My salary is calculated 13mth annually.
Originally posted by Zweiz:anyone with annual income <30k doesn't need to pay tax and hence not included into calculations
hiding the lower-income citizens doesn't mean they don't exist
You are wrong. Minimum income thats taxable I believe is $20k per annum, not $30k per annum. So if you make between $20k to $30k per annum (let's say $22k), you have to pay income tax. Please read http://www.iras.gov.sg/Tax%20Calculators/IIT/IIT.html
This is why the table makes sense. It starts off at $30k per annum, and states that if you make $30k, you earn MORE than 11.5% of the taxpayers (who make less than $30k and more than $20k per annum). By the time you go down to the chart to $500K, the $500k per annum guy earns more than 98.7% of taxpayers here.
Note that high income earners pay higher and more tax than anyone else because the SG tax system is heavily burdened on the high income. Refer to the IRAS income tax calculator in the link and look at how the % of tax to be paid based on taxable income increases exponentially. The low income people who make less than $40k per annum hardly pay any dipshit (less than a few hundred bucks a year), whereas a guy earning $200k per year (many of my friends in their 20s) pay income tax through their nose! (about $22k every year)
This is such a simple chart that doesn't even require the economics skills of a J1 student. Is everyone here like some underprivileged retards or something? lol
How about those who have 3 kids and was wavied for paying any income tax and was given a certain amount as a bonus for deducting the income tax?
Originally posted by likeyou:My salary is calculated 13mth annually.
You are really a fucktard. I'm not saying you don't have the 13th month bonus.
What I said means that in the real (professional) world, when people benchmark and compare their pay packages and apply for jobs and negotiate for packages, they compare and use only ANNUAL figures because their bonuses form a huge component of their salaries (up to 8 months).
For eg, they'll say "whats your pay?" Answer: "$200k pa". Or "What are you expecting for this new appointment?" Answer: "Say about 20% rise, to $180k pa"
PA means per annum
Originally posted by insidestory:You are wrong. Minimum income thats taxable I believe is $20k per annum, not $30k per annum. So if you make between $20k to $30k per annum (let's say $22k), you have to pay income tax. Please read http://www.iras.gov.sg/Tax%20Calculators/IIT/IIT.html
This is why the table makes sense. It starts off at $30k per annum, and states that if you make $30k, you earn MORE than 11.5% of the taxpayers (who make less than $30k and more than $20k per annum). By the time you go down to the chart to $500K, the $500k per annum guy earns more than 98.7% of taxpayers here.
Note that high income earners pay higher and more tax than anyone else because the SG tax system is heavily burdened on the high income. Refer to the IRAS income tax calculator in the link and look at how the % of tax to be paid based on taxable income increases exponentially. The low income people who make less than $40k per annum hardly pay any dipshit (less than a few hundred bucks a year), whereas a guy earning $200k per year (many of my friends in their 20s) pay income tax through their nose! (about $22k every year)
This is such a simple chart that doesn't even require the economics skills of a J1 student. Is everyone here like some underprivileged retards or something? lol
Wow you bothered to explain. Guess I'm just too lazy :X
Originally posted by eagle:Wow you bothered to explain. Guess I'm just too lazy :X
I bet you had the same thoughts as me. Why are you even hanging out there? I come here every now and then for a good laugh.
Originally posted by insidestory:You are really a fucktard. I'm not saying you don't have the 13th month bonus.
What I said means that in the real (professional) world, when people benchmark and compare their pay packages and apply for jobs and negotiate for packages, they compare and use only ANNUAL figures because their bonuses form a huge component of their salaries (up to 8 months).
For eg, they'll say "whats your pay?" Answer: "$200k pa". Or "What are you expecting for this new appointment?" Answer: "Say about 20% rise, to $180k pa"
PA means per annum
Thank you so much.
Originally posted by insidestory:I bet you had the same thoughts as me. Why are you even hanging out there? I come here every now and then for a good laugh.
I'm more free nearer to the end of year.
So I even started da sao chu on my room already, 2 months before CNY.
Originally posted by Lokey:It is true that there are many people who are earning less than $2k per month.
Think about it, there are many "educated" people who falls into the ITE, poly educated level. They make up the majority of the population. And their starting pay is about S$ 1 to 1. 8 K. And they never exceed 3 K in their lifetime, with the current education qualification that they have.
Only a minority, get into university and managed to get a starting salary of S$ 2.5 k per month.
That exclude the older generation who do not received much education.
The cost of living has already overwhelmed the earning income of the young generations. In case, some people are still unaware.
The rubbish you spewed is typical of ..100% of the shit that comes out of every orifice on your face and body.
There are very few poly grads who do not go to get a degree. note I said, get a degree, I didn't say where. How many do not go on to get a private degree if they didn't couldn't go overseas?
Your inference that "with their educational qualifications", all poly grads will not reach $3k and beyond is so simplistic it can only be uttered by someone born yesterday. Many high income earners, including those in top earning property and financial product sales, are poly grads. Some of them didn't even bother to get a private degree and make $20k a month.
Many poly grads not in sales jobs make $100K per annum and above, doing the same jobs in the office as degree holders.
Your rubbish speech betrays the fact that you've never worked in a corporate environment ever in your life.
Originally posted by insidestory:You are wrong. Minimum income thats taxable I believe is $20k per annum, not $30k per annum. So if you make between $20k to $30k per annum (let's say $22k), you have to pay income tax. Please read http://www.iras.gov.sg/Tax%20Calculators/IIT/IIT.html
This is why the table makes sense. It starts off at $30k per annum, and states that if you make $30k, you earn MORE than 11.5% of the taxpayers (who make less than $30k and more than $20k per annum). By the time you go down to the chart to $500K, the $500k per annum guy earns more than 98.7% of taxpayers here.
Note that high income earners pay higher and more tax than anyone else because the SG tax system is heavily burdened on the high income. Refer to the IRAS income tax calculator in the link and look at how the % of tax to be paid based on taxable income increases exponentially. The low income people who make less than $40k per annum hardly pay any dipshit (less than a few hundred bucks a year), whereas a guy earning $200k per year (many of my friends in their 20s) pay income tax through their nose! (about $22k every year)
This is such a simple chart that doesn't even require the economics skills of a J1 student. Is everyone here like some underprivileged retards or something? lol
so i listed <30k instead of <20k
that doesn't change the fact that 21% are paid less than $1.2k
we are talking about singaporeans earning less than $1.2k here, take your tax somewhere else.
Originally posted by Zweiz:so i listed <30k instead of <20k
that doesn't change the fact that 21% are paid less than $1.2k
we are talking about singaporeans earning less than $1.2k here, take your tax somewhere else.
No you didn't even understand the chart and the way it was laid out and how it was calculated.
Take your tax elsewhere? haha dumb people are quite funny many a time. Who do you think is supporting the fiscal budget of everything that runs the country and allows it to survive, let alone function? who's paying for your social services, teh running of the airports and roads and the subsidies for the schools and farmer universities? if all the high income people left SG, thats when ppl like you will shrivel up and die before you can say "kill me god i'm a retard"
a thread about <$1.2k salary and people go a roundabout talking about tax, asset rich retirees, couples with a high earning spouse and poly grads not getting degrees.
very pap/msm like.
all the wall of texts doesn't change the fact that 21% of the workforce earns less than $1.2k. lol.
Btw, I do know of people who retired with nice amount of savings and probably good rental income or stock dividends. Then they go drive taxi because they have nothing to do. Something about maintaining social relevance. Don't earn much, but just for the sake of doing something.
Originally posted by Zweiz:a thread about <$1.2k salary and people go a roundabout talking about tax, asset rich retirees, couples with a high earning spouse and poly grads not getting degrees.
very pap/msm like.
all the wall of texts doesn't change the fact that 21% of the workforce earns less than $1.2k. lol.
Orh ok.
So to you, someone who earns <$1k per month and has a high earning spouse does not fall within that 21%.
Understood.
Originally posted by Zweiz:a thread about <$1.2k salary and people go a roundabout talking about tax, asset rich retirees, couples with a high earning spouse and poly grads not getting degrees.
very pap/msm like.
all the wall of texts doesn't change the fact that 21% of the workforce earns less than $1.2k. lol.
Nobody else believes the figures you pulled out of your arse. haha.
Just cos you think you're Ashley Cole, doesn't make you.
Lots of pple earn not more than $2k per mth even reaching 40+.
Yet they still can have family and kids and live happily.
So, why bother much about tax?
That is only the figures they show us.
Dont get work up.
Originally posted by eagle:Orh ok.
So to you, someone who earns <$1k per month and has a high earning spouse does not fall within that 21%.
Understood.
orh ok.
so to you, everyone who earns <$1k per month are rich retirees renting out their properties or couples with a high earning spouse.
understood.
Originally posted by insidestory:Nobody else believes the figures you pulled out of your arse. haha.
Just cos you think you're Ashley Cole, doesn't make you.
Sound like u are a angry man over many things....this is just a forum lah, dont need to be so work up over this.
This is something interesting about the report before someone continues to harp on 21%.
With strong income growth, the number and share of full-timers with gross
monthly income from work of $1,200 and below declined to 262,700 or 15% in 2010 from 275,000 or 17% in 2009. After including part-timers, there were 400,100 residents who earned up to $1,200 per month from work, forming 21% of the workforce.
The part in red tells me that many part timers earn below $1.2k, so much so that they can raise the percentages from 15% to 21%.
As for part timers,
Overall, 99,100 or 58% of the potential entrants preferred to work full-time,
while the other 72,800 or 42% preferred part-time employment. Unlike younger potential entrants who mostly preferred to work full-time, the majority or 68% of mature female potential entrants aged 40 & over preferred part-time employment, which would better allow them to balance their work and family commitments. Part-time employment was also popular among older male potential entrants aged 60 & over (64%)
They are good at figures isnt it?
Sorry, I am bad at figures...that's why I see lots of stars instead of figures.
Originally posted by Zweiz:orh ok.
so to you, everyone who earns <$1k per month are rich retirees renting out their properties or couples with a high earning spouse.
understood.
Hmmm, appears you have grossly misunderstood. Which post of mine did I mentioned it is everyone who earns <$1k per month are rich retirees renting out their properties or couples with a high earning spouse.
Please kindly point out. Thanks.
If these figures are to believed..to extrapolate:
The real median monthly income from work of residents in full-time employment only increased by 1.8% to $2,710 in 2010.
Part-timers’ real median monthly income increased significantly by 11% to $700 in 2010.
Since the definition of a part-timer was changed from 2009, from working 30 to 35 hours a week, this increase in income may be due to some extent to more people not being able to get work of more than 35 hours a week.
If someone works seven hours a day, for five days a week, would you consider this worker as a part-timer?Also, how does one survive on just $700 gross income (which includes the employee’s CPF contribution) a month in Singapore?In this connection, from 1999 to 2010, the median gross monthly income of part-timers increased by only 1.4% per annum, from $600 in 1999 to $700 in 2010 (not adjusted for inflation yet). If we adjust for inflation, the increase per annum is near to zero.There were 400,100 residents who earned up to $1,200 and below per month from work, forming 21% of the workforce. This was slightly lower than 401,600 or 22% a year ago.
Median monthly full time income is $2.7k+. Not bad, since it means at least 50% of the other full time workers make more than that and the other 50% make less than that (Thats the meaning of median, fucktards).
Using the lowest figure of 12 months without bonus, this means at least 50% of all full time workers make $2710 x 12 = $32400 per annum. Most of these make more, since most people have at least the 13 month bonus and many people, have several months bonus. Some people even have 8 month bonus. This makes the 50 percentile income-taxable. In fact, as long as one makes $20,001 per annumm, his or her income is taxable.
My question to the people marginalised by the figures above, is that why are you so lazy and choose not to work full time? LOL. MSM? If we were anything like them, we won't be calling you fucktards to your face. They're actually rather civil people unfamiliar with riff-raffs like you. haha.
Originally posted by likeyou:
Sound like u are a angry man over many things....this is just a forum lah, dont need to be so work up over this.
i'm not angry, just condescending. you misunderstood. i come here for laughs..and good fun. :)
My question to the people marginalised by the figures above, is that why are you so lazy and choose not to work full time? LOL. MSM? If we were anything like them, we won't be calling you fucktards to your face. They're actually rather civil people unfamiliar with riff-raffs like you. haha.
My aunt is divorced, so she chose to work only part time to take care of her 4 kids.
However, she's supported by $6k/mth matrimonial fees. I don't think she is lazy to choose not to work full time. She's a very powerful academic, and has written quite a number of inspirational articles on Straits Times...
Originally posted by eagle:
My aunt is divorced, so she chose to work only part time to take care of her 4 kids.
However, she's supported by $6k/mth matrimonial fees. I don't think she is lazy to choose not to work full time. She's a very powerful academic, and has written quite a number of inspirational articles on Straits Times...
See? Your aunt is one of these statistics above used by these fucktard low-IQ, temasek review nutjob fans to brandish their agenda and further their cause. LOL!