Do you think the opposition will get to win GRCs this time?
-
qitai
If Singapore's reserves is at a dangerously low level, I would volunteer to pay higher GST and whatever tax there may be.
We are talking about a country which has one of the highest reserves in the world. There is no need to tax Singaporeans anymore than they need to increase the reserves.
If you can be more specific about which country you referring to, perhaps we may take a peep into their reserves.
And after comparing our reserves with the other country's, ask ourselves again - was it neccessary for Singapore government to increase GST? Especially at a time when we were in recession - and there were 100,000 people jobless in Singapore.
Why such an insensitive, cruel timing by government? -
Nothing new to add really. My comment about reserve remains the same.Originally posted by miong:qitai
If Singapore's reserves is at a dangerously low level, I would volunteer to pay higher GST and whatever tax there may be.
We are talking about a country which has one of the highest reserves in proportion to its population. There is no need to tax Singaporeans anymore than they need to increase the reserves.
If you can be more specific about which country you referring to, perhaps we may take a peep into their reserves.
And after comparing our reserves with the other country's, ask ourselves again - was it neccessary for Singapore government to increase GST? Especially when we were in recession - and there were 100,000 people jobless in Singapore.
Why such an insensitive, cruel timing by government?
For tax rate, just pick a random european commonwealth country, like say Norway or UK. Or even canada if you want to. And you can check the tax rate for yourself on the net. I am conparing tax rate, not reserve here.
As for the timing, I agree that it is really bad timing on their part. But it is also true that even with the GST increase, they are already running at a deficit in the last two years.
Figures
2002 - Rev = 25 Billion, Expenditure = 27 Billion
2003 - Rev = 25 Billion, Expenditure = 27 Billion
Foriegn reserve figure increase only because SGD generally dropped compared to what those reserves are held in.
It is always easy to say spend money when you are not the person handling the account. -
this is because not everything is increasing by the 5%Originally posted by pkchukiss:I feel that we should not compare ourselves to other countries. Singapore is a unique entity of Her own, and has her own problems and natural endowments, and whatever we implement should be viewed strictly in our local context.
The increase in the Goods and Service Tax might not be a significance to cash rich people, but for those struggling at the poverty line, it could break their backs. Even though we are a "developed nation", there are still people who are unable to pay for basic utilities such as electricity.
The GST impacts everyone who purchases services and goods, which include staple neccesities. That means that the poorer section of the country is taxed along with the rest for buying something which they need to survive on. Contrast this to the Income Tax scheme, where only the richer cross section of the country pays taxes. By reducing the Income Tax rate, and increasing the GST, we are in effect reducing the cash burden on the rich (who can now afford more luxuries), and adding more burden onto the poorer section of the country (who are now taxed to buy even neccesities).
i've seen places where they just round up the price and that makes it more than 5% -
Originally posted by Qitai:
The objective of implementing the GST in Singapore is to ensure that tax is paid by every Singapore Citizen.
The purpose of my comparison is not to justify the GST. But rather, to see what is possible. Given that the other countries needs to tax alot more than Singapore, this means that this government has been prudent with it's spending compared to other countries.
As for your arguement on GST Versus Income tax, I completely agree with your points raised (except with the note that only business above $1M annual turnover needs to pay GST - i.e. your neighbourhood shops do not need to pay GST). It is indeed one of the effects of GST. However, I believe the rational of GST is to tax based on spending rather than earning. As to whether that logic will bring in economy benefits, I do not know. So yes, without knowing the actual benefit of a GST based taxation structure, I do not know if it will actually benefit Singapore as a whole. This is one subject I would be interested to study more. Until then, I can neither agrue for or against GST. One thing I do know now is that I am one of those who has actually benefit from GST due to my extremely low expenditure. So, maybe I am already biased.
In the Income Tax system, the tax net is dependent on the 'honest' reporting of one's income, which can result in leakages in the system, and taxes not paid accordingly.
With GST, tax will be paid by every Singaporean based on his consumption - whether it is an individual Person or a Company, each transaction will result in GST being collected.
Even when a Business has turnover below $1 Million, the Business will still be PAYING the GST on the goods and services PURCHASED by the Business.
However, this SMALL Business (below $1 Million turnover) will not be required to COLLECT GST, by charging their customers for the goods or services sold to them - (the Small Businesses can OPT to collect GST, and pass on the cost of GST paid to their Customers).
The GST is a multiplier of revenue for the Government, as when an Item is IMPORTED into Singapore, the first GST will be paid by the IMPORTER.
When the same Item is sold to a Middleman, the transaction will result in another GST being paid on Cost PLUS Profit.
When the Middleman resell the Item to another Buyer, GST will again be imposed on this Item - at a new higher value.
For each subsequent transaction on the same Item, GST will be imposed and collected.
Everyone living in Singapore will have to pay GST on every item consumed.
As to which system is better for the Citizen, one has to look at the net effect of reducing Income Tax to implement GST, which may not necessarily reduce Revenue to the Government - due to the multiplier effect the GST is repeated on each and every transaction of the same goods.
The net loss reported by the Singapore Government is due to the subsidies that they claimed have been paid to Singaporeans, to help them to adjust to the GST being implemented.
Now that the GST has been introduced and operating for the last five years, and the subsidy is no longer available, Government Revenue should be increasing in geometrical bounds.
At the end of the first year when GST was implemented, and despite the subsidy being paid-out, the Government had reported an embarrassingly higher revenue, which resulted in the Singapore Shares being paid out- as a refund of tax collected.
With the knowledge of the profitable effects of each percentage increase to GST, and with a bumper collection in the First Year of GST, there is no reason for the GST to have been increased from 3 Percent to the current 5 Percent. -
You raise a good point. However, after I checked the figures, it does not match exactly with your predictions.Originally posted by Atobe:The net loss reported by the Singapore Government is due to the subsidies that they claimed have been paid to Singaporeans, to help them to adjust to the GST being implemented.
Now that the GST has been introduced and operating for the last five years, and the subsidy is no longer available, Government Revenue should be increasing in geometrical bounds.
At the end of the first year when GST was implemented, and despite the subsidy being paid-out, the Government had reported an embarrassingly higher revenue, which resulted in the Singapore Shares being paid out- as a refund of tax collected.
With the knowledge of the profitable effects of each percentage increase to GST, and with a bumper collection in the First Year of GST, there is no reason for the GST to have been increased from 3 Percent to the current 5 Percent.
(1) Tax rebate for 2002 totals ~1Billion. So, discounting that, the account still loses 1 Billion.
(2) I checked my 2003 income assessment, there is no longer any rebate in 2003. Thus, the deficit is actual.
So, all in all, it still remains true that there is a government deficit in year 2002 and 2003. -
Originally posted by Qitai:
If Tax Rebate for 2002 total 1 Billion, what was the amount that was collected by GST for Year 2001 ?
You raise a good point. However, after I checked the figures, it does not match exactly with your predictions.
(1) Tax rebate for 2002 totals ~1Billion. So, discounting that, the account still loses 1 Billion.
(2) I checked my 2003 income assessment, there is no longer any rebate in 2003. Thus, the deficit is actual.
So, all in all, it still remains true that there is a government deficit in year 2002 and 2003.
Has the Revenue figures been published for the Government's GST and Income Tax Collection in 2003 ?
As Singaporeans get used to paying GST, and become numb to the GST bite, the rebate will be and has been quietly removed without any publicity.
Once removed, the revenue collected will be a bumper.
Just like NTUC or any other Stores, have an Opening Sale at "subsidised prices" then harvest back the continued goodwill after the Sales Season is over. -
I do not think these are relavant to whatever point your are trying to make. But since I could find the figures on the net, I will just post it.Originally posted by Atobe:If Tax Rebate for 2002 total 1 Billion, what was the amount that was collected by GST for Year 2001 ?
Has the Revenue figures been published for the Government's GST and Income Tax Collection in 2003 ?
As Singaporeans get used to paying GST, and become numb to the GST bite, the rebate will be and has been quietly removed without any publicity.
Once removed, the revenue collected will be a bumper.
Just like NTUC or any other Stores, have an Opening Sale at "subsidised prices" then harvest back the continued goodwill after the Sales Season is over.
GST collected for 2001 is 2.0 Billion (I cannot find the rebate figure in 2001)
GST collected for 2002 is 2.1 Billion with 1 Billion rebate in tax
GST colletced for 2003 is 2.7 Billion and income tax collection total 10.4 Billion.
It was clear from the beginning that the GST rebate is only for the initial period to help people get use to the GST. At least, that was the message I get from day 0 of the announcement of the rebate. So, I have no problem with that.
Whether this should be announced is another matter. I am not going to jump from one topic to another with you. I don't like the none-transparency of information in general too. But it is also true that even when figures like above are available in the public domain, few bothers to look up for them.
As for your predictation, haven't I made it clear that GST rebate has already been removed in 2003 and there is still budget deficit? So, do you need to keep repeating your old point when I have already shown you the figures? Come up with something new please. -
Originally posted by Qitai:
Was there any dispute about the removal of the SUBSIDIES ?
I do not think these are relavant to whatever point your are trying to make. But since I could find the figures on the net, I will just post it.
GST collected for 2001 is 2.0 Billion (I cannot find the rebate figure in 2001)
GST collected for 2002 is 2.1 Billion with 1 Billion rebate in tax
GST colletced for 2003 is 2.7 Billion and income tax collection total 10.4 Billion.
It was clear from the beginning that the GST rebate is only for the initial period to help people get use to the GST. At least, that was the message I get from day 0 of the announcement of the rebate. So, I have no problem with that.
Whether this should be announced is another matter. I am not going to jump from one topic to another with you. I don't like the none-transparency of information in general too. But it is also true that even when figures like above are available in the public domain, few bothers to look up for them.
As for your predictation, haven't I made it clear that GST rebate has already been removed in 2003 and there is still budget deficit? So, do you need to keep repeating your old point when I have already shown you the figures? Come up with something new please.
Why so defensive and combative ?
There is no disagreement to your post, just that I tried to add a new angle to look at the 'facts and figures' that are presented, unless you wish to be gullible and accept whatever that comes from the Government as gospel truth without any critical views ?
Can you imagine what the GST collection will be during better times, when during a climate of economic downturn - (since the recession of 2001, and with a serious economic dislocation in 2003) - GST has continued to increase at a hefty pace ?
Yes, the 1 BILLION deficit had to happen, but the entire amount was not returned to Singaporeans as subsidies for the bumper GST collection in the previous year.
You may wish to read the following referenced article.
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/030228af.htm -
I am only trying to be balance here. Your stances of making accusation after accusation forces me correct those accusation which are doubtful. I correct only information, unlike you who have made several attempts to insult me so far. I have also complained about several policies that I disagree with in the past. But, there are enough people to play this role here.Originally posted by Atobe:Was there any dispute about the removal of the SUBSIDIES ?
Why so defensive and combative ?
There is no disagreement to your post, just that I tried to add a new angle to look at the 'facts and figures' that are presented, unless you wish to be gullible and accept whatever that comes from the Government as gospel truth without any critical views ?
Can you imagine what the GST collection will be during better times, when during a climate of economic downturn - (since the recession of 2001, and with a serious economic dislocation in 2003) - GST has continued to increase at a hefty pace ?
Yes, the 1 BILLION deficit had to happen, but the entire amount was not returned to Singaporeans as subsidies for the bumper GST collection in the previous year.
You may wish to read the following referenced article.
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/030228af.htm
You views are appreciated and I did admit that what you pointed out about the rebate being not factor into the equation as being a good point. But just not good enough after I bother to spend about an hour trying to check out those figures. When views and points are substantiated, I applauses. But when it is a baseless attack, I can only add my critical suspicion of the information presented.
My purpose here is to try to present information without a judgement. I leave the judgement to the reader. I believe in this statement very much - "Opinions are free, facts are valuable". -
Originally posted by Qitai:
Your values - "Opinions are free, facts are valuable" - are applaudable; but try to live up to it.
I am only trying to be balance here. Your stances of making accusation after accusation forces me correct those accusation which are doubtful. I correct only information, unlike you who have made several attempts to insult me so far. I have also complained about several policies that I disagree with in the past. But, there are enough people to play this role here.
You views are appreciated and I did admit that what you pointed out about the rebate being not factor into the equation as being a good point. But just not good enough after I bother to spend about an hour trying to check out those figures. When views and points are substantiated, I applauses. But when it is a baseless attack, I can only add my critical suspicion of the information presented.
My purpose here is to try to present information without a judgement. I leave the judgement to the reader. I believe in this statement very much - "Opinions are free, facts are valuable".
Let 'OPINIONS' be FREE.
Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion(s), whether they are judgmental or opinionated, speculative, combative, or simply mischevious and / or having fun, or in any form as the writer wish to adopt or present his views.
If you wish to be a self-appointed guardian in this sgForums, you will be quite busy for a long time to come.
"FACTS" ?
What are facts ?
LKY had once said, that a "LIE" repeated often enough by anyone with some authority, can become a "FACT" . -
Nothing new to add. Just like to have the last word.
-
Well, we have lots of truths told by him and his kakis eh.So people, figure it out as you go along.Originally posted by Atobe:Your values - "Opinions are free, facts are valuable" - are applaudable; but try to live up to it.
Let 'OPINIONS' be FREE.
Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion(s), whether they are judgmental or opinionated, speculative, combative, or simply mischevious and / or having fun, or in any form as the writer wish to adopt or present his views.
If you wish to be a self-appointed guardian in this sgForums, you will be quite busy for a long time to come.
"FACTS" ?
What are facts ?
LKY had once said, that a "LIE" repeated often enough by anyone with some authority, can become a "FACT" . -
I thought so, no wonder there exist a proverb that says "empty vessels make the most noise".Originally posted by Qitai:Nothing new to add. Just like to have the last word. -
I insist on having the last word.
-
Originally posted by Qitai:
If it means that much to you, the space is yours, which certainly prove the seriousness that you place in the information that you post.
I insist on having the last word.
Should we be taking you seriously ? -
You wouldn't give up,will you? Trying to break the record for the number of insults made? The last word is mine.Originally posted by Atobe:If it means that much to you, the space is yours, which certainly prove the seriousness that you place in the information that you post.
Should we be taking you seriously ?
-
????Originally posted by Atobe:I thought so, no wonder there exist a proverb that says "empty vessels make the most noise".
-
Originally posted by Qitai:
Insults ?
You wouldn't give up,will you? Trying to break the record for the number of insults made? The last word is mine.
Are you hyper-sensitive or simply ignorant of the English language ?
From the childish display - (to grab space for attention that you demand), I doubt if you can differentiate a real insult from an insult created by your own action that is insulting others without any provocation . -
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:
Quoting from your signature line: " wtf " - I hope you can take it as much as you can display.
????
If you have nothing to score, don't waste server space and time. -
You seem to be contradicting yourself.Originally posted by Atobe:The objective of implementing the GST in Singapore is to ensure that tax is paid by every Singapore Citizen.
In the Income Tax system, the tax net is dependent on the 'honest' reporting of one's income, which can result in leakages in the system, and taxes not paid accordingly.
With GST, tax will be paid by every Singaporean based on his consumption - whether it is an individual Person or a Company, each transaction will result in GST being collected.
Even when a Business has turnover below $1 Million, the Business will still be PAYING the GST on the goods and services PURCHASED by the Business.
However, this SMALL Business (below $1 Million turnover) will not be required to COLLECT GST, by charging their customers for the goods or services sold to them - (the Small Businesses can OPT to collect GST, and pass on the cost of GST paid to their Customers).
The GST is a multiplier of revenue for the Government, as when an Item is IMPORTED into Singapore, the first GST will be paid by the IMPORTER.
When the same Item is sold to a Middleman, the transaction will result in another GST being paid on Cost PLUS Profit.
When the Middleman resell the Item to another Buyer, GST will again be imposed on this Item - at a new higher value.
For each subsequent transaction on the same Item, GST will be imposed and collected.
Everyone living in Singapore will have to pay GST on every item consumed.
As to which system is better for the Citizen, one has to look at the net effect of reducing Income Tax to implement GST, which may not necessarily reduce Revenue to the Government - due to the multiplier effect the GST is repeated on each and every transaction of the same goods.
The net loss reported by the Singapore Government is due to the subsidies that they claimed have been paid to Singaporeans, to help them to adjust to the GST being implemented.
Now that the GST has been introduced and operating for the last five years, and the subsidy is no longer available, Government Revenue should be increasing in geometrical bounds.
At the end of the first year when GST was implemented, and despite the subsidy being paid-out, the Government had reported an embarrassingly higher revenue, which resulted in the Singapore Shares being paid out- as a refund of tax collected.
With the knowledge of the profitable effects of each percentage increase to GST, and with a bumper collection in the First Year of GST, there is no reason for the GST to have been increased from 3 Percent to the current 5 Percent.
One moment you say that the govt should spend more to help people. Another moment you say that Singapore Shares is a waste of govt funds. So what is your stand ? -
spend more money on other stuff like groups to help the needy instead of giving out shares to grab votes?Originally posted by paperchicken:You seem to be contradicting yourself.
One moment you say that the govt should spend more to help people. Another moment you say that Singapore Shares is a waste of govt funds. So what is your stand ?
i think that roughly what he disagrees with
maybe you should look at what i quoted?Originally posted by Atobe:Quoting from your signature line: " wtf " - I hope you can take it as much as you can display.
If you have nothing to score, don't waste server space and time. -
The shares were given out to all Singaporeans including those that vote for the opposition. I wonder how it will help grab votes.
The primary aim of the Singapore shares was to share with Singaporeans the fruits of the economy hence the dividends were tied down to the economic growth rates. The poorer Singaporeans were given more shares. -
if we start a party call sgforum party they chance will be good.
logo : fight for a lower cost living standard. by
1. lower cost of transportation
2. revising laws for more labour protection from unrightful retrenchment.
3. stricter law on foreign talent and worker, indept investigation whether company are abusing this system or whether they are really talent that singapore cant find.
4.questioning the lee dominance of the singapore economy.
5. questioning the education system in singapore.
bro, please add more. frankly, i think opposition need to talk more and issue that we care, can do or not this can wait until election over. if you can win your seat, you can even talk in parliament how to realise what you promise to fight for the ppl. -
I have some more to add :Originally posted by reyes:if we start a party call sgforum party they chance will be good.
logo : fight for a lower cost living standard. by
1. lower cost of transportation
2. revising laws for more labour protection from unrightful retrenchment.
3. stricter law on foreign talent and worker, indept investigation whether company are abusing this system or whether they are really talent that singapore cant find.
4.questioning the lee dominance of the singapore economy.
5. questioning the education system in singapore.
bro, please add more. frankly, i think opposition need to talk more and issue that we care, can do or not this can wait until election over. if you can win your seat, you can even talk in parliament how to realise what you promise to fight for the ppl.
6 Accept suggestions from the people. Dont stonewall with standard replies.
7 Be more prudent in spending money. Do not build lavish headquarters for govt buildings or expensive furniture and plasma TV.
8 Revise minister's salary. They should be there because they want to serve the people not because of the benefits. -
9. Lower cost of housing by pricing it to cost than to market prices
10. greater transparencies in government policies and decision making process
11. greater transparencies in accounts, prices determination, subsidies amount etc.. more available in public domain
12. Stop penalizing the singles
13. More sexual equalities (both male and female)
14. Accelerate the process of pricing car by usage (for traffic control purpose only) rather than by ownership (i.e. increase ERP and drop the 130% tax + COE) - Maybe others will disagree with me on this one. But I really like to own a car.
15. Create more jobs for the unemployed.
I will think of more later.