Energy should not be subsidised?
-
Originally posted by DeerHunter:
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!
repost from another thread by me.
PS: Anyone who wishes to argue that tax is not a subsidy or subsidy is not tax, you are free to challenge me and let me convince your stubborn thick confused head. And if anyone else wish to argue that what i had presented was petrol tax, what about electrical tarrifs? Read my following post - another repost.
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!
Simple economics would say that petrol is a good with an inelastic demand, and this is especially so in the short run.
And thus for inelastic goods, cutting taxes or increasing subsidies or increasing/decreasing prices or vice versa, would not result in much change in quantity demanded. However, a small change in quantity demanded would however result in a more than proportional change in price. People will still have to travel somehow.
That aside, we all know that the main reason for oil prices is speculations. It's a great wakeup call to governments to divert resources into alternative energy sources.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
Simple economics would say that petrol is a good with an inelastic demand, and this is especially so in the short run.
And thus for inelastic goods, cutting taxes or increasing subsidies or increasing/decreasing prices or vice versa, would not result in much change in quantity demanded. However, a small change in quantity demanded would however result in a more than proportional change in price. People will still have to travel somehow.
That aside, we all know that the main reason for oil prices is speculations. It's a great wakeup call to governments to divert resources into alternative energy sources.
We are too dependant on oil, that's why we are being held hostage by OPEC and speculators. -
oil will replenish in 50 years time
-
I still think no matter how good is science, no matte how good is the whatever osmosis or filteration of the water... I still think the water is not 100% clean because there are just somethings that cannot be filtered out. the other thing is that looking at the state of the authority/bodies doing their work, can we trust them to do even their due dilligence? Mas escape, 2 criminal walked out of the court, fly to destination country using wrong passport etc. Are we even sure the "inspectors" checking the water is doing it correctly or just faking data? The only thing that seem to be done is when a fine is associated like checking for mosquito because that one has a heavy fine imposed so the inspectors are very garang.
-
Oil onshore will replenish in 10 years time including Brunei but offshore is everyone guess but cost is very very expensive.
Do u know which country has the more onshore oil?
-
The previous debate in 2005 certainly proved that 'stupid-is-not-necessarily-smart.
The question - "Did Singaporeans asked for fuel subsidy ?" - was not about whether the TS is a Singaporean.
Did I insult or demean u in any way in tis thread ? No. So lets keep it tat way.
The thread starter wanted fuel subsidy and tat is his intention.
Tax is to take money from the people.
Subsidy to from the government to help absorb part of the bill to the people.
Tat is technically correct however other than the derivative the bottomline is the same.
Subsidy uses money from the budget. Less tax uses money from the budget.
How in your brilliant "smart-stupidity" do you intend to convince anyone that without taking the money from the people - {i.e. no tax} - the government has subsidised fuel ?
If they do not tax fuel, the government is already getting their surplus tax revenue on every big and small economic activities through an all enveloping 7% GST.
Can you confirm that the 7% GST is also levied on the fuel that car owners purchase in Singapore - which means that the 7% GST is applied onto a fuel sales price that has a Government fuel tax already in it ?
u felt singapore tax u too much. Tat is a point tat can be argue but we leave it out of the picture first.
How do you intend to distribute wealth, when the poor is also made to pay for the fuel taxes that a rich businessman pays - by passing it into the costs of the goods sold to the poor ?
Well, first thing is it helps people taking public transport (often the poorer people) since they uses less fuel. The people with their cars pay more, people with cars with bigger cc pays more and people with sports car will be worst off. It encourage people to use public transport which uses less fuel.
Industries uses a lot of fuel or the most fuel and they will pass it down to consumer who buys then. But in todays competitive market, they will also try to cut down on wastage and fuel as well and tis is a good sign. On the consumer side, u really have to pay for the increase price of goods. However u really uses tis good. It is better than me, not using tis good at all and subsidised your spending by giving fuel incentives.
-
oxymoron.
-
Originally posted by DeerHunter:
Look, I sincerly empathise with those who are hit hard by the energy crisis. Even if we were to take public transport, cut down the amount of cars and buses, or save electricity, the fact is, oil will still not drop, or drop to significant levels.
Because oil is a commodity heavily used for industrialization. Factories, manufacturing, and shipments rely on it. The only real way oil will be go down is to STOP buying consumer goods altogether! But it would not be realistic, hell no, not even me would give up on my new hp or HDTV.
We need alternative energy research. And rather than to bitch and moan and blame everyone else under the sun, lets think positively - sustainable approach.
Oil prices will continue to rise as economies get more affluent and demand for better manufactured consumer goods. Much of oil costs will be added to the costings and passed on to us. Thus, if we want a certain lifestyle, then we best be prepared to pay more for it, AT OUR OWN EXPENSE AND NOT OUR FELLOW CITIZEN'S EXPENSE, thru the cries for subsidies and tax cuts.
Either we learn to accept reality and live within our means or we make everyone else pay for our selfish desire of materialism.
Minister Teo Chee Hean has just spoken on TV (CNA) last week that the government will try to present its policies in a more in-depth approach taking into account people's problems and their feedbacks instead of adopting always a carot and stick approach which cause offences to people.
I suppose you the dearhunter will now realize that your calling people slanderers or selfish for materialism in so many posts is typical of such holier-than-thou carrot and stick approach that cause offence and it is better you answer to TCH and change. This post may be cc to TCH.
-
Originally posted by robertteh:
Minister Teo Chee Hean has just spoken on TV (CNA) last week that the government will try to present its policies in a more in-depth approach taking into account people's problems and their feedbacks instead of adopting always a carot and stick approach which cause offences to people.
I suppose you the dearhunter will now realize that your calling people slanderers or selfish for materialism in so many posts is typical of such holier-than-thou carrot and stick approach that cause offence and it is better you answer to TCH and change. This post may be cc to TCH.
Lol!. Have i gotten under your skin so much you now need to threaten me? By all means, cc all you want, because it would be worse for you, for all the slanders you made against our govt. I will be more than happy you do it. Saves me the trouble. And let you incriminate the rest here for their slanderous views.
Robertteh, you are a wimp! And I challenge you. Don't back down now.
-
Originally posted by DeerHunter:
Lol!. Have i gotten under your skin so much you now need to threaten me? By all means, cc all you want, because it would be worse for you, for all the slanders you made against our govt. I will be more than happy you do it. Saves me the trouble. And let you incriminate the rest here for their slanderous views.
Robertteh, you are a wimp! And I challenge you. Don't back down now.
Dear Hunter,
I am not threatening anyone but am commenting on a fact about your calling people slanderers and alleging all sorts of things against critics who are loyal citizens willing to spend time to ask for better governing of the country.
Let this be my point of view and let it be heard by anyone you like. I will stand by what I said as well as posted in The PAP Poem in response to your calling me nutcase etc.
Actually, in case you do not know, I have written to all the MPs and Ministers of my many posts and I expect you to convey my very critical posts to them.
I have also written to youngpap and quite a number of MPs asking for invitation to take part in PAP internal policy debates.
If PAP is so good and so open and accountable, why be afraid to invite me to do so?
-
Originally posted by robertteh:
Dear Hunter,
I am not threatening anyone but am commenting on a fact about your calling people slanderers and alleging all sorts of things against critics who are loyal citizens willing to spend time to ask for better governing of the country.
Let this be my point of view and let it be heard by anyone you like. I will stand by what I said as well as posted in The PAP Poem in response to your calling me nutcase etc.
Actually, in case you do not know, I have written to all the MPs and Ministers of my many posts and I expect you to convey my very critical posts to them.
I have also written to youngpap and quite a number of MPs asking for invitation to take part in PAP internal policy debates.
If PAP is so good and so open and accountable, why be afraid to invite me to do so?
Many times, i had told everyone here i have no links to the ruling party and what i had posted are my own views which i will answer with full responsibility and accountability for myself.
At no time does it reflect the official views held by the authorities, even if some of which may bear resemblances, of which is only because of basing on facts provided and publish in open sources such as the media and official sources, and used as references.
However, you and some others here chosed not to believe, of which i have no control over.
And i will standby what i had said and call you a nutcase, based on my perception of what you had wrote that are without understanding of the rationale behind policies used, as well as the slanders you made against our elected officials which are not based on facts or even reasons/prima facie.
IF, and i said with a big if, you are hoping to stir resentment with such posts of yours to recruit followers to your cause and create civil disobedience, I, as a private citizen will never allow you to do harm to my fellow citizens and cause them to appear in courts with their futures disgraced, for your ambitions.
As for your dreams of being invited for internal policy debates, my solution to you is - serve the people by grassroots first, as early as your junior college days, and prove you can serve them well, or get elected first.
The piece of paper you have, the notes you written, proves nothing. Our govt believes in action, and action that helps and solves our citizens woe, not add to them and certainly not just based on words alone. You better get that right in between your ears.
I hope this post satisfies you. I await your cc to TCH. Don't hope to twist and turn your way out of this one with words, the way Atobe does, or is she your disciple?
-
Originally posted by mistyblue:
Some people are saying that the newwater mixed into our tap water is cauing the current spade of young people to die from heart issues because there are compounds in the new water that cannot be removed and are causing heart issues. No sure true or not but even if its true, we will never know as our media is state controlled mah.
Oil price shooting up again ... Sigh. When will this end.
This brought to mind of Erin Brokovich who persistently dug and dug and the truth came out. But in Singapore hor, no one as brave as Erin leh
-
Originally posted by DeerHunter:
Many times, i had told everyone here i have no links to the ruling party and what i had posted are my own views which i will answer with full responsibility and accountability for myself.
At no time does it reflect the official views held by the authorities, even if some of which may bear resemblances, of which is only because of basing on facts provided and publish in open sources such as the media and official sources, and used as references.
However, you and some others here chosed not to believe, of which i have no control over.
And i will standby what i had said and call you a nutcase, based on my perception of what you had wrote that are without understanding of the rationale behind policies used, as well as the slanders you made against our elected officials which are not based on facts or even reasons/prima facie.
IF, and i said with a big if, you are hoping to stir resentment with such posts of yours to recruit followers to your cause and create civil disobedience, I, as a private citizen will never allow you to do harm to my fellow citizens and cause them to appear in courts with their futures disgraced, for your ambitions.
As for your dreams of being invited for internal policy debates, my solution to you is - serve the people by grassroots first, as early as your junior college days, and prove you can serve them well, or get elected first.
The piece of paper you have, the notes you written, proves nothing. Our govt believes in action, and action that helps and solves our citizens woe, not add to them and certainly not just based on words alone. You better get that right in between your ears.
I hope this post satisfies you. I await your cc to TCH. Don't hope to twist and turn your way out of this one with words, the way Atobe does, or is she your disciple?
If you are an independent forumer who happens to support PAP or government policies as stated in your post, then you do not get so agitated by calling them names like slanderers and nutcase for there will be plain discussions about topics of interests in the public forums being the only venue left for airing of views on government.
If you are indeed independent you need not be so emotional or carried away with such name calling all over the place.
-
Originally posted by robertteh:
If you are an independent forumer who happens to support PAP or government policies as stated in your post, then you do not get so agitated by calling them names like slanderers and nutcase for there will be plain discussions about topics of interests in the public forums being the only venue left for airing of views on government.
If you are indeed independent you need not be so emotional or carried away with such name calling all over the place.
Do not, do not, attempt to tell me what i can or cannot do. I practice freedom of speech, and excercise my right to name you and your kind by the EVIDENCES potrayed right in front of this public forum's eyes.
There is a difference between freedom of speech and freedom to slander. There is no issue with criticising the govt, at times due to ignorances or naivety. The issue is when one slanders against the govt without any evidence or fact, such as you and your kind loves to do.
I respect Erin, because she dug and use evidences to bring her case up, wherelse people like your kind dont at all, but to slander against innocent people.
You would be better off telling your kind to stop their slanders. It is not freedom of speech they are excercising. It is something no civilisation on Earth will allow.
-
DeerHunter:
Exercise of the freedom of speech is just and good, however do temper it with excercise of freedom of expression. Differing views will exist, and the SDP/PAP/WP divide has become gapingly wide. Mudslinging is just...... wrong....
-
Originally posted by DeerHunter:
Do not, do not, attempt to tell me what i can or cannot do. I practice freedom of speech, and excercise my right to name you and your kind by the EVIDENCES potrayed right in front of this public forum's eyes.
There is a difference between freedom of speech and freedom to slander. There is no issue with criticising the govt, at times due to ignorances or naivety. The issue is when one slanders against the govt without any evidence or fact, such as you and your kind loves to do.
I respect Erin, because she dug and use evidences to bring her case up, wherelse people like your kind dont at all, but to slander against innocent people.
You would be better off telling your kind to stop their slanders. It is not freedom of speech they are excercising. It is something no civilisation on Earth will allow.
Who determines truth, lies, slandering, nutcase, and all the expletives you are using here? Does the government determine all these?
If the government is to determine who is a liar or slanderer then why do we still need a judiciary.
If we have a judiciary why do we need to influence or tell the judiciary what to do and what to decide.
Why not be confident of our own judiciary and let the judges decide instead of pre-empting judgment by all sorts of fear tactics and such-like utterances like what you are posting here as if all the judges have no abilities or standards of their own to decide.
-
I have also written to youngpap and quite a number of MPs asking for invitation to take part in PAP internal policy debates.
If PAP is so good and so open and accountable, why be afraid to invite me to do so?
Just wanted to bring out tis point... when the CO's of the army have a meeting, they do not ask the cook and the clerk to attend as well. This is because there may be some secrets tat is best kept confidential. When the CEO of a company have a meeting, they do not allow all shareholders, like a minor shareholder, to attend all the meeting too. Tis is because it is time consuming, potentially disrupting and decisions cannot be made.
Is it because they r afraid of u ? I think in a meeting, it is logical for the relevant people to attend while the irrelevant people not to attend.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Just wanted to bring out tis point... when the CO's of the army have a meeting, they do not ask the cook and the clerk to attend as well. This is because there may be some secrets tat is best kept confidential. When the CEO of a company have a meeting, they do not allow all shareholders, like a minor shareholder, to attend all the meeting too. Tis is because it is time consuming, potentially disrupting and decisions cannot be made.
Is it because they r afraid of u ? I think in a meeting, it is logical for the relevant people to attend while the irrelevant people not to attend.
What if the meeting is just a meeting on critique of major government policies among say youngpap members?
What if the meeting is just one held to re-examine right or wrong of policies like ERP or rising costs of living or doing business or HDB's claim of subsidy of low-cost housing.
It is only when there is something to hide the leaders dare not face the public scrutiny like I am asking.
-
What if the meeting is just a meeting on critique of major government policies among say youngpap members?
then u should be a young pap member. a KFC club meeting should not involve macdonald club members
What if the meeting is just one held to re-examine right or wrong of policies like ERP or rising costs of living or doing business or HDB's claim of subsidy of low-cost housing.
Now who r the people in the meeting ? Someone had to make decisions and not everyone like them. If everybody can attend these meeting then no decisions can ever be made
It is only when there is something to hide the leaders dare not face the public scrutiny like I am asking.
Well, they do declare the decision of ERP rate and subsidy of low cost housing publicly. But when the relevant department has their meeting, i don't see why they have to ask any body interested to join.
-
Originally posted by robertteh:
Who determines truth, lies, slandering, nutcase, and all the expletives you are using here? Does the government determine all these?
If the government is to determine who is a liar or slanderer then why do we still need a judiciary.
If we have a judiciary why do we need to influence or tell the judiciary what to do and what to decide.
Why not be confident of our own judiciary and let the judges decide instead of pre-empting judgment by all sorts of fear tactics and such-like utterances like what you are posting here as if all the judges have no abilities or standards of their own to decide.
Who determines truth, lies, slandering, nutcase, and all the expletives you are using here? Does the government determine all these?
In a forum, each determined as each see fit, base on EVIDENCES you and your kind show or the lack of evidences on an accusation thrown forth, blockhead!.
If the government is to determine who is a liar or slanderer then why do we still need a judiciary.
Stop! You blockheaded nutcase! The govt doesnt just accuse anyone of anything without any basis in open public. But it is still within the right of anyone to sue them for defamation in a court of law. If they don't wish to excercise that right, no one else is to be blamed except themselves, perhaps that accusation is true? .
If we have a judiciary why do we need to influence or tell the judiciary what to do and what to decide.
You slanderous nutcase! Here you go accusing our judiciary of non-independence.
Why not be confident of our own judiciary and let the judges decide instead of pre-empting judgment by all sorts of fear tactics and such-like utterances like what you are posting here as if all the judges have no abilities or standards of their own to decide.
You slander our independent judiciary again. You are not only a nutcase, you are absolutely and totally a blockhead. You certainly won't ever get an invite anywhere, let alone even for a men's night out for beers.
-
Originally posted by robertteh:
What if the meeting is just a meeting on critique of major government policies among say youngpap members?
What if the meeting is just one held to re-examine right or wrong of policies like ERP or rising costs of living or doing business or HDB's claim of subsidy of low-cost housing.
It is only when there is something to hide the leaders dare not face the public scrutiny like I am asking.
It is only when there is something to hide the leaders dare not face the public scrutiny like I am asking.
Just because YOU are not invited for policy discussion, there is something to hide by leaders?
Oh please! YOU DELUDED FOOL! Who the hell do you think you are? With due respects to the others reading, I will attempt to keep my bile down - citizens will always be encouraged to participate, but only responsible citizens, even if they hold differing views. But in the case of you Blockhead, no sane responsible organisation would ever invite you for constructive engagement, if your irresponsible and ridiculous accusations on your postings here is anything to judge by!
-
Originally posted by DeerHunter:
Who determines truth, lies, slandering, nutcase, and all the expletives you are using here? Does the government determine all these?
In a forum, each determined as each see fit, base on EVIDENCES you and your kind show or the lack of evidences on an accusation thrown forth, blockhead!.
I repeat what I have said before, who determine the truth? If you are so neutral and independent why not leave well alone and let people decide on criticisms of government policies? Why become so emotional and call people names all over the forum like what you have been doing?
If you asked others to sue you in some courts where the judges were not appointed by or with the consent of the government, fine. If the judges are appointed by or with the consent of the government, how do you expect the judges to be independent especially in political defamation suits. Think. Use your head.
If the government is to determine who is a liar or slanderer then why do we still need a judiciary.
Stop! You blockheaded nutcase! The govt doesnt just accuse anyone of anything without any basis in open public. But it is still within the right of anyone to sue them for defamation in a court of law. If they don't wish to excercise that right, no one else is to be blamed except themselves, perhaps that accusation is true? .
You disclaimed your connection to the government or the ruling party yet from the way you are issuing challenge to sue how do you expect credibility of your disclaimer.
If we have a judiciary why do we need to influence or tell the judiciary what to do and what to decide.
You slanderous nutcase! Here you go accusing our judiciary of non-independence.
Yes, I may be a nutcase what case have you with all these slanderings?
Why not be confident of our own judiciary and let the judges decide instead of pre-empting judgment by all sorts of fear tactics and such-like utterances like what you are posting here as if all the judges have no abilities or standards of their own to decide.
You slander our independent judiciary again. You are not only a nutcase, you are absolutely and totally a blockhead. You certainly won't ever get an invite anywhere, let alone even for a men's night out for beers.
I am not slandering anyone but am only pointing out that in a country where judges are appointed with or by the consent of the executive government the judiciary cannot hope to be independent. Prove me wrong if you are neutral and independent with logics and rationale.
-
Yes, but there are good points and bad points about the PAP. Although the bad is quite significant now, they are still keeping our country in order right?
And by talking here to express our feelings, we are not hurting anyone.
So what about burying the hachet?
-
Originally posted by Beautiful951:
Yes, but there are good points and bad points about the PAP. Although the bad is quite significant now, they are still keeping our country in order right?
And by talking here to express our feelings, we are not hurting anyone.
So what about burying the hachet?
You are so right - there are good points and bad points about PAP.
I for one have acknowledged this it many times before. However apart from initial success for the past 20 plus years the whole governing system has been dominated by taxing, hoarding monies and profiteering.
Look at HDB making double on lands falsely claiming subsidy of public housing. Look at vehicle taxes, how many times do you have to tax people for driving a vehicle and how many times do you have to increase fees and charges on basic medicare, public transportation, utilities etc. which should have been funded out of taxes paid.
Look at the families whose income is $1000 pm. After paying 60 % of income towards basic necessities how much is left for meals and necessities. What kind of government is this? Is this a caring governent still working in the interest of the people.
-
Originally posted by DeerHunter:
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.
Is this what your audience get for your 99% perspiration, and 1% inspiration - a piece of perspiration soaked work designed from inside your $27 garbage bin ?
Can a juvenile know the difference between "Taxes", ”Subsidies” and “Tax Subsidies”. ?
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.
Have you not been able to track each of the dollar collected from the fuel tax that is used to pay for the "Million Dollar" crutch that this government need to prevent corruption in their ranks ?
For your 99% perspiration in coming up with $333.2 million from fuel tax alone - did you conveniently leave out the 7% GST on the total value of 1,666 litres of fuel purchased by your 500,000 cars ?
Even without the 25% fuel tax, do you know what is the Annual GST collection in 2007 alone ?
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).
If Singaporeans had left the tax structures to the 1% inspiration of a 'dearHunter', SGP would have been a busted country by now.
Unfortunately, Singaporeans have been burdened by a Government working with 99% inspiration to tax Singaporeans with only 1% perspiration.
The Fuel Tax of 25% is only a very small part of the 5.1% Customs & Excise Tax - and your $333.2 million will form only a Fraction of the TOTAL Government Operating Revenue of $39.5 Billion, do you think that the Government will miss your fuel tax of $333.2 million ?
The 7% GST on every economic transaction contribute14.2% to the Gross Government Operating Revenue - and has seen a rise of 42% in collections for Year 2007 to a new high of $5.6 Billion.
Try educating yourself with your 99% perspiration from the “Economic Survey 2007 - Singapore”. You may wish to zip to Page 42 - {or Pg 48 of 239 PDF document}.
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.
With your 1% inspiration, you can try your best - to work it out with your 99% perspiration - in convincing Singaporeans that taking 7% GST from their pockets is a Government subsidy to their expenditures.
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.
How much more uninspired can you get with your 1% inspiration ?
Are Singaporeans not the natural resources for this Government ?
How else do you think that this Government can accumulate $300 Billion in our national reserves - if not from their 99% inspired tax schemes ?
Can we expect a 'dearHunter' with a 1% inspired imagination to appreciate the 99% inspired tax scheme of this government ?
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.
If such taxes are not crippling, why is a 'dearHunter' taking refuge in a $27 garbage bin ? Surely, with 99% perspiration you could have made it into a bigger dump truck ?
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!
How can a 'dearHunter' with a 1% inspired vision appreciate what others can do with or without the tax being lifted ?
As matters stand, fuel tax has not been lifted and crude oil prices are shooting through the roof - even as countries are withdrawing the government fuel subsidies in their genuine form {not in the form as falsely put forward by this Government, and repeated without thinking by their lackeys }.
repost from another thread by me.
PS: Anyone who wishes to argue that tax is not a subsidy or subsidy is not tax, you are free to challenge me and let me convince your stubborn thick confused head. And if anyone else wish to argue that what i had presented was petrol tax, what about electrical tarrifs? Read my following post - another repost.
With a wilfull insistence of a juvenile to believe that the World is flat - does anyone need to compete with a foolish ‘dearHunter’ to continue flattening the World with his 99% perspiring effort ?
From the dearHunter's annals of stupendously clever lines:
Originally posted by DeerHunter: 27 Jun'08 5.51PM "Latest: Mr LKY's wife critically ill"It was not easy. I am from the old school of success - 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. It's not about just working smart, but working hard, even now.