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.
GST is a way to tax. Why u suddenly mention about tis ? If we follow your plan, we have to increase to 10%. U think it is good ?
Cos effectiveness wise, u have failed to say why will it be expensive to find how who r more needy. Just dumping money to everyone is the worst cost efficiency idea if your aim is to help needy elderly
Doesn't the statement in bold already defeats the purpose and intention which I have already stated? Still trying to rout the discussion elsewhere?
The cheating is the same, is just tat u feel the amount here is too much. However the whole mechanism is the same
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"
If u want to be an employer, if u wanna give a contract of employment, u must follow the employment act. Tat is the law. And wat is constitute an "employee", it is defined in section 2 of the act
"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;
Your work is just cheating.
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.
If hiring a construction firm to renovate nothing is a defense, u think they will not use it ? If going for training to train nothing is a defense, u think she will go to jail ? There is no desprepancy. Durai say he employ the person to renovate. It can mean renovate nothing. The girl says she can give money for training. And it can mean training for nothing.
I challenge u already. If u think your system work and u claim it work, then send a email to ministry of manpower or IRAS and ask them if it is legal or not. Your idea is so absurb tat it makes worse sense than the two examples above
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.
Is the person really sitting at home waiting for important call ? IF she is, then she cannot move anywhere during the hours and she need higher pay than doing nothing, which make it senseless for u to employ her.
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.
Tis is obviously cheating. U not only cheat the tax agency u also cheat the ministry of manpower. Up till now u only make claim but show to back up with Chapter 91 Section 2 on the employment act
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.
U know in classic economic, too low an unemployment is not an optimised economy. How to increase the employment rate ? Before, I was told by u and reddust tat states very serious employment problems in singapore. Now I feel the problem is controlled..
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.
I also told u tat I am no talking about foreigner but locals as well. If u wanna me to read back, I still have to tell u the emphasis on she is from another country looking for job is really... unfair
a quik poll out there, is anyone reading the long-winded reply? i certainly didn't.
Originally posted by stupidissmart:GST is a way to tax. Why u suddenly mention about tis ? If we follow your plan, we have to increase to 10%. U think it is good ?
Cos effectiveness wise, u have failed to say why will it be expensive to find how who r more needy. Just dumping money to everyone is the worst cost efficiency idea if your aim is to help needy elderly
The cheating is the same, is just tat u feel the amount here is too much. However the whole mechanism is the same
If u want to be an employer, if u wanna give a contract of employment, u must follow the employment act. Tat is the law. And wat is constitute an "employee", it is defined in section 2 of the act
"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;
Your work is just cheating.
If hiring a construction firm to renovate nothing is a defense, u think they will not use it ? If going for training to train nothing is a defense, u think she will go to jail ? There is no desprepancy. Durai say he employ the person to renovate. It can mean renovate nothing. The girl says she can give money for training. And it can mean training for nothing.
I challenge u already. If u think your system work and u claim it work, then send a email to ministry of manpower or IRAS and ask them if it is legal or not. Your idea is so absurb tat it makes worse sense than the two examples above
Is the person really sitting at home waiting for important call ? IF she is, then she cannot move anywhere during the hours and she need higher pay than doing nothing, which make it senseless for u to employ her.
Tis is obviously cheating. U not only cheat the tax agency u also cheat the ministry of manpower. Up till now u only make claim but show to back up with Chapter 91 Section 2 on the employment act
U know in classic economic, too low an unemployment is not an optimised economy. How to increase the employment rate ? Before, I was told by u and reddust tat states very serious employment problems in singapore. Now I feel the problem is controlled..
I also told u tat I am no talking about foreigner but locals as well. If u wanna me to read back, I still have to tell u the emphasis on she is from another country looking for job is really... unfair
GST is a way to tax. Why u suddenly mention about tis ? If we follow your plan, we have to increase to 10%. U think it is good ?
Cos effectiveness wise, u have failed to say why will it be expensive to find how who r more needy. Just dumping money to everyone is the worst cost efficiency idea if your aim is to help needy elderly
Haven't I already told you that man hours are required to setup, maintain and backup such a system, not to mentioned HR costs incurred and other overheads in the bureacratic govt agencies?
The cheating is the same, is just tat u feel the amount here is too much. However the whole mechanism is the same
If u want to be an employer, if u wanna give a contract of employment, u must follow the employment act. Tat is the law. And wat is constitute an "employee", it is defined in section 2 of the act
You have consistently failed to show why a contract of employment cannot be of the work to do nothing with your posted employment act, and where exactly is it stated that a contract of service cannot be one that has no work to do when it is still a service.
"employee" means a person who has entered into or works under a contract of service with an employer
If you cannot pinpoint exactly where it is said that it is illegal, you are definitely taking the law into your own hands.
If hiring a construction firm to renovate nothing is a defense, u think they will not use it ? If going for training to train nothing is a defense, u think she will go to jail ? There is no desprepancy. Durai say he employ the person to renovate. It can mean renovate nothing. The girl says she can give money for training. And it can mean training for nothing.
I challenge u already. If u think your system work and u claim it work, then send a email to ministry of manpower or IRAS and ask them if it is legal or not. Your idea is so absurb tat it makes worse sense than the two examples above
Let me reiterate to you
Durai say he employ the person to renovate. It can
mean renovate nothing.
The girl says she can give money for
training. And it can mean training for nothing.
In both cases, did the records claim something was done, not to mention it was service paid out to non-employees?
Yet in this case, is the record going to claim any work that has been done?
Tell me, in which of the above scenarios are there discrepancies between records and actual work done. If you can answer this, you should be able to see the point.
Is the person really sitting at home waiting for important call ? IF she is, then she cannot move anywhere during the hours and she need higher pay than doing nothing, which make it senseless for u to employ her.
There you have it. Being senseless to employ someone does not mean it is illegal to employ someone, something which till now you cannot reconcile.
Tis is obviously cheating. U not only cheat the tax agency u also cheat the ministry of manpower. Up till now u only make claim but show to back up with Chapter 91 Section 2 on the employment act
I'm saying this to you again, before you call it cheating, you have to prove the employment invalid. You are claiming that employing someone to do nothing under a contract of service is illegal, yet till now, you cannot raise exactly which law states that it is, except bringing out 2 cases which are unrelated.
I also told u tat I am no talking about foreigner but locals as well. If u wanna me to read back, I still have to tell u the emphasis on she is from another country looking for job is really... unfair
The emphasis is that if you are from another country doing a job here, the worst thing is to expect others to talk to you in your native language instead of the working language, when you are a service personnel.
Originally posted by redDUST:a quik poll out there, is anyone reading the long-winded reply? i certainly didn't.
Let me shorten the bulk for you.
stupidissmart is telling me that it is illegal and against the law to employ someone to be doing nothing, and that is to him, considered evading of tax, especially if that someone (who is unrelated to the boss) voluntarily gives the salary back to the boss.
I'm telling him it is not.
Originally posted by eagle:Haven't I already told you that man hours are required to setup, maintain and backup such a system, not to mentioned HR costs incurred and other overheads in the bureacratic govt agencies?
IRAS already have all the information about the Singapore household income in their database and thats how the determine how much income tax you pay or if you qualify for buy HDB flats directly from the government.
Beside that, CPF already have all the information about your income history and the amount of money you have for retirement. Furthermore are you not aware that you can purchase a copy of your personal credit rating report from Singpost?
So please stop making up excuses to smoke your way around....
Originally posted by eagle:Let me shorten the bulk for you.
stupidissmart is telling me that it is illegal and against the law to employ someone to be doing nothing, and that is to him, considered evading of tax, especially if that someone (who is unrelated to the boss) voluntarily gives the salary back to the boss.
I'm telling him it is not.
Eagle, please tell us how a company can benefit from employing Singaporeans to do NOTHING in the company.
Haven't I already told you that man hours are required to setup, maintain and backup such a system, not to mentioned HR costs incurred and other overheads in the bureacratic govt agencies?
Haven't I told u the system is ALREADY maintain now. It is for prison record, NS record, driving license, passport, income tax and many many other useful application. It is already maintained. Wat is the increase in cost ? Almost nothing ! It is just someone using a database for a day to generate the result
"employee" means a person who has entered into or works under a contract of service with an employer
I took my definition from chapter 91 of the employment act. Where do u take your from ? Dictionary ? Sorry but tis is a law issue and the definition of the law issue is the relevant one
Durai say he employ the person to renovate. It can mean renovate nothing.
The girl says she can give money for training. And it can mean training for nothing.
In both cases, did the records claim something was done, not to mention it was service paid out to non-employees?
It claim there is renovation and there is training. Did it mention "remove the roof, paint it green, polish the floor" and specific action like "training on inproving service by speaker ABC" ? They just state construction and state training. So wat is wrong with my defense ? U r just using twisted logic
There you have it. Being senseless to employ someone does not mean it is illegal to employ someone, something which till now you cannot reconcile.
Then your idea fail. It is not legal because u cannot substantiate the term employee in the employment act
I'm saying this to you again, before you call it cheating, you have to prove the employment invalid. You are claiming that employing someone to do nothing under a contract of service is illegal, yet till now, you cannot raise exactly which law states that it is, except bringing out 2 cases which are unrelated.
I already told u it evade tax intentionally. As long as u have these 2 ingredients, u r considered to be tax cheat. Contracting someone to do nothing sounds ok, but because u r paying money from the company revenue, it has the effect of reducing the overall tax to the states. Tis is evading tax.
The emphasis is that if you are from another country doing a job here, the worst thing is to expect others to talk to you in your native language instead of the working language, when you are a service personnel.
so the only problem u feel is because she speak chinese to u ?
Originally posted by stupidissmart:Haven't I told u the system is ALREADY maintain now. It is for prison record, NS record, driving license, passport, income tax and many many other useful application. It is already maintained. Wat is the increase in cost ? Almost nothing ! It is just someone using a database for a day to generate the result
I took my definition from chapter 91 of the employment act. Where do u take your from ? Dictionary ? Sorry but tis is a law issue and the definition of the law issue is the relevant one
It claim there is renovation and there is training. Did it mention "remove the roof, paint it green, polish the floor" and specific action like "training on inproving service by speaker ABC" ? They just state construction and state training. So wat is wrong with my defense ? U r just using twisted logic
Then your idea fail. It is not legal because u cannot substantiate the term employee in the employment act
I already told u it evade tax intentionally. As long as u have these 2 ingredients, u r considered to be tax cheat. Contracting someone to do nothing sounds ok, but because u r paying money from the company revenue, it has the effect of reducing the overall tax to the states. Tis is evading tax.
so the only problem u feel is because she speak chinese to u ?
Haven't I told u the system is ALREADY maintain now. It is for prison record, NS record, driving license, passport, income tax and many many other useful application. It is already maintained. Wat is the increase in cost ? Almost nothing ! It is just someone using a database for a day to generate the result
Ok, I shall agree on you with this.
I took my definition from chapter 91 of the employment act. Where do u take your from ? Dictionary ? Sorry but tis is a law issue and the definition of the law issue is the relevant one
Then your idea fail. It is not legal because u cannot substantiate the term employee in the employment act
I took from the same source as you, and till now, you are still unable to quote and tell me exactly which part of your source tells us that it is illegal to employ someone to do nothing, other than the quote in which you still cannot prove that "doing nothing" is not a contract of service. It's not like you are stating on record that the someone you employed has contributed such and such; there's no need for such a record in a company.
It is not my idea. I'm telling you it is already being done out there, and it still is. It is a legal loophole being exploited, and unless, as you have said, there's a minimum wage in Singapore, it will still be exploited.
It claim there is renovation and there is training. Did it mention "remove the roof, paint it green, polish the floor" and specific action like "training on inproving service by speaker ABC" ? They just state construction and state training. So wat is wrong with my defense ? U r just using twisted logic
You are wrong because there was totally no construction done, nor was there any training done. This was especially so for the 2nd case because accounts for those 3 companies mentioned exist. It is obvious that they did not state it in their records, which is the reason for the discrepancies.
Whereas in this case, there's no discrepancies at any level whatsoever.
I already told u it evade tax intentionally. As long as u have these 2 ingredients, u r considered to be tax cheat. Contracting someone to do nothing sounds ok, but because u r paying money from the company revenue, it has the effect of reducing the overall tax to the states. Tis is evading tax.
1) If employing a local to obtain a more favourable foreign ratio such that you can more and cheaper FTs, and such that your total profit increases, you pay more tax, not less.
2) You have not evaded tax because the true profit is still declared.
so the only problem u feel is because she speak chinese to u ?
The problem is that she expects me to speak chinese when I spoke English. Would you, if you are a working as a cashier in Europe, say France, expect your customers to speak English to you, and give them a look and be unable to understand properly when they speak French to you>
Originally posted by eagle:I took from the same source as you, and till now, you are still unable to quote and tell me exactly which part of your source tells us that it is illegal to employ someone to do nothing, other than the quote in which you still cannot prove that "doing nothing" is not a contract of service. It's not like you are stating on record that the someone you employed has contributed such and such; there's no need for such a record in a company.
.
Eagle, before you go on asking so many question, I would like you to tell us how a company can benefit from employing Singaporeans to do nothing. The reason I am asking you is because I dont think you know what the ratio of Singaporeans to foreigners a company must maintain under the labour law. And without knowing this how would you be able to tell us that a company will attemp to employ dummy Singaporeans to gain access to FT.
To say that employing dummy workers is not illegal only tell us your lack of understanding about corporate accounting.
e.g Suppose if company A make $1m dollar NPBT a year and to invade tax, he claims that he employ 10 workers at the cost of $50,000 each, which mean he "NPBT" will become $500,000 instead of $1m.
You tell me if this is illegal and you tell me if it is possible for an auditor to flush out this scam?
Originally posted by O o O:
Eagle, before you go on asking so many question, I would like you to tell us how a company can benefit from employing Singaporeans to do nothing. The reason I am asking you is because I dont think you know what the ratio of Singaporeans to foreigners a company must maintain under the labour law. And without knowing this how would you be able to tell us that a company will attemp to employ dummy Singaporeans to gain access to FT.To say that employing dummy workers is not illegal only tell us your lack of understanding about corporate accounting.
e.g Suppose if company A make $1m dollar NPBT a year and to invade tax, he claims that he employ 10 workers at the cost of $50,000 each, which mean he "NPBT" will become $500,000 instead of $1m.
You tell me if this is illegal and you tell me if it is possible for an auditor to flush out this scam?
I would like you to tell us how a company can benefit from employing Singaporeans to do nothing
There's no point telling you because the answer has been posted many times. You need to open your eyes to read.
You tell me if this is illegal and you tell me if it is possible for an auditor to flush out this scam?
And since there are already companies doing it for quite a few years, are you telling me Singapore auditors are dumb enough not to flush this out? Are you also telling me that IRAS is that dumb not to even notice this and charge the "culprits"????
Or are you also telling me that MOM is that stupid not to charge the culprits under the posted employment act because you are telling me it is illegal to employ workers to do nothing (in which you want to call it dummy workers)?
Next, it is already wrong to use the phrase dummy worker (which actually means you are employing a non-existent worker, no name, no identification number, etc). An employee has been physically employed. There has been no evasion of tax, and by being able to employ more FTs for a higher profit, you pay more tax instead.
I took from the same source as you, and till now, you are still unable to quote and tell me exactly which part of your source tells us that it is illegal to employ someone to do nothing, other than the quote in which you still cannot prove that "doing nothing" is not a contract of service. It's not like you are stating on record that the someone you employed has contributed such and such; there's no need for such a record in a company.
It is not my idea. I'm telling you it is already being done out there, and it still is. It is a legal loophole being exploited, and unless, as you have said, there's a minimum wage in Singapore, it will still be exploited.
Even if it is done out there it doesn't means it is right. They probably declare the person as a clerk and give her pay but she never come. Although it is hard to find out, legally it is dishonest. Tat is why people r doing it. However u r not giving the person a portfolio. Tat person cannot be considered as an employee because of the employment act. All contract tat is sign on employment have to follow the rules set by the employment act to prevent minor being abuse or boss exploiting worker and also employers cheating the system (in your case). It is not illegal, but the person with no portfolio is not considered an employee and canno be counted as a local
Talking about tax evasion, I know wat u r trying to say. However I hope u see my point as well. Because there can be an almost infinite way to cheat tax, the law is set tat any method tat help u evade tax when u should be paying more is tax cheating. Lets answer the following question
1) u give salary to the person who do nothing
2) the salary can be more or less. It can be in the case, all the profit of the company or the less, a few hundred dollars
3) The profit of the company subsequently reduced. His fictitious wages is subtracted from the profit of the company
4) the tax to the gov reduce
isn't tat tax evasion ? U can say u r not giving a high salary to the person. However the methodology is the same in a way it reduce the tax collected by the country. Lets say in point number 2, the salary is the whole profit of the company. Do u think tat will be legal ? Tat is creative accounting.
Originally posted by stupidissmart:Even if it is done out there it doesn't means it is right. They probably declare the person as a clerk and give her pay but she never come. Although it is hard to find out, legally it is dishonest. Tat is why people r doing it. However u r not giving the person a portfolio. Tat person cannot be considered as an employee because of the employment act. All contract tat is sign on employment have to follow the rules set by the employment act to prevent minor being abuse or boss exploiting worker and also employers cheating the system (in your case). It is not illegal, but the person with no portfolio is not considered an employee and canno be counted as a local
Talking about tax evasion, I know wat u r trying to say. However I hope u see my point as well. Because there can be an almost infinite way to cheat tax, the law is set tat any method tat help u evade tax when u should be paying more is tax cheating. Lets answer the following question
1) u give salary to the person who do nothing
2) the salary can be more or less. It can be in the case, all the profit of the company or the less, a few hundred dollars
3) The profit of the company subsequently reduced. His fictitious wages is subtracted from the profit of the company
4) the tax to the gov reduce
isn't tat tax evasion ? U can say u r not giving a high salary to the person. However the methodology is the same in a way it reduce the tax collected by the country. Lets say in point number 2, the salary is the whole profit of the company. Do u think tat will be legal ? Tat is creative accounting.
Although it is hard to find out, legally it is dishonest.
It is hard to find out, and it is legal because as I have mentioned earlier, this is a legal loophole. Yes, I agree with you it is dishonest, and unethical (also said earlier).
1) u give salary to the person who do nothing
2) the salary can be more or less. It can be in the case, all the profit of the company or the less, a few hundred dollars
3) The profit of the company subsequently reduced. His fictitious wages is subtracted from the profit of the company
4) the tax to the gov reduce
As I have mentioned to you, if the main aim was such that the employer can employ more foreign workers at a cheaper rate, the profit of the company will be increased, not reduced. Thus, (3) and (4) does not hold.
I know your point. You are still thinking about the evading of tax, which wasn't even the main aim here. The main aim was to increase company profit by being able to hire workers at an overall cheaper average rate to do the same things, and we are discussing based on the point that foreign workers are cheaper to the employer than local workers.
As I have mentioned to you, if the main aim was such that the employer can employ more foreign workers at a cheaper rate, the profit of the company will be increased, not reduced. Thus, (3) and (4) does not hold.
As said before, in point number 2, the person command a salary. The salary can be little but it still reduce the tax. Then point 3 and 4 follows
I know your point. You are still thinking about the evading of tax, which wasn't even the main aim here. The main aim was to increase company profit by being able to hire workers at an overall cheaper average rate to do the same things, and we are discussing based on the point that foreign workers are cheaper to the employer than local workers.
Wat is your comment of chapter 91, section 2 definition of "employee" and tat companies who wanna employ people have to follow the rules stated in the chapter ?
Originally posted by stupidissmart:As said before, in point number 2, the person command a salary. The salary can be little but it still reduce the tax. Then point 3 and 4 follows
Wat is your comment of chapter 91, section 2 definition of "employee" and tat companies who wanna employ people have to follow the rules stated in the chapter ?
As said before, in point number 2, the person command a salary. The salary can be little but it still reduce the tax. Then point 3 and 4 follows
Let me reiterate:
If the company is able to employ more foreign workers instead of local workers, the overall salary paid out is actually reduced than if a local worker with full pay doing the same job as the foreign workers is employed. The amount of tax paid would be higher.
There's no evasion of tax because it is stated in accounts as salary paid out, and CPF was also paid out. No fake or dummy workers/documents around to cheat tax.
Wat is your comment of chapter 91, section 2 definition of "employee" and tat companies who wanna employ people have to follow the rules stated in the chapter ?
Let me direct you to the definitions
"contract of service" means any agreement, whether in writing or oral, express or implied, whereby one person agrees to employ another as an employee and that other agrees to serve his employer as an employee and includes an apprenticeship contract or agreement;
"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;
Tell me which part said that it is illegal if the employee is employed to do nothing by the employer, and that the employee agrees to it, such that "one person agrees to employ another as an employee and that other agrees to serve his employer as an employee", even if the agreement is "doing nothing".
One additional info on why you are wrong in using the employment act to support your point
The Employment Act is Singapore's main labour legislation. It specifies:
- The basic terms and conditions of employment; and
- The rights and obligations of employers and employees.
It is to be used for protecting both employers and employees.
There's no evasion of tax because it is stated in accounts as salary paid out, and CPF was also paid out. No fake or dummy workers/documents around to cheat tax.
Then let me ask if I do exactly the same thing as u but I give all the company profit to tis guy, do u consider it as tax evasion ?
Tell me which part said that it is illegal if the employee is employed to do nothing by the employer, and that the employee agrees to it, such that "one person agrees to employ another as an employee and that other agrees to serve his employer as an employee", even if the agreement is "doing nothing".
Now the word "employee" is used in your "contract of service". The definition of "employee" is stated in the employment act. The problem is "doing nothing" is not considered as an "employee" since it is not listed in the gov gazette.
It is to be used for protecting both employers and employees
Your definition
The Employment Act is Singapore's main labour legislation. It specifies:
- The basic terms and conditions of employment; and
- The rights and obligations of employers and employees.
does not state tat it is used solely to protect the employer and employee, but there tat r cetain terms and condition tat must be met to satisfy employment
Originally posted by stupidissmart:Then let me ask if I do exactly the same thing as u but I give all the company profit to tis guy, do u consider it as tax evasion ?
Now the word "employee" is used in your "contract of service". The definition of "employee" is stated in the employment act. The problem is "doing nothing" is not considered as an "employee" since it is not listed in the gov gazette.
Your definition
does not state tat it is used solely to protect the employer and employee, but there tat r cetain terms and condition tat must be met to satisfy employment
Then let me ask if I do exactly the same thing as u but I give all the company profit to tis guy, do u consider it as tax evasion ?
If you give all the company profit to some guy, the guy will still be paying income tax.
It is also not tax evasion. Tax evasion is only when you have undeclared income or purposely overstating or understating amounts on the financial report.
In no where of the scenario I had described is there any undeclared income or expenses, and where the declarations on the side of this employer is different or does not match any declarations of any other financial reports/documents or statistics.
Now the word "employee" is used in your "contract of service". The definition of "employee" is stated in the employment act. The problem is "doing nothing" is not considered as an "employee" since it is not listed in the gov gazette.
Please consider the following 2 questions:
1) Tell me, is there a contract between the employer and the employee?
2) Where exactly does "contract of service" exclude "doing nothing" in its definition?
And your statement doesnt hold:
"doing nothing" is not considered as an "employee" since it is not listed in the gov gazette.
because
In the governments of Commonwealth countries, a gazette is an official journal that publishes the texts of the new laws and government decisions.
It is new laws and govt decisions that get published in the gazette. The minister can only declare people not employees after notification in the gazette. You don't refer to the gazette the way you do.
Originally posted by eagle:There's no point telling you because the answer has been posted many times. You need to open your eyes to read.
And since there are already companies doing it for quite a few years, are you telling me Singapore auditors are dumb enough not to flush this out? Are you also telling me that IRAS is that dumb not to even notice this and charge the "culprits"????
Or are you also telling me that MOM is that stupid not to charge the culprits under the posted employment act because you are telling me it is illegal to employ workers to do nothing (in which you want to call it dummy workers)?
Next, it is already wrong to use the phrase dummy worker (which actually means you are employing a non-existent worker, no name, no identification number, etc). An employee has been physically employed. There has been no evasion of tax, and by being able to employ more FTs for a higher profit, you pay more tax instead.
Can I assume that after 7 pages of discussion on the subject, you are now telling us that the source of the information is taken from speakers corner and not something which you have personally experienced or read in the papers?
And I presume that deep down, you actually have no clue about the concerning subject and you are just making up your own stupid unlogical reasoning to support your own bias arguement because you lack the common sense and ability to question yourself about the reliability of the information from this forum.
In short, can I say that you are as blind as a sheep?
Originally posted by O o O:
Can I assume that after 7 pages of discussion on the subject, you are now telling us that the source of the information is taken from speakers corner and not something which you have personally experienced or read in the papers?And I presume that deep down, you actually have no clue about the concerning subject and you are just making up your own stupid unlogical reasoning to support your own bias arguement because you lack the common sense and ability to question yourself about the reliability of the information from this forum.
In short, can I say that you are as blind as a sheep?
There's nothing I can stop you if you want to continue to expound your stupidity.
If you cannot be bothered to read what I have posted in the few pages, then tell me what I have posted was information taken from SC because I posted the information, then there's no point for anyone to bother with a troll like you.
If you give all the company profit to some guy, the guy will still be paying income tax.
If I am not wrong, after giving business tax, u still have to give income tax since it is something u earn. If I am wrong, the tax rate for business and personal income is still different, especially when personal income have a lot of deductables. So do u think tat if I give all the business profit as salary to an individual, it is not considered as tax evasion ?
Please consider the following 2 questions:
1) Tell me, is there a contract between the employer and the employee?
2) Where exactly does "contract of service" exclude "doing nothing" in its definition?And your statement doesnt hold:
U r not answering the original question.
Now the word "employee" is used in your "contract of service". The definition of "employee" is stated in the employment act. The problem is "doing nothing" is not considered as an "employee" since it is not listed in the gov gazette.
1) Tis is a contract between employer and employee, and it has to follow the employment law
2) Wat do u understand from the word "service" from "contract of service" ?
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires
"contract of service" means any agreement, whether in writing or oral, express or implied, whereby one person agrees to employ another as an employee and that other agrees to serve his employer as an employee and includes an apprenticeship contract or agreement
It is new laws and govt decisions that get published in the gazette. The minister can only declare people not employees after notification in the gazette. You don't refer to the gazette the way you do.
Isn't amendment to employment act a form of new laws ?
Originally posted by stupidissmart:If I am not wrong, after giving business tax, u still have to give income tax since it is something u earn. If I am wrong, the tax rate for business and personal income is still different, especially when personal income have a lot of deductables. So do u think tat if I give all the business profit as salary to an individual, it is not considered as tax evasion ?
U r not answering the original question.
Now the word "employee" is used in your "contract of service". The definition of "employee" is stated in the employment act. The problem is "doing nothing" is not considered as an "employee" since it is not listed in the gov gazette.
1) Tis is a contract between employer and employee, and it has to follow the employment law
2) Wat do u understand from the word "service" from "contract of service" ?
Isn't amendment to employment act a form of new laws ?
If I am not wrong, after giving business tax, u still have to give income tax since it is something u earn. If I am wrong, the tax rate for business and personal income is still different, especially when personal income have a lot of deductables. So do u think tat if I give all the business profit as salary to an individual, it is not considered as tax evasion ?
Do you really understand what is meant by tax evasion?????????
It is not tax evasion if you make use of legal methods to reduce the amount of tax paid.
U r not answering the original question.
Now the word "employee" is used in your "contract of service". The definition of "employee" is stated in the employment act. The problem is "doing nothing" is not considered as an "employee" since it is not listed in the gov gazette.
1) Tis is a contract between employer and employee, and it has to follow the employment law
2) Wat do u understand from the word "service" from "contract of service" ?
I have answered the question. Let me reiterate everything if you still failed to see my earlier answer.
"contract of service" means any agreement, whether in writing or oral, express or implied, whereby one person agrees to employ another as an employee and that other agrees to serve his employer as an employee and includes an apprenticeship contract or agreement;
Contract of service merely mean an agreement between the employer and the employee. It does not state, at all, the job scope. Understand?
Isn't amendment to employment act a form of new laws ?
Yes, which is why you are wrong in saying that it is not listed in the gazette. You don't look at the gazette and declare something is illegal because it is not, in your words, listed in the gazette.
"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;
Do you understand what is the meaning of a contract with the employer?
And what you have highlighted in blue is the "include". It does not exclude "doing nothing"
Your highlighted portion merely means that our President has the power to declare a new category, class or description for this employment act. It does not, in any part, excludes a job scope of "doing nothing"
Originally posted by eagle:Next, it is already wrong to use the phrase dummy worker (which actually means you are employing a non-existent worker, no name, no identification number, etc). An employee has been physically employed. There has been no evasion of tax, and by being able to employ more FTs for a higher profit, you pay more tax instead.
Eagle, please dont divert your attention to the word "dummy" because that is not the subject of our discussion. It is simply a name I use to describe the what you said below.
1) Employ a housewife who stays at home
2) Pay her CPF but no salary
3) She make zero contribution to the company.
To someone with ZERO knowledge in accounting, I am sure you wont call it as tax invasion because in the first place, you dont even know how to read a P/L statement.
Originally posted by eagle:Believe me, there's a way to circumvent that quota (more of a ratio) easily. I have mentioned it before somewhere else in this forum. One method: employ someone else (maybe a housewife) by name, and pay that person CPF, but no salary. Then you can employ even more foreigners already, because on paper, you have employed another Singaporean. The amount paid to the CPF is much less than what a boss could have paid if he had really employed one more Singaporean.
Any BTW, when you say company is paying for the CPF and no salary, have you also taken into account the employee CPF component and the income taxes. Plus if this housewife end up using the company pay slip and CPF income to apply for credit card and loans respectively, do the company who set this up will be in trouble? OR will you say this is NOT illegal?
Originally posted by O o O:
Eagle, please dont divert your attention to the word "dummy" because that is not the subject of our discussion. It is simply a name I use to describe the what you said below.
1) Employ a housewife who stays at home
2) Pay her CPF but no salary
3) She make zero contribution to the company.
To someone with ZERO knowledge in accounting, I am sure you wont call it as tax invasion because in the first place, you dont even know who to read a P/L statement.
Any BTW, when you say company is paying for the CPF and no salary, have you also taken into account the employee CPF component and the income taxes. Plus if this housewife end up using the company pay slip and CPF income to apply for credit card and loans respectively, do the company who set this up will be in trouble? OR will you say this is NOT illegal?
Yes, no one calls it tax invasion like you do. You are right.
You must have a special accounting method because you utilise tax invasion.
Sorry, we don't. We talk about tax evasion, not tax invasion.
Since your accounting methods are totally different from the rest of us, go back to your planet to talk and discuss among your peers the concept of tax invasion.
So yup, you are right. I have ZERO knowledge in your accounting methods of tax invasion.
Originally posted by eagle:Do you really understand what is meant by tax evasion?????????
It is not tax evasion if you make use of legal methods to reduce the amount of tax paid.
Eagle, if you have no clue about what you are talking, I would advice that you dont even talk about it because there are many blind soul like you in this forum who will take what you say without using their common sense.
e.g.
Company A, who doesnt employ housewife to do nothing
NPBT = $1,000,000
Tax = ($200,000) - assuming at 20%
Nett Profit = $800,000
Company EAGLE, who employ 10 housewife to do nothing at $150,000 per head also make $1,000,000 profit before tax. However because of the 10 housewife he employed, he manage to inflat the cost of business by $1.4m (see below
CPF contribution = 13% x 4500 x 12 months x 10 housewife = $70,020
Inflated Cost = 150,000 x 10 - 70,020 = $1,429,980
Actual NPBT = $1,000,000
Fake NPBT = $1,000,000 - $1,429,980 = - ($429,980)
Tax = ZERO
Tax evasion = $200,000
Net return to Eagle = $200,000 - 70020 = $129,980
Eagle, are you trying to tell us that this is LEGAL?
Originally posted by eagle:Yes, no one calls it tax invasion like you do. You are right.
You must have a special accounting method because you utilise tax invasion.Sorry, we don't. We talk about tax evasion, not tax invasion.
Since your accounting methods are totally different from the rest of us, go back to your planet to talk and discuss among your peers the concept of tax invasion.
So yup, you are right. I have ZERO knowledge in your accounting methods of tax invasion.
No one is as stupid as you do, so I think you need to go back to your own planet because only those brainless aliens in your planet wont question what you said.
I think it is hard to convince u tat it is a tax cheat offense, and it is against the ministry of manpower to play with the local and foreign quota in tis manner. I have sent 2 anonymous email enquiries to the two department and state your hypothesis to them. So lets see if they will response and we shall treat their answer as final. If u felt I will ask unfair questions, u r free to write letter to the respective department and wait for their reply as well.