A tax/duty can be used as a cushion.
When the price of oil goes up, they should cut the duty!
Why they can apply this theory on companies when they charge firms and cut the tax in difficult times, but not do the same for fuel?
But then.......there's the public transport, which is clearly inadequete for any increase in passengers.
So once again, it boils down to cheng hu.
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:A tax/duty can be used as a cushion.
When the price of oil goes up, they should cut the duty!
Why they can apply this theory on companies when they charge firms and cut the tax in difficult times, but not do the same for fuel?
But then.......there's the public transport, which is clearly inadequete for any increase in passengers.
So once again, it boils down to cheng hu.
If someone runs the government as a business their sole motive would be profits and not the welfare of her citizens.
Businesses only worry about their bottom line, always having profits and not losses.
Originally posted by maurizio13:
If someone runs the government as a business their sole motive would be profits and not the welfare of her citizens.
Businesses only worry about their bottom line, always having profits and not losses.
It only proves one thing: The govt is dumb.
And the opposition is probably dumber with a few brilliant people saddled with idiots.
However, running a govt is indeed like running a business, a fiscal deficit is not exactly desirable, although it is proven that it is not exactly harmful unless it is prolonged.
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
It only proves one thing: The govt is dumb.And the opposition is probably dumber with a few brilliant people saddled with idiots.
However, running a govt is indeed like running a business, a fiscal deficit is not exactly desirable, although it is proven that it is not exactly harmful unless it is prolonged.
There is a difference between a business' desire to obtain "supernormal profits" and a government maintaining a balanced budget or a slight deficit or slight surplus.
The government's tax here is distributed from taxes to high public service charges.
Most of the surplus here is a result of overtaxing and over charging of public services.
Of course the over charging of public services doesn't show up on the government's budget, it shows up in Temasek and GIC balance sheet, which the government has kept secret.
You claim that the opposition party members are dumb. Maybe you can cite one to two dozen, since you said only afew are capable? Share with us the reason(s) why you consider them dumb.
subsidise... from a privilege, it would slowly end up become a right
and those $$.... it could have been used for projects like road infrastructure, it's end up wasted on subsidising... It's no surprise why M'sia is still underdeveloped when they're subsidising more than spending money on public projects
Instead of able to talk abt super profits, we're going to end up become kampung kids
Originally posted by sbst275:subsidise... from a privilege, it would slowly end up become a right
and those $$.... it could have been used for projects like road infrastructure, it's end up wasted on subsidising... It's no surprise why M'sia is still underdeveloped when they're subsidising more than spending money on public projects
Instead of able to talk abt super profits, we're going to end up become kampung kids
do you understand the meaning of "subsidy" and a petrol "tax" sparring?
subsidy is when something cost $1 in the markets, but you subsidise $0.20 to make it cheaper.
whereas taxing is when the cost of petrol is $1.00, you tax it with $0.40 to make it more expensive.
right now the citizens are not asking for subsidy, they are asking for the government to estoppel the petrol tax.
can you differentiate it now?
aren't we glad you are not the finance minister, you will probably tax anything and everything that is stationery or moves.
Originally posted by maurizio13:
do you understand the meaning of "subsidy" and a petrol "tax" sparring?subsidy is when something cost $1 in the markets, but you subsidise $0.20 to make it cheaper.
whereas taxing is when the cost of petrol is $1.00, you tax it with $0.40 to make it more expensive.
right now the citizens are not asking for subsidy, they are asking for the government to estoppel the petrol tax.
can you differentiate it now?
petrol tax?
has it increased over e years?
Originally posted by maurizio13:
There is a difference between a business' desire to obtain "supernormal profits" and a government maintaining a balanced budget or a slight deficit or slight surplus.
The government's tax here is distributed from taxes to high public service charges.
Most of the surplus here is a result of overtaxing and over charging of public services.
Of course the over charging of public services doesn't show up on the government's budget, it shows up in Temasek and GIC balance sheet, which the government has kept secret.
You claim that the opposition party members are dumb. Maybe you can cite one to two dozen, since you said only afew are capable? Share with us the reason(s) why you consider them dumb.
That's simple.
If you can't defeat a dumb govt, you must either be dumber or out of luck and ideas.
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
That's simple.If you can't defeat a dumb govt, you must either be dumber or out of luck and ideas.
Don't think it's that simple, especially if you have the media, guns and laws at your beck and call.
Media to brainwash the intellectually feebled.
Laws to curtail the cowards.
Guns to control the brave.
It's a full proof plan, many of us would be caught up in these 3 circumstances.
Needless to say, the worse off are those that are restricted by the media, because they are foolish enough to believe the lies that they spread on the newspaper and TV.
if it has not increased over e past few years... simply I can tell you, wake up to reality... the change to adapt in e high fuel prices era has to start from oneself
dun whole day kpkb abt asking govt to reduce tis and tat... when talk abt PAP not willing to change, you yourself isn't willing to change your lifestyle to brace for tis period either
Originally posted by sbst275:petrol tax?
has it increased over e years?
I thought you had a problem understanding the meaning of a "tax" and a "subsidy".
Did I mention anything about petrol tax increases? Do quote me.
Are you putting words in my mouth because you lost the argument for "tax" and "subsidy"?
Originally posted by sbst275:if it has not increased over e past few years... simply I can tell you, wake up to reality... the change to adapt in e high fuel prices era has to start from oneself
dun whole day kpkb abt asking govt to reduce tis and tat... when talk abt PAP not willing to change, you yourself isn't willing to change your lifestyle to brace for tis period either
you should learn to differentiate between a "tax" and a "subsidy" first before you talk about anything else.
a tax and a subsidy are worlds apart.
if you have problems understanding these 2 simple words, what else is there to talk about. how can you ever understand more complex issues?
Originally posted by sbst275:if it has not increased over e past few years... simply I can tell you, wake up to reality... the change to adapt in e high fuel prices era has to start from oneself
dun whole day kpkb abt asking govt to reduce tis and tat... when talk abt PAP not willing to change, you yourself isn't willing to change your lifestyle to brace for tis period either
Your argument is flawed. As mentioned, there is a vast difference between a subsidy and tax.
Secondly, the petrol tax is, as the government put it, meant to "curtail Singaporeans' excessive usage of petrol." However, times are different now. With sky-rocketing prices and coupled with the ERPs etc, Singaporeans are already readjusting their driving habits. Many are cutting down on their driving mileage.
So tell me, what are the uses for petrol tax now? Are the government inflexible by insisting on the petrol tax? Why can't the government lessen our citizens' financial burden when times are hard?
Originally posted by Spartans:
Your argument is flawed. As mentioned, there is a vast difference between a subsidy and tax.Secondly, the petrol tax is, as the government put it, meant to "curtail Singaporeans' excessive usage of petrol." However, times are different now. With sky-rocketing prices and coupled with the ERPs etc, Singaporeans are already readjusting their driving habits. Many are cutting down on their driving mileage.
So tell me, what are the uses for petrol tax now? Are the government inflexible by insisting on the petrol tax? Why can't the government lessen our citizens' financial burden when times are hard?
a reduction in petrol tax won't even touch the reserves, it just means that this year the government will be getting less surplus, it doesn't even mean a budget deficit for the government.
but the government is reluctant to have less profits, they always want more and more.
Originally posted by maurizio13:
a reduction in petrol tax won't even touch the reserves, it just means that this year the government will be getting less surplus, it doesn't even mean a budget deficit for the government.but the government is reluctant to have less profits, they always want more and more.
I will not go to the extent of calling them greedy. However, I feel that they are rather inflexible. And they have lost touch with the ordinary Singaporeans.
Originally posted by sbst275:if it has not increased over e past few years... simply I can tell you, wake up to reality... the change to adapt in e high fuel prices era has to start from oneself
dun whole day kpkb abt asking govt to reduce tis and tat... when talk abt PAP not willing to change, you yourself isn't willing to change your lifestyle to brace for tis period either
Is your next contention with me going to be, I always argue specific words in the context.
Originally posted by lotus999:who dare ask for subsidise?
when the gahmen want to help the needy they raised the gst from 5% to 7%.
when they want to help us prepare for our old age they make it mandatory for us to buy annuity.
we are made to pay and pay when the gahmen "offer to help" us.
It is still unknown if the increase in 2% GST is channelled to help the poor. The ruling party is so fond of using money to solve almost every problem, easy job for them and they get paid million $ salary.
Originally posted by Spartans:
Your argument is flawed. As mentioned, there is a vast difference between a subsidy and tax.Secondly, the petrol tax is, as the government put it, meant to "curtail Singaporeans' excessive usage of petrol." However, times are different now. With sky-rocketing prices and coupled with the ERPs etc, Singaporeans are already readjusting their driving habits. Many are cutting down on their driving mileage.
So tell me, what are the uses for petrol tax now? Are the government inflexible by insisting on the petrol tax? Why can't the government lessen our citizens' financial burden when times are hard?
It was reported on the radio news that last month's rise in inflation has reached record high. The good gahmen can seriously consider to lower or remove the taxes on petrol during this bad time but what are the chance of they doing it?
Originally posted by Civilgoh:It was reported on the radio news that last month's rise in inflation has reached record high. The good gahmen can seriously consider to lower or remove the taxes on petrol during this bad time but what are the chance of they doing it?
Nah... they prefer to increase ERP
Originally posted by eagle:Nah... they prefer to increase ERP
ERP is their powerful money making "machine", sure earn one ah, no loss., more stable than buying shares,ha ha.
Originally posted by maurizio13:
a reduction in petrol tax won't even touch the reserves, it just means that this year the government will be getting less surplus, it doesn't even mean a budget deficit for the government.but the government is reluctant to have less profits, they always want more and more.
I don't think reduction in petrol tax is a good idea.
Rather, they should tax the hell outa the petroleum companies and rechannel the money to develop betta fossil fuel alternatives and infrastructures.
Other countries are thinking of ways to wean themselves off their heavy reliance on fossil oil.
Becoming carbon negative should be their ultimate goal.
Check out this company and what they are doing.
Gahmen wanna claim to be first world.. then start planning like one !!
When does a tax becomes a subsidy?
Ans. When that tax had been around long enough to be depended as revenue to fund social programmes. If without these tax monies, some social programmes may be curtailed or underfunded.
For example:- there are est.500,000 cars in Spore. Straits Times, sat, oct 20, 2007
Avg km/car per year = 20,000km ( 15,000 to 25,000)
litres used = 1,666litres ( base of avg 12km/litre)
Fuel tax received = 1,666 X $0.40cts X 500,000 cars (40cts per litre)
= $333.2 million
These are only rough figures, would be lesser if based on previous years car population.
But still, it is an est $300million tax which is not going into some politician's pocket, but for social funding, such as maintenance of smooth roads, MRT works and projects, traffic lights, road signs, etc, etc, for the other 3million non-car owner citizens who use such roads to go to work, school and recreation.
If we cut away this tax, we will have lost one revenue for such works and will have to dig into our reserves. Thus it becomes our society must subsidize car owners, as they are the heaviest users of our roads ( being that a space 5m long sits only 1 person compared to public transport of 8-10 persons on the same space).
Similarly, GST can be called a subsidy instead of tax, because our cents paid to gst are used to subsidise other citizens for social programmes.
Do remember that we own no natural resources. We don't have any royalties significant enough to collect from. All we have to help our fellow citizens for this generation and the next are taxes, as the previous generation had done.
Such taxes are not crippling, as it is based on free will and not forced. But if all cry out for tax to be removed and give more handouts, then Either we crawl back to Msia for economic support and speak Bahasa Msia or we help one another to maintain our independence and multi-racism.
PS: However, the issue here is that cutting away the tax or subsidy will only help oil price to raise. Simple economics. Although the amount we use is small as compared to heavy users such as China or USA, but if every nation big or small thinks their amounts are insignificant and don't do anything, oil price will continue to climb where no oil price had gone before!
Originally posted by jojobeach:I don't think reduction in petrol tax is a good idea.
Rather, they should tax the hell outa the petroleum companies and rechannel the money to develop betta fossil fuel alternatives and infrastructures.
Other countries are thinking of ways to wean themselves off their heavy reliance on fossil oil.
Becoming carbon negative should be their ultimate goal.
Check out this company and what they are doing.
Gahmen wanna claim to be first world.. then start planning like one !!
It seems that no one in the world can stop the oil hikes except the oil people themselves. So, no government appears to be doing wrong. This leads me to assume that they have nothing to do with price hikes. They appear innocent.
But why is it that oil companies are not taxed more given their revenue sky rocketed?
Is it not true that oil companies revenue sky rocketed? Not true that middleeast people are driving bigger oil guzzling cars now than before?
This world is so full of 'honest' elites.
Hmm...
Is this the 1ooth post?