Originally posted by stupidissmart:As said, the money should be given to people who really need it, not all old folks. If u want to give to all citizens and ensure they can live by tis amount of money, then u have to expect all working to citizen to give a much larger tax. And I believe tis is geenrally not popular. Although old folks do contribute, they also get their own profit especially the rich one. Why should the poor citizen now get taxed more to support the rich folks ? The gov can use means testing for ALL citizen probably by using a computer program. U think it is difficult to find out the means for only old folks ?
1) The definition of worker is to "work". He does not work. Isn't tat already bogus
2) There is such a thing as minimum wages. And it I employ 100 bogus workers, I can claim my company make no profit and do not pay tax. Do u think the Gov (which opposition say tat squeeze everyody dry) will allow such a thing to happen ?
Furthermore your method of cheating the gov is indeed a dishonest means to employ more foreign labourer.
3) The NKF example shows tat giving money to people who do nothing is not an excuse. Do u think Durai can say "I give the contractor money to do nothing" and he will be declare "innocent". For your case, employing people who do nothing is also not an excuse. When u get caught, do u think saying "I employ people to do nothing" stands ?
U mean the one getting no honors can get better job than the first class honours ? Then why people study hard to get first class ? Just face it, if u go to public sector, they already categorized the pay u get depending on the degree u received. Mindset can only help tat much. Only if u r a super pessimistic person then can a change of mindset help. Otherwise no matter how much u think u r the best and get lousy result, u cannot land a good job
Show ya
No, but giving a look is "vague" and shouldn't be classified as a good example of being rude. However u claimed earlier tat majority of the people in the country can be rude (like the french) and they can be rude to tourist which u reply earlier. Why do u think tis is acceptable
As said, the money should be given to people who really need it, not all old folks. If u want to give to all citizens and ensure they can live by tis amount of money, then u have to expect all working to citizen to give a much larger tax. And I believe tis is geenrally not popular. Although old folks do contribute, they also get their own profit especially the rich one. Why should the poor citizen now get taxed more to support the rich folks ? The gov can use means testing for ALL citizen probably by using a computer program. U think it is difficult to find out the means for only old folks ?
"Why should the poor citizen now get taxed more to support the rich folks " - Pls elaborate on how the poor citizen get taxed more.
"The gov can use means testing for ALL citizen probably by using a computer program" - Did you even do programming before?
1) The definition of worker is to "work". He does not work. Isn't tat already bogus
2) There is such a thing as minimum wages. And it I employ 100 bogus workers, I can claim my company make no profit and do not pay tax. Do u think the Gov (which opposition say tat squeeze everyody dry) will allow such a thing to happen ?
Furthermore your method of cheating the gov is indeed a dishonest means to employ more foreign labourer.
1) On paper, you have an employee, not a worker, if you want to be so specific about terms.
2) You mean Singapore has a minimum wage? Show me.
3) You are not even able to show me which law states that such a thing is illegal, and you are telling me that it is cheating. It would be more appropriate to call it exploiting of legal loopholes.
3) The NKF example shows tat giving money to people who do nothing is not an excuse. Do u think Durai can say "I give the contractor money to do nothing" and he will be declare "innocent". For your case, employing people who do nothing is also not an excuse. When u get caught, do u think saying "I employ people to do nothing" stands ?
Till now, you still cannot comprehend the fact that their accounts were already flawed. The records had stated that the contractor was paid to do something. What will the record state here?
U mean the one getting no honors can get better job than the first class honours ? Then why people study hard to get first class ? Just face it, if u go to public sector, they already categorized the pay u get depending on the degree u received. Mindset can only help tat much. Only if u r a super pessimistic person then can a change of mindset help. Otherwise no matter how much u think u r the best and get lousy result, u cannot land a good job
Glad you realised it is the public sector that does this, which is what PAP wants you to believe. There are companies out there who give the same pay no matter what degree you get.
I have a friend who didn't even get an honours in his degree, yet because he can talk extremely well and had an extremely positive mindset, he landed a job a month before graduation, way earlier compared to many other 2nd uppers out there. When you have the right mindset, you will find a way to do it. But when you have the wrong mindset, you wouldn't be looking in the right direction unless luck comes along to guide you.
Show ya
http://www.smu.edu.sg/news_room/press_releases/2008/20080512.asp
http://www.np.edu.sg/HOME/MEDIA/RELEASE/YEAR2008/JAN_MAR/Pages/
http://www.asiaone.com/News/Education/Story/A1Story20080528-67577.html
http://www2.ntu.edu.sg/ClassAct/Jun08/CampusNews/1.htm
All talking about class of 2007, not class of 2008
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2129rank.html
Year 2007. Now is mid 2008.
No, but giving a look is "vague" and shouldn't be classified as a good example of being rude.
You must be very patient then. But this was what you have said:
I have been shown the look before just because I speak english.
And, do you think the same people, if they were working in Singapore, would give you the same "look"?
However u claimed earlier tat majority of the people in the country can be rude (like the french) and they can be rude to tourist which u reply earlier. Why do u think tis is acceptable
Don't put words into my mouth. You said you met a lot more rude pple in Europe than in Singapore, and I replied that you were the minority there, while the pple you met here are the minority, hence you meet them less.
Eagle, still waiting for you to tell us how a company can benefit from employing Singaporeans to do nothing.
Originally posted by Miracles&Prophecies:10 billion dollar can buy them and their family for 7 generations
hello, dude, their agent is asking you to show, show. LKY and family has no problem surviving any where in the world, they are filthy rich.
"Why should the poor citizen now get taxed more to support the rich folks " - Pls elaborate on how the poor citizen get taxed more.
U want me to elaborate ? Sure, no problem. Wat is the proportion of elderly folks in the country ? Lets put is as 10-20% of the population. How much should be given to ensure they can survive ? Lets say $300-400. So if we folloo your advise to give money to the needy elderly, we have to use a lot of money. Money does not drop from trees, they come from tax. And since there r people who r poor and not old, such as the handicapped, they have to pay the tax to support all the old folks. And all the old folks include the very rich people like the ex-boss of CK Tang etc. So aren't u taxing the poor to give to the rich ?
"The gov can use means testing for ALL citizen probably by using a computer program" - Did you even do programming before?
I do programming before. U use database before ? U know how to use the database to filter results ?
1) On paper, you have an employee, not a worker, if you want to be so specific about terms.
2) You mean Singapore has a minimum wage? Show me.
3) You are not even able to show me which law states that such a thing is illegal, and you are telling me that it is cheating. It would be more appropriate to call it exploiting of legal loopholes.
U wanna play with law ? Fine. Lets look at the Employment Act Chapter 91 Section 2 on interpretation
"employee" means a person who has entered into or works under a contract of service with an employer and includes a workman and any officer or employee of the Government included in a category, class or description of such officers or employees declared by the President to be employees for the purposes of this Act or any Part or section thereof; but does not include any seaman, domestic worker, or any person employed in a managerial, executive or confidential position or any person belonging to any other class of persons whom the Minister may, from time to time by notification in the Gazette, declare not to be employees for the purposes of this Act;
So your plan had committed an offense since it is obvious your job is not considered as "employee" and therefore cannot be use to play with the quota. Unless u think the president is gonna declare people who do nothing as an "employee"
Till now, you still cannot comprehend the fact that their accounts were already flawed. The records had stated that the contractor was paid to do something. What will the record state here?
Refer to the above. Your job is not considered to be in the category of "employee" and giving money to such a person is the same as giving money to a contractor for doing nothing
Glad you realised it is the public sector that does this, which is what PAP wants you to believe. There are companies out there who give the same pay no matter what degree you get.
Most companies do offer their pay according to the type of degree u have. It is not just a gov policy
I have a friend who didn't even get an honours in his degree, yet because he can talk extremely well and had an extremely positive mindset, he landed a job a month before graduation, way earlier compared to many other 2nd uppers out there. When you have the right mindset, you will find a way to do it. But when you have the wrong mindset, you wouldn't be looking in the right direction unless luck comes along to guide you.
A friend is not consider as the general population. Why don't u give me statistic tat show first class honour get worse pay than people with no honour ?
All talking about class of 2007, not class of 2008
If u notice, I changed my earlier response before u posted tis
I will paste it here again
Tis is about FT discussion isn't it ? Doesn't FT come to singapore since many years ago ? If u wanna talk about current market, don't u think it is too early to conclude since people r still convocating ?
And, do you think the same people, if they were working in Singapore, would give you the same "look"?
So u r trying to tell me u can give the look if u r a majority in your country but u will not give the look if u r here for job ?
Don't put words into my mouth. You said you met a lot more rude pple in Europe than in Singapore, and I replied that you were the minority there, while the pple you met here are the minority, hence you meet them less.
So wat is your conclusion ? The french r right to be rude to me because they r the majority in their country while the chinese is wrong because she is from the minority in singapore? Am I putting word in your mouth ? Tis is wat u had implied
Originally posted by stupidissmart:U want me to elaborate ? Sure, no problem. Wat is the proportion of elderly folks in the country ? Lets put is as 10-20% of the population. How much should be given to ensure they can survive ? Lets say $300-400. So if we folloo your advise to give money to the needy elderly, we have to use a lot of money. Money does not drop from trees, they come from tax. And since there r people who r poor and not old, such as the handicapped, they have to pay the tax to support all the old folks. And all the old folks include the very rich people like the ex-boss of CK Tang etc. So aren't u taxing the poor to give to the rich ?
I do programming before. U use database before ? U know how to use the database to filter results ?
U wanna play with law ? Fine. Lets look at the Employment Act Chapter 91 Section 2 on interpretation
"employee" means a person who has entered into or works under a contract of service with an employer and includes a workman and any officer or employee of the Government included in a category, class or description of such officers or employees declared by the President to be employees for the purposes of this Act or any Part or section thereof; but does not include any seaman, domestic worker, or any person employed in a managerial, executive or confidential position or any person belonging to any other class of persons whom the Minister may, from time to time by notification in the Gazette, declare not to be employees for the purposes of this Act;
So your plan had committed an offense since it is obvious your job is not considered as "employee" and therefore cannot be use to play with the quota. Unless u think the president is gonna declare people who do nothing as an "employee"
Refer to the above. Your job is not considered to be in the category of "employee" and giving money to such a person is the same as giving money to a contractor for doing nothing
Most companies do offer their pay according to the type of degree u have. It is not just a gov policy
A friend is not consider as the general population. Why don't u give me statistic tat show first class honour get worse pay than people with no honour ?
If u notice, I changed my earlier response before u posted tis
I will paste it here again
Tis is about FT discussion isn't it ? Doesn't FT come to singapore since many years ago ? If u wanna talk about current market, don't u think it is too early to conclude since people r still convocating ?
So u r trying to tell me u can give the look if u r a majority in your country but u will not give the look if u r here for job ?
So wat is your conclusion ? The french r right to be rude to me because they r the majority in their country while the chinese is wrong because she is from the minority in singapore? Am I putting word in your mouth ? Tis is wat u had implied
U want me to elaborate ? Sure, no problem. Wat is the proportion of elderly folks in the country ? Lets put is as 10-20% of the population. How much should be given to ensure they can survive ? Lets say $300-400. So if we folloo your advise to give money to the needy elderly, we have to use a lot of money. Money does not drop from trees, they come from tax. And since there r people who r poor and not old, such as the handicapped, they have to pay the tax to support all the old folks. And all the old folks include the very rich people like the ex-boss of CK Tang etc. So aren't u taxing the poor to give to the rich ?
The statement you made is not taxing the poor to give to the rich.
Your statement is "Why should the poor citizen now get taxed more to support the rich folks". You have to quantify why they are taxed more.
I do programming before. U use database before ? U know how to use the database to filter results ?
Yeah, but I'm sure you have realised how they told us how comprehensive their testing was. If it wasn;t a large job, it's either they are bluffing, or you are bluffing. Yet the money spent on creating and maintaining the means testing could have been distributed to everyone else. The large bureacracy of the government agencies, the letters they have to sent out, etc, all adds overheads.
"employee" means a person who has entered into or works under a contract of service with an employer and includes a workman and any officer or employee of the Government included in a category, class or description of such officers or employees declared by the President to be employees for the purposes of this Act or any Part or section thereof; but does not include any seaman, domestic worker, or any person employed in a managerial, executive or confidential position or any person belonging to any other class of persons whom the Minister may, from time to time by notification in the Gazette, declare not to be employees for the purposes of this Act;
So your plan had committed an offense since it is obvious your job is not considered as "employee" and therefore cannot be use to play with the quota. Unless u think the president is gonna declare people who do nothing as an "employee"
So which part of the law you have quoted states that you cannot employ someone to do nothing. Doing nothing is also a contract of service. Why don't you tell me Alex Ferguson was breaking the law if he tells the world he would make Ronaldo sit on the bench (contributing and doing nothing) than selling him? In your logic, he had threatened to break the law!
Refer to the above. Your job is not considered to be in the category of "employee" and giving money to such a person is the same as giving money to a contractor for doing nothing
Somehow you still failed to notice that the example you have raised has a discrepancy in the records and the accounts. Let me repeat if you continuously missed it. The records said that the contractor was paid to do something when he didn't, and the money still went to the contractor. There's a discrepancy.
If u notice, I changed my earlier response before u posted tis
I will paste it here again
Tis is about FT discussion isn't it ? Doesn't FT come to singapore since many years ago ? If u wanna talk about current market, don't u think it is too early to conclude since people r still convocating ?
You mean now then you realised I was talking about the current market all along?
You showed articles which tell us many were employed before graduation, and this is now after graduation. Graduation is the day in which you received your results/transcript/degree, because the class of honours has already been conferred. It is not during convocation. Do you know that all the NUS/NTU students have already received their degree scrolls? And that all had their results ready for job application at least a month ago?
Most of the previous batch got their jobs before graduating. But now? It's at least a month after graduation and there are many who could not find jobs.
So u r trying to tell me u can give the look if u r a majority in your country but u will not give the look if u r here for job ?
So wat is your conclusion ? The french r right to be rude to me because they r the majority in their country while the chinese is wrong because she is from the minority in singapore? Am I putting word in your mouth ? Tis is wat u had implied
No idea why you can continuously misunderstand. I've asked you that if you are working in a foreign country, do you think you have the right to be rude? You answered you will not be rude at all circumstances, yet you have no comments about a foreigner working in Singapore being rude except continuously denying the rudeness.
The statement you made is not taxing the poor to give to the rich.
Your statement is "Why should the poor citizen now get taxed more to support the rich folks". You have to quantify why they are taxed more.
Did u even read wat i just posted earlier ? They have to be taxed more to get the money to pay for all the old folks. And tat old folks include rich people. Wat is wrong with previous reply ? Which part do u not understand ?
Wat is the proportion of elderly folks in the country ? Lets put is as 10-20% of the population. How much should be given to ensure they can survive ? Lets say $300-400. So if we folloo your advise to give money to the needy elderly, we have to use a lot of money. Money does not drop from trees, they come from tax. And since there r people who r poor and not old, such as the handicapped, they have to pay the tax to support all the old folks. And all the old folks include the very rich people like the ex-boss of CK Tang etc. So aren't u taxing the poor to give to the rich ?
Yeah, but I'm sure you have realised how they told us how comprehensive their testing was. If it wasn;t a large job, it's either they are bluffing, or you are bluffing. Yet the money spent on creating and maintaining the means testing could have been distributed to everyone else. The large bureacracy of the government agencies, the letters they have to sent out, etc, all adds overheads.
U mean to filter the result or computerise your record ? To filter the result it only take less than a day. To computerise the record is for services like income tax payment, singapore shares, education, health record, driving license, national service etc. U prefer everything to be done by hand or something ? U know tis is called the IT age ?
So which part of the law you have quoted states that you cannot employ someone to do nothing. Doing nothing is also a contract of service. Why don't you tell me Alex Ferguson was breaking the law if he tells the world he would make Ronaldo sit on the bench (contributing and doing nothing) than selling him? In your logic, he had threatened to break the law!
In the employment act, employee is not for any stupid job u wanna give him but a job tat is specified by the president in its gazette to prevent abuses like yours. If u cannot be quantified as a employee, then u cannot be considered as a worker and u cannot list him to cheat another foreigner in. So your idea is proved to be illegal
And Ronaldo is a footballer and he is not there to tax cheat .
Somehow you still failed to notice that the example you have raised has a discrepancy in the records and the accounts. Let me repeat if you continuously missed it. The records said that the contractor was paid to do something when he didn't, and the money still went to the contractor. There's a discrepancy.
And u give a salary to someone who is not qualified to be termed as an employee. Tat is a descrepency in the record too isn't it ? Isn't tat illegal as well. U give a contractor money is wrong but u give salary to a non employee is right. Does tat make sense ?
You mean now then you realised I was talking about the current market all along?
U have not been reading my previous reply. U just graduate one month and u expect all your friend to be recruited. Can u say tat is a reasonable expectation ? The latest survery shows the unemployment rate drops to 1.7%, which is one of the world lowest rate. And u r not satisfied ? Why don't u try asking other people from other countries with a lower employment rate and ask them how long it takes to find a job
Most of the previous batch got their jobs before graduating. But now? It's at least a month after graduation and there are many who could not find jobs.
Tat is for NBS student. R u from the NBS stream ? If not, wat does it have to do with u ? U do not reply to tis question.
No idea why you can continuously misunderstand. I've asked you that if you are working in a foreign country, do you think you have the right to be rude? You answered you will not be rude at all circumstances, yet you have no comments about a foreigner working in Singapore being rude except continuously denying the rudeness.
I have no right to be rude no matter wat is the circumstances. However I find it amazing why u wanna pin point the fact she is here for a job. She is here for a job means she is something lower ? If u r not looking for a job u r more qualified to be rude ? Wat logic r u talking about ?
Originally posted by stupidissmart:Did u even read wat i just posted earlier ? They have to be taxed more to get the money to pay for all the old folks. And tat old folks include rich people. Wat is wrong with previous reply ? Which part do u not understand ?
Wat is the proportion of elderly folks in the country ? Lets put is as 10-20% of the population. How much should be given to ensure they can survive ? Lets say $300-400. So if we folloo your advise to give money to the needy elderly, we have to use a lot of money. Money does not drop from trees, they come from tax. And since there r people who r poor and not old, such as the handicapped, they have to pay the tax to support all the old folks. And all the old folks include the very rich people like the ex-boss of CK Tang etc. So aren't u taxing the poor to give to the rich ?
U mean to filter the result or computerise your record ? To filter the result it only take less than a day. To computerise the record is for services like income tax payment, singapore shares, education, health record, driving license, national service etc. U prefer everything to be done by hand or something ? U know tis is called the IT age ?
In the employment act, employee is not for any stupid job u wanna give him but a job tat is specified by the president in its gazette to prevent abuses like yours. If u cannot be quantified as a employee, then u cannot be considered as a worker and u cannot list him to cheat another foreigner in. So your idea is proved to be illegal
And Ronaldo is a footballer and he is not there to tax cheat .
And u give a salary to someone who is not qualified to be termed as an employee. Tat is a descrepency in the record too isn't it ? Isn't tat illegal as well. U give a contractor money is wrong but u give salary to a non employee is right. Does tat make sense ?
U have not been reading my previous reply. U just graduate one month and u expect all your friend to be recruited. Can u say tat is a reasonable expectation ? The latest survery shows the unemployment rate drops to 1.7%, which is one of the world lowest rate. And u r not satisfied ? Why don't u try asking other people from other countries with a lower employment rate and ask them how long it takes to find a job
Tat is for NBS student. R u from the NBS stream ? If not, wat does it have to do with u ? U do not reply to tis question.
I have no right to be rude no matter wat is the circumstances. However I find it amazing why u wanna pin point the fact she is here for a job. She is here for a job means she is something lower ? If u r not looking for a job u r more qualified to be rude ? Wat logic r u talking about ?
Did u even read wat i just posted earlier ? They have to be taxed more to get the money to pay for all the old folks. And tat old folks include rich people. Wat is wrong with previous reply ? Which part do u not understand ?
Wat is the proportion of elderly folks in the country ? Lets put is as 10-20% of the population. How much should be given to ensure they can survive ? Lets say $300-400. So if we folloo your advise to give money to the needy elderly, we have to use a lot of money. Money does not drop from trees, they come from tax. And since there r people who r poor and not old, such as the handicapped, they have to pay the tax to support all the old folks. And all the old folks include the very rich people like the ex-boss of CK Tang etc. So aren't u taxing the poor to give to the rich ?
U mean to filter the result or computerise your record ? To filter the result it only take less than a day. To computerise the record is for services like income tax payment, singapore shares, education, health record, driving license, national service etc. U prefer everything to be done by hand or something ? U know tis is called the IT age ?
So how much do you think have been spent employing pple to maintain and create the means testing? A team of 10 engineers at $2.5k a month? Or more? Doesn't this come from tax as well? There's HR costs as well, not to mention that you are depriving other sectors from the services of these engineers and other personels. And I know that even though it is IT age, there's are extra costs incurred to maintain , backup and ensure the database is not gone.
And did you even read what I post earlier about being cost effective? If you cannot convince me that it is not as cost effective to just give everyone, why even start on where the tax money comes from?
In the employment act, employee is not for any stupid job u wanna give him but a job tat is specified by the president in its gazette to prevent abuses like yours. If u cannot be quantified as a employee, then u cannot be considered as a worker and u cannot list him to cheat another foreigner in. So your idea is proved to be illegal
And Ronaldo is a footballer and he is not there to tax cheat .
Again, how can you not be quantified as an employee if he/she is employed to do nothing. You have yet to point out exactly where it is illegal to employ someone to do nothing. Don't keep beating around the bush.
And how is employing Ronaldo in the soccer team and just letting him sit on the bench just so that other teams cannot get him be different from your logic?
And u give a salary to someone who is not qualified to be termed as an employee. Tat is a descrepency in the record too isn't it ? Isn't tat illegal as well. U give a contractor money is wrong but u give salary to a non employee is right. Does tat make sense ?
Tell me, who's the qualified one to determine whether someone can be an employee. The law/government or the boss who is employing the person?
And don't use the word non-employee freely yet; you have yet to show me evidence that it is illegal to employ someone to do nothing.
U have not been reading my previous reply. U just graduate one month and u expect all your friend to be recruited. Can u say tat is a reasonable expectation ? The latest survery shows the unemployment rate drops to 1.7%, which is one of the world lowest rate. And u r not satisfied ? Why don't u try asking other people from other countries with a lower employment rate and ask them how long it takes to find a job
I'm going back to your earlier articles where you are trying to tell me pple are employed months before graduation.
And do you know that the 1.7% takes into account PRs?
Tat is for NBS student. R u from the NBS stream ? If not, wat does it have to do with u ? U do not reply to tis question.
So back to you, why did you use an article merely commenting on the NBS stream for our discussion on the current market and on FTs?
I have no right to be rude no matter wat is the circumstances. However I find it amazing why u wanna pin point the fact she is here for a job. She is here for a job means she is something lower ? If u r not looking for a job u r more qualified to be rude ? Wat logic r u talking about ?
Putting words into my mouth again; I did not say one is more qualified to be rude if one is not looking for a job. Yet I have seen rudeness. For a Singaporean cashier, it is already not an expected behaviour, yet we see this from foreign cashiers. I find it amazing that you are constantly defending her rudeness. Perhaps it is not rude to you at all, because you are one who is much ruder in nature.
So how much do you think have been spent employing pple to maintain and create the means testing? A team of 10 engineers at $2.5k a month? Or more? Doesn't this come from tax as well? There's HR costs as well, not to mention that you are depriving other sectors from the services of these engineers and other personels. And I know that even though it is IT age, there's are extra costs incurred to maintain , backup and ensure the database is not gone.
And did you even read what I post earlier about being cost effective? If you cannot convince me that it is not as cost effective to just give everyone, why even start on where the tax money comes from?
I think u r barking up the wrong tree. DO u suggest we go back to the old age where we do not computerised all record ? Do u suggest tat if we need to find some data, we have to find from stacks of files ? Do u suggest we spent time to print, time to file, place to file then put in achives where people have to search for files and then classify files correctly ? Do u think u r saving more money putting warehouses, printing paper, spending time on admin, recruit many people to find data from paper ? U know why people computerise system ? it is more efficient, more convenient, save more money and time. U think we should not computerise the system ? Can u tell tat to me ?
Again, how can you not be quantified as an employee if he/she is employed to do nothing. You have yet to point out exactly where it is illegal to employ someone to do nothing. Don't keep beating around the bush.
If u wanna employ a person to cheat on foreign levy, the people tat r counted must be employees. To qualify as employees, it must follow the employee act which is dictated by the president on wat type of job is considered to be under employment. So your idea is illegal. Tat is the bottom line
And how is employing Ronaldo in the soccer team and just letting him sit on the bench just so that other teams cannot get him be different from your logic?
He is a footballer. He can substitute. He maybe is injured. He got go for training. He is not here to cheat. Tat totally deviates from your example of a tax cheat
And don't use the word non-employee freely yet; you have yet to show me evidence that it is illegal to employ someone to do nothing.
I told u not all job r considered to be "employed". Let me ask u frankly. Do u think u can recruit people as "ass wiper" ? Do u think we can employ people as rioters ? Do u think u can employ people to just do nothing and tax cheat ?
I already quoted u a section from the chapter 91 employee act and tis is the act ministry of manpower is looking at (they r the one giving workers pass) I have already show u evidence. Where is yours to prove your scheme can work legally ?
I'm going back to your earlier articles where you are trying to tell me pple are employed months before graduation.
And do you know that the 1.7% takes into account PRs?
So ? Do u know tat some PR r not staying in singapore ?
So back to you, why did you use an article merely commenting on the NBS stream for our discussion on the current market and on FTs?
The articles state tat within a few months most people r employed. The one about 90% employed before they graduate r NBS. So u have to get the reference straight
Putting words into my mouth again; I did not say one is more qualified to be rude if one is not looking for a job. Yet I have seen rudeness. For a Singaporean cashier, it is already not an expected behaviour, yet we see this from foreign cashiers. I find it amazing that you are constantly defending her rudeness. Perhaps it is not rude to you at all, because you are one who is much ruder in nature.
When i tell u tat giving a look is sometime a very minor and subjective thing, and tat french people do it to english speaking people, u say it is ok because we r in their country. When I say why is tat so, u tell me because french is the majority while the girl is a minority. When iask again u tell me french can do tat to tourist while the girl cannot do it. So wat can be implied ?
U r already biased against the girl.
Originally posted by stupidissmart:I think u r barking up the wrong tree. DO u suggest we go back to the old age where we do not computerised all record ? Do u suggest tat if we need to find some data, we have to find from stacks of files ? Do u suggest we spent time to print, time to file, place to file then put in achives where people have to search for files and then classify files correctly ? Do u think u r saving more money putting warehouses, printing paper, spending time on admin, recruit many people to find data from paper ? U know why people computerise system ? it is more efficient, more convenient, save more money and time. U think we should not computerise the system ? Can u tell tat to me ?
If u wanna employ a person to cheat on foreign levy, the people tat r counted must be employees. To qualify as employees, it must follow the employee act which is dictated by the president on wat type of job is considered to be under employment. So your idea is illegal. Tat is the bottom line
He is a footballer. He can substitute. He maybe is injured. He got go for training. He is not here to cheat. Tat totally deviates from your example of a tax cheat
I told u not all job r considered to be "employed". I already quoted u a section from the chapter 91 employee act and tis is the act ministry of manpower is looking at (they r the one giving workers pass) I have already show u evidence. Where is yours to prove your scheme can work legally ?
So ? Do u know tat some PR r not staying in singapore ?
The articles state tat within a few months most people r employed. The one about 90% employed before they graduate r NBS. So u have to get the reference straight
When i tell u tat giving a look is sometime a very minor and subjective thing, and tat french people do it to english speaking people, u say it is ok because we r in their country. When I say why is tat so, u tell me because french is the majority while the girl is a minority. When iask again u tell me french can do tat to tourist while the girl cannot do it. So wat can be implied ?
U r already biased against the girl.
I think u r barking up the wrong tree. DO u suggest we go back to the old age where we do not computerised all record ? Do u suggest tat if we need to find some data, we have to find from stacks of files ? Do u suggest we spent time to print, time to file, place to file then put in achives where people have to search for files and then classify files correctly ? Do u think u r saving more money putting warehouses, printing paper, spending time on admin, recruit many people to find data from paper ? U know why people computerise system ? it is more efficient, more convenient, save more money and time. U think we should not computerise the system ? Can u tell tat to me ?
I think you are the one who is not clear in your head.
Why are you comparing a computerised a system vs a non-computerised system
instead of
comparing whether it is more cost effective to implement means testing vs giving all old folks?
Or are you trying to shift attention away from the fact that man hours are indeed required to setup, maintain and backup such a computerised database?
If u wanna employ a person to cheat on foreign levy, the people tat r counted must be employees. To qualify as employees, it must follow the employee act which is dictated by the president on wat type of job is considered to be under employment. So your idea is illegal. Tat is the bottom line
Well, no one says the person is being employed to cheat on foreign levy; it is never stated on the book. The intention is by the employer, but tell me, is it illegal to employ someone to do nothing? Till now, you have not shown me exactly which law in which you can pinpoint the employer and declare him guilty. And if you can't prove that it is illegal to employ someone to do nothing, then there's no tax cheat at all.
All you can tell me is that the intention is illegal (although the law never states that such an intention can be illegal). You started from the conclusion to tell us it is illegal, when one should start from the direct front, which is to prove to me that it is illegal to employ someone to do nothing.
There are many other ways to reduce tax paid by a company than to pay a measly amount to an employee to do nothing.
He is a footballer. He can substitute. He maybe is injured. He got go for training. He is not here to cheat. Tat totally deviates from your example of a tax cheat
So what makes you think that by employing a person to do nothing, that person can't be a emergency substitute to someone else?
I told u not all job r considered to be "employed". I already quoted u a section from the chapter 91 employee act and tis is the act ministry of manpower is looking at (they r the one giving workers pass) I have already show u evidence. Where is yours to prove your scheme can work legally ?
Your quote did not specify that the "contract of service" cannot be doing nothing. This has already been told to you.
So ? Do u know tat some PR r not staying in singapore ?
So? Are they included in your 1.7%? If so, then you are telling me that the unemployment rate includes being employed elsewhere other than Singapore???
When i tell u tat giving a look is sometime a very minor and subjective thing, and tat french people do it to english speaking people, u say it is ok because we r in their country. When I say why is tat so, u tell me because french is the majority while the girl is a minority. When iask again u tell me french can do tat to tourist while the girl cannot do it. So wat can be implied ?
Do you really need me to repeat and repeat again? When have I said the French can do that to tourists? I replied to you that the French is the majority, and the girl is the minority, in response to you claiming in this forum that you meet more rude French in France then rude foreigners in Singapore. Are you still telling me you cannot see the difference? Shows a lot about you.
think you are the one who is not clear in your head.
Why are you comparing a computerised a system vs a non-computerised system
instead of
comparing whether it is more cost effective to implement means testing vs giving all old folks?
Or are you trying to shift attention away from the fact that man hours are indeed required to setup, maintain and backup such a computerised database?
As said before the system is already there. The license, national services, voting etc. They knew the data for ALL singaporean citizen, why not for just old folks. So where do they waste the money ?
Well, no one says the person is being employed to cheat on foreign levy; it is never stated on the book. The intention is by the employer, but tell me, is it illegal to employ someone to do nothing? Till now, you have not shown me exactly which law in which you can pinpoint the employer and declare him guilty. And if you can't prove that it is illegal to employ someone to do nothing, then there's no tax cheat at all.
All you can tell me is that the intention is illegal (although the law never states that such an intention can be illegal). You started from the conclusion to tell us it is illegal, when one should start from the direct front, which is to prove to me that it is illegal to employ someone to do nothing.
There are many other ways to reduce tax paid by a company than to pay a measly amount to an employee to do nothing.
We r now talking about whether is it legal or not. We r not talking about whether will it be discovered or found or not. I have already told u tat u cannot consider a person to be your employee if he is not working for u. U cannot state tat u recruit a person o do nothing. U cannot use his name as a quota to recruit more foreigner. If u do the above, u will be charged since u have to declare u follow the quote system and u cheated.
Talking about tax cheat, wat u have done is a dishonest way to avoid giving business tax. U put all the profit to another person when she is not doing anything for the business. Tis is again using dishonest means to avoid tax. It is wilful intend to evade tax.
http://www.iras.gov.sg/irasHome/news.aspx?id=7024
Ms Ong Bee Lian pleaded guilty to 2 charges of wilfully with intent to evade tax, by claiming fictitious management fees expenses in the accounts of the Firm
U r also claiming fictitious workers who r not considered as employees. U r wilfully evading tax. U can say it is measly amount but there is nothing to stop it from being the full amount of the company profit
Your quote did not specify that the "contract of service" cannot be doing nothing. This has already been told to you.
The contract must ensure he is an "employee" first. All the law r only right if the term "employee" is right
So what makes you think that by employing a person to do nothing, that person can't be a emergency substitute to someone else?
If u employ someone to be a substitute, then it is ok. But u r not. U did not give the person real money. Why will your example of housewife suddenly come over to subsitute someone work ? U can tell me u can lie, but it is black and white illegal and she is not a substitute. If u employ someone, did not give her real money and therefore reduce the profit of the company by reducing from her bogus salary, u r using fraudulent ways to evade tax.
So? Are they included in your 1.7%? If so, then you are telling me that the unemployment rate includes being employed elsewhere other than Singapore???
I am trying to tell u tat if the PR is not giving tax /cpf in singapore, they may consider him as unemployed
Do you really need me to repeat and repeat again? When have I said the French can do that to tourists? I replied to you that the French is the majority, and the girl is the minority, in response to you claiming in this forum that you meet more rude French in France then rude foreigners in Singapore. Are you still telling me you cannot see the difference? Shows a lot about you.
I have also been around europe and frankly speaking I have faced more rude people there than my years in singapore.
I say I seen more rude people in france than the rude people, local and foreigners, in singapore. I am talking about local and foreigner in singapore. Why do u say I am just taking only about foreigner ? Why do u tell me tat the french r majority and the girl is a minority ?
Originally posted by stupidissmart:As said before the system is already there. The license, national services, voting etc. They knew the data for ALL singaporean citizen, why not for just old folks. So where do they waste the money ?
We r now talking about whether is it legal or not. We r not talking about whether will it be discovered or found or not. I have already told u tat u cannot consider a person to be your employee if he is not working for u. U cannot state tat u recruit a person o do nothing. U cannot use his name as a quota to recruit more foreigner. If u do the above, u will be charged since u have to declare u follow the quote system and u cheated.
Talking about tax cheat, wat u have done is a dishonest way to avoid giving business tax. U put all the profit to another person when she is not doing anything for the business. Tis is again using dishonest means to avoid tax. It is wilful intend to evade tax.
http://www.iras.gov.sg/irasHome/news.aspx?id=7024
Ms Ong Bee Lian pleaded guilty to 2 charges of wilfully with intent to evade tax, by claiming fictitious management fees expenses in the accounts of the Firm
U r also claiming fictitious workers who r not considered as employees. U r wilfully evading tax. U can say it is measly amount but there is nothing to stop it from being the full amount of the company profit
The contract must ensure he is an "employee" first. All the law r only right if the term "employee" is right
If u employ someone to be a substitute, then it is ok. But u r not. U did not give the person real money. Why will your example of housewife suddenly come over to subsitute someone work ? U can tell me u can lie, but it is black and white illegal and she is not a substitute. If u employ someone, did not give her real money and therefore reduce the profit of the company by reducing from her bogus salary, u r using fraudulent ways to evade tax.
I am trying to tell u tat if the PR is not giving tax /cpf in singapore, they may consider him as unemployed
I have also been around europe and frankly speaking I have faced more rude people there than my years in singapore.
I say I seen more rude people in france than the rude people, local and foreigners, in singapore. I am talking about local and foreigner in singapore. Why do u say I am just taking only about foreigner ? Why do u tell me tat the french r majority and the girl is a minority ?
As said before the system is already there. The license, national services, voting etc. They knew the data for ALL singaporean citizen, why not for just old folks. So where do they waste the money ?
That's because your head thinks only in the direction of databases.
We r now talking about whether is it legal or not. We r not talking about whether will it be discovered or found or not. I have already told u tat u cannot consider a person to be your employee if he is not working for u. U cannot state tat u recruit a person o do nothing. U cannot use his name as a quota to recruit more foreigner. If u do the above, u will be charged since u have to declare u follow the quote system and u cheated.
Talking about tax cheat, wat u have done is a dishonest way to avoid giving business tax. U put all the profit to another person when she is not doing anything for the business. Tis is again using dishonest means to avoid tax. It is wilful intend to evade tax.
http://www.iras.gov.sg/irasHome/news.aspx?id=7024
Ms Ong Bee Lian pleaded guilty to 2 charges of wilfully with intent to evade tax, by claiming fictitious management fees expenses in the accounts of the Firm
Are you sure fictitious management fees
expenses is the same as employing a real someone to do nothing?
Why are you constantly bringing in unrelated stuff???
U r also claiming fictitious workers who r not considered as employees. U r wilfully evading tax. U can say it is measly amount but there is nothing to stop it from being the full amount of the company profit
In your logic, because you have told me Singapore has a minimum wage, which is clearly not true, there's nothing stopping you from telling everyone here even more things that are untrue after that post.
If u employ someone to be a substitute, then it is ok. But u r not. U did not give the person real money. Why will your example of housewife suddenly come over to subsitute someone work ? U can tell me u can lie, but it is black and white illegal and she is not a substitute. If u employ someone, did not give her real money and therefore reduce the profit of the company by reducing from her bogus salary, u r using fraudulent ways to evade tax.
Why not? Is there anything on the contract that she cannot be a substitute? Contracts state that employees are paid for their work done, which in this case, nothing. Sometimes, people like you doing nothing contributes more than doing something.
Real money was given. The reducing of profit from companies is the way all companies used to reduce tax payable.
I am trying to tell u tat if the PR is not giving tax /cpf in singapore, they may consider him as unemployed
I will need to remind you that if someone is unemployed for 3 months or more (or some other time period, cannot remember exactly), then he's taken off the labour force, and thus not considered within the 1.7%
I say I seen more rude people in france than the rude people, local and foreigners, in singapore. I am talking about local and foreigner in singapore. Why do u say I am just taking only about foreigner ? Why do u tell me tat the french r majority and the girl is a minority ?
Since you are continuously denying it, I presume you must be saying that the rude pple you saw in France are the minority races, and the rude pple you saw in Singapore are the majority of Singaporeans, thus my sentence does not make sense to you?????
That's because your head thinks only in the direction of databases
Surely u know the convenience and importance of databases ? So u agree tat the needy old folks should be targeted instead of all old folks ?
Are you sure fictitious management fees expenses is the same as employing a real someone to do nothing?
Why are you constantly bringing in unrelated stuff???
The important thing is wilful intent to evade tax. Wat u had done is just "creative" accounting and it is indeed wilful intent to evade tax. U want to know which specific law u have broken isnt it
In your logic, because you have told me Singapore has a minimum wage, which is clearly not true, there's nothing stopping you from telling everyone here even more things that are untrue after that post.
I admit there is no such thing as a minimum wage in singapore. However does tat conclude everything I said to be wrong. i can find more of your arguments dissappearing u know. U can always go to singapore statues online to check up chapter 91 section 2 of the employment act if u seek verification. U can email to the minister of manpower to see if u can employ a person to do nothing and take no pay as a head count in your company and employ another foreigner
Why not? Is there anything on the contract that she cannot be a substitute? Contracts state that employees are paid for their work done, which in this case, nothing. Sometimes, people like you doing nothing contributes more than doing something.
If she is a real substitute, then u have to give her real money and in tis case, u might as well employ a real person to work. If u tell me u just lie and she is just label as a substitute when she did nothing, then tat shows there is an element of dishonest intent to evade tax.
Real money was given. The reducing of profit from companies is the way all companies used to reduce tax payable.
And tat is illegal isn't it ? Legally, all companies must report their honest profit to the best of their ability and not use fictitious employees
will need to remind you that if someone is unemployed for 3 months or more (or some other time period, cannot remember exactly), then he's taken off the labour force, and thus not considered within the 1.7%
Sorry man, it is the opposite way round. U r unemployed for 3 months or more than u r considered as unemployed.
Since you are continuously denying it, I presume you must be saying that the rude pple you saw in France are the minority races, and the rude pple you saw in Singapore are the majority of Singaporeans, thus my sentence does not make sense to you?????
I don't understand your statement above at all. Wat r u trying to say ? Why r u talking about minority and majority on rudeness. Is there any relevance to tat ?
Originally posted by stupidissmart:Surely u know the convenience and importance of databases ? So u agree tat the needy old folks should be targeted instead of all old folks ?
The important thing is wilful intent to evade tax. Wat u had done is just "creative" accounting and it is indeed wilful intent to evade tax. U want to know which specific law u have broken isnt it
I admit there is no such thing as a minimum wage in singapore. However does tat conclude everything I said to be wrong. i can find more of your arguments dissappearing u know. U can always go to singapore statues online to check up chapter 91 section 2 of the employment act if u seek verification. U can email to the minister of manpower to see if u can employ a person to do nothing and take no pay as a head count in your company and employ another foreigner
If she is a real substitute, then u have to give her real money and in tis case, u might as well employ a real person to work. If u tell me u just lie and she is just label as a substitute when she did nothing, then tat shows there is an element of dishonest intent to evade tax.
And tat is illegal isn't it ? Legally, all companies must report their honest profit to the best of their ability and not use fictitious employees
Sorry man, it is the opposite way round. U r unemployed for 3 months or more than u r considered as unemployed.
I don't understand your statement above at all. Wat r u trying to say ? Why r u talking about minority and majority on rudeness. Is there any relevance to tat ?
Surely u know the convenience and importance of databases ? So u agree tat the needy old folks should be targeted instead of all old folks ?
Surely you can't deny the need for overheads for such a database. How can you ensure that all needy old folks have been properly taken care off? Surely you would agree that a safety net system involving all old folks would be much better.
The important thing is wilful intent to evade tax. Wat u had done is just "creative" accounting and it is indeed wilful intent to evade tax. U want to know which specific law u have broken isnt it
I admit there is no such thing as a minimum wage in singapore. However does tat conclude everything I said to be wrong. i can find more of your arguments dissappearing u know. U can always go to singapore statues online to check up chapter 91 section 2 of the employment act if u seek verification. U can email to the minister of manpower to see if u can employ a person to do nothing and take no pay as a head count in your company and employ another foreigner
There's no creative accounting involved in employing someone to do nothing. How a company employs people, what contract of service (including doing nothing) it allocates the employee, has totally nothing to do with the government or the law.
Yes, unless you can show exactly which law it has broken.
Well, and isn't the bolded statement in your logic?
It's your arguments that are disappearing when you constantly raise unrelated articles to flailingly support a point of yours, not to mention doing comparisons of totally unrelated stuff.
If she is a real substitute, then u have to give her real money and in tis case, u might as well employ a real person to work. If u tell me u just lie and she is just label as a substitute when she did nothing, then tat shows there is an element of dishonest intent to evade tax.
Real money has been given out, whereas in the case of your article of the management fees, real money has not been given out. The employer in this case has spent money paying to a CPF account that is totally not related to him.
I hope you do realise that you are consistently telling me that it is illegal for a company to engage in the supposedly inefficient act of employing someone to do nothing, when there's no law governing who and what the company should employ, and that the company is required by law to give work to the employee, who is totally not related at all to the employer. Your arguments are weak.
And tat is illegal isn't it ? Legally, all companies must report their honest profit to the best of their ability and not use fictitious employees
1)
fictitious means non existent, which in this case, is an invalid word to use.
2) How is that illegal? It is still salary paid out. The only difference was whether it was cost efficient for the company.
Sorry man, it is the opposite way round. U r unemployed for 3 months or more than u r considered as unemployed.
Mistake: The time period is one year
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/reference.html#yos
do download the singstat report to read, and find that
I don't understand your statement above at all. Wat r u trying to say ? Why r u talking about minority and majority on rudeness. Is there any relevance to tat ?
Econmically inactive people: People *blah* who were not working, did not have a job to return to, and were not actively looking for a job during the reference period.
Thus, your statement that PRs working overseas are included in the 1.7% percent is wrong, not to mention that the 1.7% percent has already risen to 2.0% overall in Mar08
http://www.mom.gov.sg/publish/momportal/en/press_room/press_releases/2008/20080616-LMQ1.html
I don't understand your statement above at all. Wat r u trying to say ? Why r u talking about minority and majority on rudeness. Is there any relevance to tat ?
That explains your continuous misunderstanding. I guess we must be on different frequencies again.
Surely you can't deny the need for overheads for such a database. How can you ensure that all needy old folks have been properly taken care off? Surely you would agree that a safety net system involving all old folks would be much better.
U mean a person who just use the established database for a day ? Is tat the overhead u r talking about ? If u talk about loopholes in giving money to the people, the loophole also exist if u wanna give to all old folks as well. I do not agree tat wasting a lot of money and a large portion to give to better off citizen is better. In fact I think tat is an overkill and is silly, causing unnecessary burden to society and unfair since we r taxing the poor to give to the rich
There's no creative accounting involved in employing someone to do nothing. How a company employs people, what contract of service (including doing nothing) it allocates the employee, has totally nothing to do with the government or the law.
Why don't u hear yourself say it. "There is not creative accounting involved in employing someone to do nothing". It is not even classified as employee. Tis is already cheating the states tax money by making out fictitious workers. There r a million and one ways to cheat tax from the states and the law cannot list out all the possibilities. The clause tat "wilful intent" to edit account to "evade tax" is already grounds to charge the person for tax evasion. U think if u tell a judge "I employ tis guy to do nothing and give him all the profit of the company" and then he is found to transfer all the money back to u thus avoiding business tax is okay, then I challenge u to do write an email to IRAS about your scheme and see if they will give u the green light to conduct such a scheme. U claim it is not illegal and so confident of it, then prove it. If tat is legal, the no one has to give business tax.
https://www.iras.gov.sg/irashome/feedbackbusinesses.aspx
I have stated examples of people using creative accounting. But u just stubbornly think tat creative accounting is ok. Do u think the judge or the gov is stupid ? I have stated many times. Chapter 134 section 96
—(1) Any person who wilfully with intent to evade or to assist any other person to evade tax —
(a) omits from a return made under this Act any income which should be included;
(b) makes any false statement or entry in any return made under this Act; or
(c) gives any false answer, whether verbally or in writing, to any question or request for information asked or made in accordance with the provisions of this Act,
shall be guilty of an offence for which, on conviction, he shall pay a penalty of treble the amount of tax which has been undercharged in consequence of the offence or which would have been undercharged if the offence had not been detected, and shall also be liable to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both.
U already wilfully with intent to evade tax, which i have mention countless time. Tat is the only necessary ingredient to charge u
Real money has been given out, whereas in the case of your article of the management fees, real money has not been given out. The employer in this case has spent money paying to a CPF account that is totally not related to him.
Real money ? Real money is not just giving to CPF but to his salary as well. If u did not give, u again have cheated tax.
I hope you do realise that you are consistently telling me that it is illegal for a company to engage in the supposedly inefficient act of employing someone to do nothing, when there's no law governing who and what the company should employ, and that the company is required by law to give work to the employee, who is totally not related at all to the employer. Your arguments are weak.
I hope u realise tat in order to justify a person working for the company, it must fit the president employee in the gov gazette. If it is not within the president list, u can not consider tat as an employee and u cannot use his name as a local worker. Why don't u answer tis fact which i pointed countless times ?
1) fictitious means non existent, which in this case, is an invalid word to use.
2) How is that illegal? It is still salary paid out. The only different was whether it was cost efficient for the company.
1) Do u know the definition of employee
2) If the full salary is given out, then why don't u employ a real staff ? Wat is the novelty of your scheme ?
Mistake: The time period is one year
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/reference.html#yos
do download the singstat report to read, and find that
And so ? It is better than your earlier guess tat once a person is jobless for 3 moths he is not part of the statistic for unemployment. The above is the standard for all countries in calculating unemployment rate isn't it
Thus, your statement that PRs working overseas are included in the 1.7% percent is wrong, not to mentioned that the 1.7% percent has already risen to 2.0% overall in Mar08
I think u fail to read the previous reply accuratel. i stated tat PR went overseas to work, do not contribute to income tax and CPF and it may means tat he is calculated in the figure and considered as unemployed
That explains your continuous misunderstanding. I guess we must be on different frequencies again.
Why don't u elaborate on why u specifically mention minority and majority in your rudeness debate ?
Eagle, I am still waiting for you to tell us how a company can benefits from employing Singaporeans to do nothing.
Originally posted by stupidissmart:U mean a person who just use the established database for a day ? Is tat the overhead u r talking about ? If u talk about loopholes in giving money to the people, the loophole also exist if u wanna give to all old folks as well. I do not agree tat wasting a lot of money and a large portion to give to better off citizen is better. In fact I think tat is an overkill and is silly, causing unnecessary burden to society and unfair since we r taxing the poor to give to the rich
Why don't u hear yourself say it. "There is not creative accounting involved in employing someone to do nothing". It is not even classified as employee. Tis is already cheating the states tax money by making out fictitious workers. There r a million and one ways to cheat tax from the states and the law cannot list out all the possibilities. The clause tat "wilful intent" to edit account to "evade tax" is already grounds to charge the person for tax evasion. U think if u tell a judge "I employ tis guy to do nothing and give him all the profit of the company" and then he is found to transfer all the money back to u thus avoiding business tax is okay, then I challenge u to do write an email to IRAS about your scheme and see if they will give u the green light to conduct such a scheme. U claim it is not illegal and so confident of it, then prove it. If tat is legal, the no one has to give business tax.
https://www.iras.gov.sg/irashome/feedbackbusinesses.aspx
I have stated examples of people using creative accounting. But u just stubbornly think tat creative accounting is ok. Do u think the judge or the gov is stupid ? I have stated many times. Chapter 134 section 96
—(1) Any person who wilfully with intent to evade or to assist any other person to evade tax —
(a) omits from a return made under this Act any income which should be included;
(b) makes any false statement or entry in any return made under this Act; or
(c) gives any false answer, whether verbally or in writing, to any question or request for information asked or made in accordance with the provisions of this Act,
shall be guilty of an offence for which, on conviction, he shall pay a penalty of treble the amount of tax which has been undercharged in consequence of the offence or which would have been undercharged if the offence had not been detected, and shall also be liable to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both.
U already wilfully with intent to evade tax, which i have mention countless time. Tat is the only necessary ingredient to charge u
Real money ? Real money is not just giving to CPF but to his salary as well. If u did not give, u again have cheated tax.
I hope u realise tat in order to justify a person working for the company, it must fit the president employee in the gov gazette. If it is not within the president list, u can not consider tat as an employee and u cannot use his name as a local worker. Why don't u answer tis fact which i pointed countless times ?
1) Do u know the definition of employee
2) If the full salary is given out, then why don't u employ a real staff ? Wat is the novelty of your scheme ?
And so ? It is better than your earlier guess tat once a person is jobless for 3 moths he is not part of the statistic for unemployment. The above is the standard for all countries in calculating unemployment rate isn't it
I think u fail to read the previous reply accuratel. i stated tat PR went overseas to work, do not contribute to income tax and CPF and it may means tat he is calculated in the figure and considered as unemployed
Why don't u elaborate on why u specifically mention minority and majority in your rudeness debate ?
U mean a person who just use the established database for a day ? Is tat the overhead u r talking about ? If u talk about loopholes in giving money to the people, the loophole also exist if u wanna give to all old folks as well. I do not agree tat wasting a lot of money and a large portion to give to better off citizen is better. In fact I think tat is an overkill and is silly, causing unnecessary burden to society and unfair since we r taxing the poor to give to the rich
In the case of welfare, I would prefer an overkill than an underkil, especially for old folks who has contributed their youth and energy to the growth of Singapore
Why don't u hear yourself say it. "There is not creative accounting involved in employing someone to do nothing". It is not even classified as employee. Tis is already cheating the states tax money by making out fictitious workers. There r a million and one ways to cheat tax from the states and the law cannot list out all the possibilities. The clause tat "wilful intent" to edit account to "evade tax" is already grounds to charge the person for tax evasion. U think if u tell a judge "I employ tis guy to do nothing and give him all the profit of the company" and then he is found to transfer all the money back to u thus avoiding business tax is okay, then I challenge u to do write an email to IRAS about your scheme and see if they will give u the green light to conduct such a scheme. U claim it is not illegal and so confident of it, then prove it. If tat is legal, the no one has to give business tax.
https://www.iras.gov.sg/irashome/feedbackbusinesses.aspx
I have stated examples of people using creative accounting. But u just stubbornly think tat creative accounting is ok. Do u think the judge or the gov is stupid ? I have stated many times. Chapter 134 section 96
—(1) Any person who wilfully with intent to evade or to assist any other person to evade tax —
(a) omits from a return made under this Act any income which should be included;
(b) makes any false statement or entry in any return made under this Act; or
(c) gives any false answer, whether verbally or in writing, to any question or request for information asked or made in accordance with the provisions of this Act,
shall be guilty of an offence for which, on conviction, he shall pay a penalty of treble the amount of tax which has been undercharged in consequence of the offence or which would have been undercharged if the offence had not been detected, and shall also be liable to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both.
U already wilfully with intent to evade tax, which i have mention countless time. Tat is the only necessary ingredient to charge u
All you are saying is the wilful intention to evade tax, when there's no such intention. The main intention, as said earlier, is to maintain a favourable foreign worker to local worker ratio. There is no false statement involved.
Both your previous examples have been proven to be totally unrelated to what we are disccusing. Those are due to discrepancies in accounts.
What I have described to you is the combination of 2 legal acts together, none of which you could prove illegal at all.
Real money ? Real money is not just giving to CPF but to his salary as well. If u did not give, u again have cheated tax.
So in your logic, an employee who is totally unrelated in blood giving back money to the employer is illegal? You might as well tell me if someone gave money to you, it is an illegal act.
I hope u realise tat in order to justify a person working for the company, it must fit the president employee in the gov gazette. If it is not within the president list, u can not consider tat as an employee and u cannot use his name as a local worker. Why don't u answer tis fact which i pointed countless times ?
I have answered according to your quote that contract of service can include "doing nothing". It is still a service to the company because the name is used for the ratio. Seems like you are the one who has constantly not been able to tell me why the act of doing nothing cannot be a contract of service to the company.
1) Do u know the definition of employee
2) If the full salary is given out, then why don't u employ a real staff ? Wat is the novelty of your scheme ?
The novelty is that the salary you paid out to employ a local in name is lower than the salary you would pay out if you had employed a local worker to do jobs like merely opening the door of your office every morning. In addition to that, you get a more favourable ratio, such that you can employ even more foreign workers.
I think u fail to read the previous reply accuratel. i stated tat PR went overseas to work, do not contribute to income tax and CPF and it may means tat he is calculated in the figure and considered as unemployed
I believe you still could not understand that going overseas to work means he will not be counted in the local labour force, of which the unemployment rate is derived from. The PR will be counted in the labour force of the host country he is working in.
Why don't u elaborate on why u specifically mention minority and majority in your rudeness debate ?
I've elaborated earlier. There's no need for me to consistently repeat posts to you if you consistently failed to read and understand properly.
Originally posted by eagle:In the case of welfare, I would prefer an overkill than an underkil, especially for old folks who has contributed their youth and energy to the growth of Singapore
Majority of the senior citizens have benefited from Singapore economic progress over the last 40 years and anybody who own a HDB 30 years ago, will all be seating on an positive asset which is worth about $250,000 today. Beside that, most old folks still have financial aid coming from their children and family members because after all, most Singaporeans still believe in Asian values.
Having said that, I believe there will always be some selfish Singaporeans like you, who believe that it is not your duty to take care of your aging parents
Originally posted by O o O:
Majority of the senior citizens have benefited from Singapore economic progress over the last 40 years and anybody who own a HDB 30 years ago, will all be seating on an positive asset which is worth about $250,000 today. Beside that, most old folks still have financial aid coming from their children and family members because after all, most Singaporeans still believe in Asian values.
Having said that, I believe there will always be some selfish Singaporeans like you, who believe that it is not your duty to take care of your aging parents
I agree that many have benifited from the economic progress.
But who is really selfish no one really knows over the computer do they?
In the case of welfare, I would prefer an overkill than an underkil, especially for old folks who has contributed their youth and energy to the growth of Singapore
U r being ridiculous here. I agree the old folks contribute to society. However the old folks get their due salary and reward as well when they r working. If we give money to all old folks, tax is gonna increase a lot. And u r giving to old folks who can be incredibly rich. Again I have eleborated repeatedly tat tis is taxing the poor to give to the rich, and tis is an extraordinary burden to the working class. However u refuse to coment on it and want to give so much money out for not apparent benefit or reason.
All you are saying is the wilful intention to evade tax, when there's no such intention. The main intention, as said earlier, is to maintain a favourable foreign worker to local worker ratio. There is no false statement involved.
U employ someone to do nothing, u give him salary for doing nothing and tis salary is deducted from the company profit and result in a lower tax to the states. If i give the person a high amount of money (1 billion) , I can even claim the company is making a loss and ask for gov help. Isn't tis wilful intent to invade tax ?
Both your previous examples have been proven to be totally unrelated to what we are disccusing. Those are due to discrepancies in accounts.
What I have described to you is the combination of 2 legal acts together, none of which you could prove illegal at all.
I have already proved to u tat the definition of "employee" has to be in line with the description in the gazette. Do u read tis line at all ? U just evade tis question repeatedly
So in your logic, an employee who is totally unrelated in blood giving back money to the employer is illegal? You might as well tell me if someone gave money to you, it is an illegal act.
Giving money here and there is ok. But giving money tat result in a reduction of tax to the states is wrong. I can also come out with many other creative accounting as well. If going by wat u say, giving contractor money to renovate nothing is perfectly fine too. It is my money, I like the contractor to renovate nothing and it is my right ? Tat is your line of argument isn't it ? I can also give money to training firm to teach nothing. It is my money, there is no law tat states I cannot give money to training center to teach nothing and therefore it is perfectly fine.
Wrong. The above 2 companies had thought of more sophisticated means to cheat tax and got caught and charged to jail. U think u will be fine with your "salary to someone to do nothing" ? Tis is an obvious intent to evade tax.
The novelty is that the salary you paid out to employ a local in name is lower than the salary you would pay out if you had employed a local worker to do jobs like merely opening the door of your office every morning. In addition to that, you get a more favourable ratio, such that you can employ even more foreign workers.
Too bad your idea cannot work because the person doing nothing is not considered as an employee according to the employee's act
I believe you still could not understand that going overseas to work means he will not be counted in the local labour force, of which the unemployment rate is derived from. The PR will be counted in the labour force of the host country he is working in.
I have stated "may" all the while in the PR working overseas issue.
So lets come to the conclusion for PR and FT, which is the original problem we r discussing. Singapore has a low unemployment rate (2% according to eagle). Checking from google by keying words like "taiwan unemployment rate", it stated 3.9%. hong kong is 4.9%. China is 4.2 in urban. Japan is 4.1 while US is 4.8. So wat is the complaint ?
I've elaborated earlier. There's no need for me to consistently repeat posts to you if you consistently failed to read and understand properly
Since u fail to elaborate, then it shows your repeated emphasis on minority/majority as well as emphasis on her comong over to work is just trying to imply she has lesser right as a human to be rude to the local
Originally posted by stupidissmart:U r being ridiculous here. I agree the old folks contribute to society. However the old folks get their due salary and reward as well when they r working. If we give money to all old folks, tax is gonna increase a lot. And u r giving to old folks who can be incredibly rich. Again I have eleborated repeatedly tat tis is taxing the poor to give to the rich, and tis is an extraordinary burden to the working class. However u refuse to coment on it and want to give so much money out for not apparent benefit or reason.
U employ someone to do nothing, u give him salary for doing nothing and tis salary is deducted from the company profit and result in a lower tax to the states. If i give the person a high amount of money (1 billion) , I can even claim the company is making a loss and ask for gov help. Isn't tis wilful intent to invade tax ?
I have already proved to u tat the definition of "employee" has to be in line with the description in the gazette. Do u read tis line at all ? U just evade tis question repeatedly
Giving money here and there is ok. But giving money tat result in a reduction of tax to the states is wrong. I can also come out with many other creative accounting as well. If going by wat u say, giving contractor money to renovate nothing is perfectly fine too. It is my money, I like the contractor to renovate nothing and it is my right ? Tat is your line of argument isn't it ? I can also give money to training firm to teach nothing. It is my money, there is no law tat states I cannot give money to training center to teach nothing and therefore it is perfectly fine.
Wrong. The above 2 companies had thought of more sophisticated means to cheat tax and got caught and charged to jail. U think u will be fine with your "salary to someone to do nothing" ? Tis is an obvious intent to evade tax.
Too bad your idea cannot work because the person doing nothing is not considered as an employee according to the employee's act
I have stated "may" all the while in the PR working overseas issue.
So lets come to the conclusion for PR and FT, which is the original problem we r discussing. Singapore has a low unemployment rate (2% according to eagle). Checking from google by keying words like "taiwan unemployment rate", it stated 3.9%. hong kong is 4.9%. China is 4.2 in urban. Japan is 4.1 while US is 4.8. So wat is the complaint ?
Since u fail to elaborate, then it shows your repeated emphasis on minority/majority as well as emphasis on her comong over to work is just trying to imply she has lesser right as a human to be rude to the local
U r being ridiculous here. I agree the old folks contribute to society. However the old folks get their due salary and reward as well when they r working. If we give money to all old folks, tax is gonna increase a lot. And u r giving to old folks who can be incredibly rich. Again I have eleborated repeatedly tat tis is taxing the poor to give to the rich, and tis is an extraordinary burden to the working class. However u refuse to coment on it and want to give so much money out for not apparent benefit or reason.
Why don't you tell me too that GST is also taxing the poor to give to the rich? The poor are afterall still taxed.
The question is cost-effectiveness, which you have failed yet again to touch on other than telling me about computerised databases.
U employ someone to do nothing, u give him salary for doing nothing and tis salary is deducted from the company profit and result in a lower tax to the states. If i give the person a high amount of money (1 billion) , I can even claim the company is making a loss and ask for gov help. Isn't tis wilful intent to invade tax ?
Doesn't the statement in bold already defeats the purpose and intention which I have already stated? Still trying to rout the discussion elsewhere?
I have already proved to u tat the definition of "employee" has to be in line with the description in the gazette. Do u read tis line at all ? U just evade tis question repeatedly
Which is? There must be contract of service. Now tell me, which part said exactly that
"you have to give a person work to do if the person is your employee"
Giving money here and there is ok. But giving money tat result in a reduction of tax to the states is wrong. I can also come out with many other creative accounting as well. If going by wat u say, giving contractor money to renovate nothing is perfectly fine too. It is my money, I like the contractor to renovate nothing and it is my right ? Tat is your line of argument isn't it ? I can also give money to training firm to teach nothing. It is my money, there is no law tat states I cannot give money to training center to teach nothing and therefore it is perfectly fine.
Wrong. The above 2 companies had thought of more sophisticated means to cheat tax and got caught and charged to jail. U think u will be fine with your "salary to someone to do nothing" ? Tis is an obvious intent to evade tax.
Again, I have to remind you that what your 2 companies did is illegal because of the discrepancies in the records. The accounts wrote that something was contracted out to Company N to do, but Company N does not have the record that it has done something of this nature. That's where the discrepancy lies.
Creative accounting a not, what I have described is legal, not to mention (as said a few lines back) that your warped idea of tax evasion totally defeats the purpose of hiring the local to maintain a favourable ratio.
Too bad your idea cannot work because the person doing nothing is not considered as an employee according to the employee's act
You still haven't not pointed out at all how doing nothing is not a contract of service. Or if I'm the employer, I can even put it down as having employed someone to sit at home to wait for important calls, which you won't rerout over at all.
It's the company's business on what work (if any) they want to give their employees.
Let's come to a conclusion on this too. Like I have mentioned, this is a legal loophole. It is officially legal, but it is unethical.
I have stated "may" all the while in the PR working overseas issue.
So lets come to the conclusion for PR and FT, which is the original problem we r discussing. Singapore has a low unemployment rate (2% according to eagle). Checking from google by keying words like "taiwan unemployment rate", it stated 3.9%. hong kong is 4.9%. China is 4.2 in urban. Japan is 4.1 while US is 4.8. So wat is the complaint ?
I didn't complain about the unemployment rate. -.-
I'm saying when unemployment rate is rising, why are FWs still as freely available as before, and in fact, being employed more readily that Singaporeans?
And again, which you have also agreed, FTs and FWs do have a role in Singapore, but it is the way in which the incumbent has handled it that does not appeal to us. More QC is needed.
Since u fail to elaborate, then it shows your repeated emphasis on minority/majority as well as emphasis on her comong over to work is just trying to imply she has lesser right as a human to be rude to the local
Read carefully. I have already said that I have elaborated earlier. Don't push everything if you do not want to read back. None of the previous posts were edited.
Originally posted by eagle:
The question is cost-effectiveness, which you have failed yet again to touch on other than telling me about computerised databases.
How can you be cost-effective when you are distributing Singaporeans tax money to people who dont need it? Isnt this a classic example of someone being penny smart but pound foolish?
Originally posted by O o O:
How can you be cost-effective when you are distributing Singaporeans tax money to people who dont need it? Isnt this a classic example of someone being penny smart but pound foolish?
No I don't think so.
Originally posted by Beautiful951:No I don't think so.
Tell us why you think that giving out financial aid should be done base on age class instead of income class and why do you think that it is more cost effective.
Originally posted by O o O:
Tell us why you think that giving out financial aid should be done base on age class instead of income class and why do you think that it is more cost effective.
Because I like loh cannot hah?