MM Lee told the Russians western democracy not the solution
-
Actually LKY may be right about western styled democracy not suitable . Remembered something Kim Dae Jung wrote about his comment on asia and western concepts. lol!
-
If you make $100,000, you pay tax of:
first $20k = $0
next $10k= $350
next $10k = $550
next $40k = $3,400
next $20k = $2,800
If you make $100,000, you will pay $7,100 in taxes.
If you make $30,000, you will only pay $350 in taxes.
How can you end up with net income after tax similar to the low wage earner? Do you know your taxes and arithmetic?
$100,000 - $7,100 = $92,900
$30,000 - $350 = $29,650
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
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.
That's because our tax system from a top bracket of 40% has been reduced to 20% in the past few decades.The taxes collected by the government goes into state coffers and failed investments, not directly into developments to improve the citizens. What kind of welfare do we have here?
More investments doesn't mean more pay for the poor, it just means more opportunities to employ more PRC because our labour force is limited.
Trust a business owner to give workers more salary? How is that possible? Should ask around all the business owners, if they make more profits this year, will they give out the excess of all their profits to workers? Most of it ploughs back into reserves to expand his business. Only when bonuses are mandated, then they will comply. Like the recent request by government that businesses give out inflation bonus, only 20 companies comply and I am wonder out of this 20, how many are government related companies.
I once argued with this Australian business graduate who told me that his professor has less disposable income after tax than his assistant who is paid less. He didn't understand what is progressive tax. I hope you do.
-
after talking so much, the crux of it still lies with money
-
Originally posted by eagle:
after talking so much, the crux of it still lies with money
it's always the money.in a capitalist society, money is the cure for all ills.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
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.
$1 is worth a $1 to a rich or poor person. Being rich doesn't gives less value to a dollar earned.
Well, since you are so generous.. why don't you start donating "50%" of your income to charity ? They will serve the purpose you so desire to give your donation to the less priviledged, yes ?
Every person wants the other person to pay for it. Unfortunately, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
That's because our tax system from a top bracket of 40% has been reduced to 20% in the past few decades.The taxes collected by the government goes into state coffers and failed investments, not directly into developments to improve the citizens. What kind of welfare do we have here?
More investments doesn't mean more pay for the poor, it just means more opportunities to employ more PRC because our labour force is limited.
Trust a business owner to give workers more salary? How is that possible? Should ask around all the business owners, if they make more profits this year, will they give out the excess of all their profits to workers? Most of it ploughs back into reserves to expand his business. Only when bonuses are mandated, then they will comply. Like the recent request by government that businesses give out inflation bonus, only 20 companies comply and I am wonder out of this 20, how many are government related companies.
I once argued with this Australian business graduate who told me that his professor has less disposable income after tax than his assistant who is paid less. He didn't understand what is progressive tax. I hope you do.
u r right about employing more cheap labour. lol!
I dunno much about tax for now. I just pay em.
Profits in year end must trickle down the hierchy. 40/60 . Thats what i always do but not all those above me agrees though. U imagine i 40/60 down.. but up there 10/90 come down.. i lppl.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
$1 is worth a $1 to a rich or poor person. Being rich doesn't gives less value to a dollar earned.
Well, since you are so generous.. why don't you start donating "50%" of your income to charity ? They will serve the purpose you so desire to give your donation to the less priviledged, yes ?
Every person wants the other person to pay for it. Unfortunately, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Communism is the solution to M13's problem.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
If you make $100,000, you pay tax of:
first $20k = $0
next $10k= $350
next $10k = $550
next $40k = $3,400
next $20k = $2,800
If you make $100,000, you will pay $7,100 in taxes.
If you make $30,000, you will only pay $350 in taxes.
How can you end up with net income after tax similar to the low wage earner? Do you know your taxes and arithmetic?
$100,000 - $7,100 = $92,900
$30,000 - $350 = $29,650
Can you go and read focal's post first ?? Geesh !
If you keep increasing the tax rate of the rich, you will eventually get to a point when the net income will not be very far off from each.
Look, I used to think like you. When I was really poor.
I want the rich to pay for my welfare, I want the rich to pay for my everything. And no I don't want to pay for shyt. Why ? Because I am poor, and so I am under priviledged.
Now that I worked my way up the income scale.. you think I care to give away a big chunk of my hard earned money to someone just to close the income gap ?
It's all relative.
But like I said, the welfare system needs to be set up to support the needy. Without overly penalizing the rich.
Like my friend who is a Canadian, he left his country to go work somewhere else because he can no longer tolerate the high income tax rate in Canada.
This is real life, this is how it works. There's no running away from it.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
That's because our tax system from a top bracket of 40% has been reduced to 20% in the past few decades.The taxes collected by the government goes into state coffers and failed investments, not directly into developments to improve the citizens. What kind of welfare do we have here?
More investments doesn't mean more pay for the poor, it just means more opportunities to employ more PRC because our labour force is limited.
Trust a business owner to give workers more salary? How is that possible? Should ask around all the business owners, if they make more profits this year, will they give out the excess of all their profits to workers? Most of it ploughs back into reserves to expand his business. Only when bonuses are mandated, then they will comply. Like the recent request by government that businesses give out inflation bonus, only 20 companies comply and I am wonder out of this 20, how many are government related companies.
I once argued with this Australian business graduate who told me that his professor has less disposable income after tax than his assistant who is paid less. He didn't understand what is progressive tax. I hope you do.
Unfortunately, Singapore government doesnt factor in dumb, selfish, lazy people like you in their policy, so my advice to you is to shut the fcuk up, stop wanking and go get yourself a life in the real world. If you cant survive in Singapore, you cant survive anywhere.
-
Originally posted by Aelop:
Communism is the solution to M13's problem.
Yes,I thought so too.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
$1 is worth a $1 to a rich or poor person. Being rich doesn't gives less value to a dollar earned.
Well, since you are so generous.. why don't you start donating "50%" of your income to charity ? They will serve the purpose you so desire to give your donation to the less priviledged, yes ?
Every person wants the other person to pay for it. Unfortunately, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Obviously you never heard of diminishing marginal utility of income.Few generalizations in the social sciences enjoy such wide-ranging support as that of diminishing marginal utility of income. Put simply, this proposition states that the effect on subjective well-being of a $1,000 increase in real income becomes progressively smaller the higher the initial level of income. As the quotations above attest, distinguished scholars in psychology, sociology, economics, and political science who have made major contributions to the study of subjective well-being concur on this assertion.
Its policy appeal is great, because it implies that raising the income of poor people or poor countries will raise their well being considerably, while an increase of equal amount for the rich will have comparatively little effect (see, for example, the last two quotations above and Garhammer 2002, 219).
http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~easterl/papers/DimMargUtil.pdf
If I am rich like the Ministers, I am more than willing to donate 90% of my income to charity.
So, continue in your selfish greedy ways, leave the poor, destitute, old and handicapped to die by the streets. I have nothing to say about your character.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Can you go and read focal's post first ?? Geesh !
If you keep increasing the tax rate of the rich, you will eventually get to a point when the net income will not be very far off from each.
Look, I used to think like you. When I was really poor.
I want the rich to pay for my welfare, I want the rich to pay for my everything. And no I don't want to pay for shyt. Why ? Because I am poor, and so I am under priviledged.
Now that I worked my way up the income scale.. you think I care to give away a big chunk of my hard earned money to someone just to close the income gap ?
It's all relative.
But like I said, the welfare system needs to be set up to support the needy. Without overly penalizing the rich.
Like my friend who is a Canadian, he left his country to go work somewhere else because he can no longer tolerate the high income tax rate in Canada.
This is real life, this is how it works. There's no running away from it.
I don't find anything wrong with his post, it's compassionate, unlike the selfish you, only wish to pay less taxes because you are rich. Shame on you.Originally posted by Hyperfocal:
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.
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.
If you find the tax system in Russia, Latvia, Mongolia, Slovenia, etc works for you, then by all means go ahead and emigrate there, nobody's stopping you.
We won't miss you. Serious.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
I don't find anything wrong with his post, it's compassionate, unlike the selfish you, only wish to pay less taxes because you are rich. Shame on you.Lazy people are always very compassionate when it comes to giving excuses for their own failure
-
Did he go a bit further saying that he is the answer the way the law the religion and the God?
LOL
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
If I am rich like the Ministers, I am more than willing to donate 90% of my income to charity.
So, continue in your selfish greedy ways, leave the poor, destitute, old and handicapped to die by the streets. I have nothing to say about your character.
So they say " Talk is Cheap". How very true.
Wait till you really get rich first, then you come tell us you very generous ok ?
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
So they say " Talk is Cheap". How very true.
Wait till you really get rich first, then you come tell us you very generous ok ?
Ok. -
He has better learnt the lesson to mind his own business. He is in no position to talk about western democracy.
-
Come on people, you guys really think that western democracy is totally perfect?
Russia did experienced a rather westernised democracy shortly after the collaspe of the USSR. And guess what happened next? Their lives and economy collaspe even further.
Russia is STILL recovering from the chaos in the 90s, and it is only when Putin came to power, did russia manage to get some sort of control.
And the opposition in russia that the western media like so much is a joke...there is people supporting the return of monarchy which is disliked by many russians to neo-nazis.
-
Originally posted by ray245:
Come on people, you guys really think that western democracy is totally perfect?
Russia did experienced a rather westernised democracy shortly after the collaspe of the USSR. And guess what happened next? Their lives and economy collaspe even further.
Russia is STILL recovering from the chaos in the 90s, and it is only when Putin came to power, did russia manage to get some sort of control.
And the opposition in russia that the western media like so much is a joke...there is people supporting the return of monarchy which is disliked by many russians to neo-nazis.
You may want to check out the book "Democracy Derailed in Russia-The Failure of Open Politics" by M. Steven Fish
http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521618960
-
Originally posted by ray245:
Come on people, you guys really think that western democracy is totally perfect?
Russia did experienced a rather westernised democracy shortly after the collaspe of the USSR. And guess what happened next? Their lives and economy collaspe even further.
Russia is STILL recovering from the chaos in the 90s, and it is only when Putin came to power, did russia manage to get some sort of control.
And the opposition in russia that the western media like so much is a joke...there is people supporting the return of monarchy which is disliked by many russians to neo-nazis.
Oh give me a break kiddy!So you think dictatorship is superior to democracy?
Maybe you should widen your horizons by reading Animal Farm and 1984.
So was Putin a dictator like Mussolini, Hitler, Saddam Hussein and Kim il-Sung?
I am not surprised with the support for return to Tsardom, many fallen dictatorship in Asia fall prey to such naive individuals too. Many still think that a return of Suharto, Marcos and Saddam Hussein will solve their ills. No matter how bad a dictatorship is, it will still benefit certain segments of the population. Like the policies of Saddam in Iraq where he marginalised the Shi'ite, cause genocide amongst the Kurds, while elevating the Sunnis.
Domestic conflict impeded Saddam's modernizing projects. Iraqi society is divided along lines of language, religion and ethnicity; Saddam's government rested on the support of the 20% minority of largely working class, peasant, and lower middle class Sunnis, continuing a pattern that dates back at least to the British mandate authority's reliance on them as administrators.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Actually LKY may be right about western styled democracy not suitable . Remembered something Kim Dae Jung wrote about his comment on asia and western concepts. lol!
It may be true to a certain extent, but even when we join both the Washington Consensus and the Beijing Consensus to come up with a developmental doctrine that has the best of both the liberal and conservative elements of statehood and growth, there's still an unavoidable line to be drawn on certain non-negotiable universal values.
-
Originally posted by Aelop:
Lazy people are always very compassionate when it comes to giving excuses for their own failure
The truly successful are the ones in a position to feel compassion, because they don't have to slog their lives to make marginal returns.
-
Democracy is not a single event that cure all ills. Transition from one form of government to a Democracy is a process, a long process extending to the decades.
-
Originally posted by LazerLordz:
The truly successful are the ones in a position to feel compassion, because they don't have to slog their lives to make marginal returns.
If I were the one who has past business dealings with the Marcos or Suharto regime, I too would feel sympathetic towards them and long for a return to their rule where I have an unfair advantage over the rest.