arguments IN FAVOR of the flat tax ?
-
I'll barge in by questioning the need to harp on the fact that Estonia and Latvia are formerly part of the USSR. They were occupied against their will, they're now democratic and want to distance themselves from that part of history and its legacy as much as possible. You won't win favours with people there by harping on it.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
I am responding to Hyperfocal's posting.
In which here it states fair tax collection.
"
The tax should be collected fairly from the citizens. Those with higher incomes should pay more tax. A high income earner should pay more tax willingly. It is better to earn more and pay more tax, rather than be in the opposite situation.
After paying a higher amount of tax, the high income earner should be entitled to the same social benefits as other citizens. They do not expect to receive more social benefits, but they should not be given less."
A progressive tax is not a FAIR tax structure.
Did you not read the other parts on arguments IN FAVOR of the flat tax ?
What is fair and what is not?
The inheritance of wealth is unfair too. An individual who has not worked for the money ended up with the wealth that lets him have an unfair advantage over the poor.
Is it fair that a person ends up handicapped and not being able to earn as much as a wealthy individual?
Is it fair that others might have lower level intelligence that makes them less able to be as wealthy as others?
Is it fair that you were born a female and me a male?
So you want to talk about a fair tax?
You make all the above fair first before you talk about a fair tax.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
What is fair and what is not?
The inheritance of wealth is unfair too. An individual who has not worked for the money ended up with the wealth that lets him have an unfair advantage over the poor.
Is it fair that a person ends up handicapped and not being able to earn as much as a wealthy individual?
Is it fair that others might have lower level intelligence that makes them less able to be as wealthy as others?
Is it fair that you were born a female and me a male?
So you want to talk about a fair tax?
You make all the above fair first before you talk about a fair tax.
Dude.. we are talking about fair "tax", not "welfare".
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Dude.. we are talking about fair "tax", not "welfare".
You were talking about the fairness of a taxation system not? I thought you wanted to be fair? Now you are encouraging partiality.
Tax is based on income.If a person is retarded, he makes little income say $10,000, then how to you compare with another genius making $100,000.
Then how do you suggest we make it fair? Take $45,000 and give it to the intellectually challenged? Isn't this the same with the other advanced country model of income redistribution? Or we just ignore this unfair distribution and proceed to tax both at 10%? Let the poor, retarded and the old fend for themselves, if they can't survive it's their business.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
You were talking about the fairness of a taxation system not? I thought you wanted to be fair? Now you are encouraging partiality.
Tax is based on income.If a person is retarded, he makes little income say $10,000, then how to you compare with another genius making $100,000.
Then how do you suggest we make it fair? Take $45,000 and give it to the intellectually challenged? Isn't this the same with the other advanced country model of income redistribution? Or we just ignore this unfair distribution and proceed to tax both at 10%?
Dude.. do your maths properly can anot ?
10% of 10,000 is how much ?
10% of 100,000 is how much ?
Is it the genius fault that person who earns $10,000 is a retard ?
Wealth redistribution can be achieved via many other means.
One day , IF you become rich.. are you willing to take a 50% tax hit too ?
If your net income after tax is no different from the retard man, what's the use of working so hard to be rich ? Might as well be a retard right ?
-
Supposely the richer pays less tax to give back to the contry by means of more investments and opportunities. But in the past 10 yrs , the rich as been getting richer and the poor , poorer. middle class has not really moved much. Or just maybe its too early to tell.
Anyways i still believe in less tax for the rich.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Dude.. do your maths properly can anot ?
10% of 10,000 is how much ?
10% of 100,000 is how much ?
Is it the genius fault that person who earns $10,000 is a retard ?
Wealth redistribution can be achieved via many other means.
One day , IF you become rich.. are you willing to take a 50% tax hit too ?
If your net income after tax is no different from the retard man, what's the use of working so hard to be rich ? Might as well be a retard right ?
Please. I wasn't even referrring to the 10% tax baby. You have missed the forest for the trees.
If the poor fully utilise the $10,000 every year, a 10% tax will decrease their disposable income to $9,000. How do you suggest they pay their mortgage to HDB, their meals, their bus transport, their children's education?
$10,000 might not mean alot to the rich, but $1,000 means alot to you if you only have just enough to make ends meet.
It's not the genius fault that the handicapped and retard makes less, but what do you suggest we do? Leave him to his own devices? I thought we live in a humane society, obviously alot have given up compassion in the sake of making more money. They have become money faced like our Ministers.
Yes, I am willing to take a 50% tax rate, provided all my taxes are used to fund social programmes for the less privilege of society and not the Ministerial salaries.
That's why the tax rate is progressive. If you make below $20,000 there is not tax, then I think $10,000 above is taxed at afew percent. As you make more the level changes and you get taxed for the amount that is above the earlier bracket.