User Research/Opinions   

your biggest worries?

S’pore’s overriding priority is to improve lives of its citizens: PM Lee

S’pore’s overriding priority is to improve lives of its citizens: PM Lee

 

Electric cars to the rescue in Japan

TOKYO

The areas pummelled by the earthquake and tsunami in March would surely be inhospitable for an electric vehicle.— With deep-tread tires and ample ground clearance, a rugged 4-wheel-drive Hummer or Jeep might seem the best choice for navigating through the wrecked cities of north-eastern Japan.

 

Good news for new

home buyers: Analysts

                                                                      # # # #      House Prices      # # # #

Build-To-Order flats                                                                            s$300,000 to s$500,000

Design, Build and Sell Scheme flats                              s$500,000 to s$750,000

Executive condominiums                                                                s$750,000 to s$950,000

 

THE Opposition parties went into overdrive preparing their proposals and manifestos for the General Election. The PAP has been quick to reject all the proposals thrown up. This is to be expected, as in the heat of an election, no party wants to give an inch or make a concession.

However, when all is done and dusted and the PAP returns to governance, can efforts be made to scrutinise the recommendations on tweaking and improving national policies?

For example, a review committee could be set up, comprising respected members of society from various fields, and representatives from ministries and statutory boards.  [A TRIPARTITE  COMMITTEE  INCLUDING  THE  COMMON  PEOPLE]

Let’s sieve out proposals that are worth a closer look, subject them to rigorous examination and eventually debate them in Cabinet or even in Parliament.

Who knows, we might uncover gems that could make a difference to the lives of Singaporeans?

BG (NS) Tan Chuan-Jin (candidate for Marine Parade GRC) had said at the PAP lunch time rally that the party needs to listen more and that it does not have a monopoly on wisdom.

Mr George Yeo has said that no matter what happens, the PAP will need to be transformed after the election.

So, on the road to transformation, instead of dismissing all proposals from the Opposition, related to issues such as housing, healthcare, education, immigration and cost of living, the PAP could acknowledge that they are made in good faith and therefore deserve some consideration.

 

Have panels study the alternative proposals

[#dOn't  jUst  pUsh  them Off the table#]

Letter from Low Kim Song

 

Let’s sieve out proposals that are worth a closer look, subject them to rigorous examination and eventually debate them in Cabinet or even in Parliament.

#nOthing  is  IMpossible#

 

Asset values are not everything

[# Inflation Trap  & Wellbeing Reducer  #]

Letter from Teo Chin Ghee Jeremy

I REFER to recent comments by Mr Mah Bow Tan and various PAP ministers on how rising property values have benefited Singaporeans and in particular, his thoughts that this is an issue for new property buyers but that once they become property owners, they will change their views.

While I support HDB upgrading because it provides for renewal and better conditions for Singaporeans, I wonder if we do not need a more nuanced view towards the benefits of rising property values.

Consider a hypothetical property market where a 1,000-sq-ft apartment appreciates in value from S$800,000 to S$1.2 million over five years because of market factors rather than physical improvements like upgrading.

A new home buyer obviously does not benefit from having to pay a higher price as this translates to higher mortgage payments, leaving less disposable income for other activities like vacations, movies and dining out.

But what about the family who purchased the apartment earlier at S$800,000, do they benefit? From a pure net worth perspective, the family is now richer but if they choose to stay in their apartment, their quality of life stays exactly the same.

If the family now decides to upgrade to a larger property in Singapore, they will make a substantial profit from the sale but by the same token, they will have to pay substantially and proportionally more for the new property they purchase because of rising overall property prices.

Thus, there is no net benefit to them in this instance as well.

Indeed, the people who do benefit from rapidly rising property values are non-owner occupiers who do not need to buy an equivalent place to live in Singapore — emigrants, property developers and investors.

Unless incomes increase at the same pace as property prices, Singaporeans will spend increasing proportions of their incomes on a place to live, leaving correspondingly less disposable income for other areas.

This is a challenge not simply for first time home buyers or for the lower income group, but for all Singaporeans aspiring for a better quality of life and is true of both public and private property owners.

I hope the Government can shift its mindset on the value of supporting property prices and look into the issues more deeply. The recent measures to cool the property market are a start but more can and should be done.

 

PAP team ‘will do their best’ to

listen to needs, meet expectations

---

are expectIOns

cOnflicts-Of-Interests 

[cOI]  ? ? ? ?

 

I think there is some funny

business going on, says Mr Chiam

Ng Jing Yng

jingyng@mediacorp.com.sg

 

 

KAMPONG  &   its  CHIEF  ? ? ? ?

Reform Party chief will

still move to West Coast

We intend to move the party office to West Coast as soon as practicable and to start implementing as much of our five-year plan as is practicable.

Reform Party chief Kenneth Jeyaretnam

---

NEXT  ELECTION  STRATEGY  ? ? ? ?

EVERY  CHIEF  must  live  with  one's villagers in the  SAME  KAMPONG ?



 

 

 

EUGENE  K  B  TAN

The writer is assistant professor of law at the Singapore Management University’s School of Law.

Emotions have run high in the last three weeks.

We now need to close ranks and respect the collective decisions of Singaporeans. Some of the online debates have been ugly and demeaning.

We need to recognise and accept differences of views.

---

WHAT  ABOUT  ? ? ? ?

dIfferences  Of  wellbeing  ? ? ? ?

dIfferences  Of  wealth  ? ? ? ?

dIfferences  Of  IncOme  ? ? ? ?

dIfferences  Of  statUs  ? ? ? ?

dIfferences  Of  . . . .  ? ? ? ?

 

Why they made

a difficult choice

Aljunied voters cite need to be heard and MM’s

‘repent’ remark as reasons they voted for WP

Lin Yanqin and Christopher Toh

yanqinl@mediacorp.com.sg

The fear-mongering tactics, the need to have more alternative representation in Parliament, these were all things WP spoke about that are personally important to me ... The estate issues are not such a big deal.

Aljunied resident Koh Sock Ling

 

What George Yeo’s loss

means for Singapore

COMMENTA RY

Simon tay

Simon Tay is chairman of the Singapore Institute of International Affairs.

---

Mr Yeo has emerged in the international community as among the best recognised and respected of this generation of Singaporean leaders. The next Cabinet has no ready replacement for him.

---

lead·er/ˈ lē də r/Noun

1. The person who leads or commands a group, organization, or country.

2. A person followed by others.   

More  »

Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster - The Free Dictionary

---

hOw  is  a  LEADER  recognised

If  not  by  one's  fOllOwers  ? ? ? ?

---

tOday  many  SPEAKERS

are  mIstaken  as  LEADERS  ? ? ? ?

---

A LEADER 

mUst  fIrst  Of  ALL

lead  one's  own  followers

who  pay  one's  salary  ? ? ? ?

 

ASEAN leaders saddened by George Yeo’s defeat at election

Sujadi Siswo

Indonesia Bureau Chief, Channel NewsAsia

sujadi@mediacorp.com.sg

---

Had  all the  leaders  been  just  SPEAKING  or  LEADING  ? ? ? ?

Could  all  the leaders  just  SPEAK  or  LEAD  ? ? ? ?

 

G R C

dOUble-edged swOrd

cUts  bOth ways

---

AVERAGES  the substance  of  all  members

lIfts  STRENGTH  of  weak-substance  memebers

trims  STRENGTH  of  strong-substance members

---

AVERAGES  are  MUDDLED  STATISTICS

smOOthes    the  EXTREMEMES

dOes  nOt  reveal  the  FACT  and  its  TRUTH

hIdes  the  gOOd  and  the  bAd

best  representation  of  MEDIOCRITY

 

TRUE!

pharoah88      ( Date: 09-May-2011 11:45) Posted: GST  tax  burden is HEAVIEST  in terms  of Absolute Dollar Value on the  pOOrest cOnsumers. Famaly  Monthly  Income          Monthly Expenditure                7% GST S$          %GST Tax on Monthly Income S$1,000                                                                  S$1,000                                                    S$70                                        7.0% S$5,000                                                                  S$3,000                                                  S$210                                      4.2% S$10,000                                                              S$5,000                                                  S$350                                    3.5% S$15,000                                                            S$7,000                                                  S$490                                      3.3% S$20,000                                                            S$8,000                                                  S$560                                      2.8%  S$100,000                                                        S$10,000                                              S$700                                    0.7% S$250,000                                                          S$20,000                                              S$1,400                              0.56% The  higher the monthly income  the lower the incidence of GST%  on monthly income. REMEMBER: The  rIch  always get the  VIP  DISCOUNTS & REBATES  up to 50% or more. On tOp Of  that,  the rIch  always  InsIsts  that  the  GST  to  be  absOrbed  by the  vendOr  ? ? ? ? In practIce,  the  rIch  dOn't  pay  GST  at  ALL  ? ? ? ? ALL    these  practIces  are    extremely  famIlIar  and    everybOdy  knOws  abOUt  it  ? ? ? ?   fOr  the  abOve  reasOns Hong  Kong  peOple  dO  nOt  accept  the  GST  EVIL  TAX  ? ? ? ? which  is  the  mOst  IneqUitIble  Tax  On  the  pOOrest  cItIzens ? ? ? ?   Laulan      ( Date: 09-May-2011 10:45) Posted: The only snag in the GST system is the refunding of the taxes to both companies and social visitors who come to shop in Singapore. For those in business, you will understand what I mean.   If you are a GST registered company, what you paid as GST can be claimed back against what you charged for GST. (Cancelling of input and output taxes as IRAS will explain if you wish to learn more.) Thus businesses are not much affected. Your firm pays 7% GST (output)for the goods you procure, and you charge your customers 7% GST (input) for the goods you sell.   If output GST is $1000 and input GST is $1200, you pay effectively $200.   On the other hand, if output is $1000 and the input GST is $800, you could claim back $200 in cash.   So you see, businesses are not affected. For the consumers, it is 100 per cent out from their pockets, unless you are the social visitors or foreigners coming in for short stay, you could claim back everything you paid as GST if the GST add up to $50 and above.   So this is the discontent Singaporeans are feeling. The bulk of GST paid to the treasury actually comes from Singaporeans. This is the hard truth, check it out for yourself and work out the mathematics to see for yourselves.   Cheers.

 

G R C

dOUble-edged swOrd

cUts  bOth  ways

---

Averages  of  substance  of  all members

lifts  STRENGTH  of  weak-substance members

trim  STRENGTH  of  strong-substance  members

---

AVERAGES  are  MUDDLED  STATISTICS

dO nOt  reflect  the  FACT and its TRUTH

smOOthes  OUt  the  extremes

hIdes  the  gOOd  and  bAd  thIngs

 

ADAM SMITH'S FOUR MAXIMS

Adam Smith is generally considered (certainly in the English speaking world) to be the father of modern political economy. In " The Wealth of Nations" (1776)[1] he set forth four maxims, or canons, of taxation, saying that " the evident justice and utility of (these) maxims have recommended them more or less to the attention of all nations.[2] The maxims were as follows:-

I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.

II. The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain, and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment, the quantity to be paid, ought all to be clear and plain to the contributor, and to every other person.

III. Every tax ought to be levied at the time, or in the manner, in which it is most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay it.

IV. Every tax ought to be contrived as both to take out and to keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible over and above what it brings into the public treasury of the state.

These four maxims have been summarised in four words: Equity, Certainty, Convenience and Efficiency. If we measure our existing tax systems against these four maxims arid according to these criteria, we can see just how far they fall short of the ideal.

Maxim IV provides grounds alone for condemning our tax systems on the grounds of efficiency. Not only does the government have to employ armies of inspectors and assessors, investigators, prosecutors and other officials (including judges), the poor taxpayer is forced by economic circumstances -- to stay competitive he must take full advantage of the tax system -- to engage teams of tax managers, advisors, accountants and lawyers at his own expense. The costs of all these people mean that there is a large difference between the revenue to the government (net of administration expenses) and the total outlay by the taxpayer.

Maxim III is self-explanatory, but universally ignored. It is somehow presumed that inconvenience in payment is legitimised by the fact that the government is democratically accountable - as if this gives the government carte blanche to do what it likes.

Maxim II makes it clear that the requirement of certainty means certain to the man in the street -- to all of us, not just to the " tax profession" . If any society is to cohere, its members must know and be capable of understanding their basic rights under the society's constitution. Likewise, a society's tax system must be known and understood by all its adult members otherwise, they cannot play their part to the full, and we are all the worse for it.

Maxim I, I have deliberately left to the last. It is the most controversial. It appears to be justifying the " ability to pay" principle but whoever heard of taxing people according to inability to pay?

In fact the ability to pay principle gets us no further forward. Does it, for example, require a proportional income tax or a progressive income tax?

Levying a tax on existing riches according to their amount is not taxing  someone according to his ability it is merely expropriating existing wealth.

To look at tax in these terms is, as Henry George pointed out, to fail to see that production and distribution are inseparable they are two sides of the same coin. Taxation falls on and necessarily affects, future production and distribution, and distorts it.

Taxing someone truly according to their " ability" requires taxing them according not to the income or wealth which they do in fact enjoy but according to the income or wealth which they have the capability of enjoying.

There is a danger in interpreting Smith outside the context of the society in which he lived and about which he wrote. Upon a more detailed consideration of Smith's maxims, in the context of their time, it is clear that he considered that under Maxim I taxation should be levied mainly on economic rent (the rental value of land in its unimproved state -- ground rent).

In Smith's day, " Rent" and " Revenue" were virtually synonymous. Certainly, the term " Revenue" only covered income from an investment and did not include wages and salaries and in eighteenth century Britain most investment was in landed property. So when Smith proposed in Maxim I a tax on the subjects of a state " in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the stale" , he was not advocating the modern proportional or progressive income tax, but really a tax on economic rent. This would be tax on private property in land according to its annual value, being the creation of and protected by the state. Most state expenditure at that time was on civil and national defence, which largely meant securing landowners in their privileged position. (A tax on economic rent is something to which I shall return later.)

It is time to revisit Smith's Maxims, for they were relevant to a simpler life, but their simplicity should be applied to the depressing complexities of modern taxation. Lambert's Modern Principles of Taxation serve as a foundation for a tax system which is simple, just and lasting.

 

this is  the  EVIDENCE ? ? ? ?

  In  PRACTICE  ? ? ? ?

---

GST  is  an INeffective and INefficient Tax

which  is  AT ALL TIMES

S H I F T E D 

by  the  RICH  &   POWERFUL

tO

the  pOOr    &   pOwerless

---

GST  defeats

the  TAXATION  JUSTICE

and  DESTROYS  the  TAXATION  BASIS  in  PRACTICE

---

Luostock      ( Date: 09-May-2011 12:06) Posted: GST is bad for commission-based personnels. Many a time, the client refuses to pay GST ended up the commission being reduced as the agent has to pay the GST on behalf of the client.    Laulan      ( Date: 09-May-2011 10:45) Posted: The only snag in the GST system is the refunding of the taxes to both companies and social visitors who come to shop in Singapore. For those in business, you will understand what I mean.   If you are a GST registered company, what you paid as GST can be claimed back against what you charged for GST. (Cancelling of input and output taxes as IRAS will explain if you wish to learn more.) Thus businesses are not much affected. Your firm pays 7% GST (output)for the goods you procure, and you charge your customers 7% GST (input) for the goods you sell.   If output GST is $1000 and input GST is $1200, you pay effectively $200.   On the other hand, if output is $1000 and the input GST is $800, you could claim back $200 in cash.   So you see, businesses are not affected. For the consumers, it is 100 per cent out from their pockets, unless you are the social visitors or foreigners coming in for short stay, you could claim back everything you paid as GST if the GST add up to $50 and above.   So this is the discontent Singaporeans are feeling. The bulk of GST paid to the treasury actually comes from Singaporeans. This is the hard truth, check it out for yourself and work out the mathematics to see for yourselves.   Cheers.

 

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/lambert-ian_on-adam-smith.html

Some Modern Principles of Taxation -- Adam Smith Revisited

Ian T.G. Lambert, M.A.

[A paper delivered at the Third Annual Convention of the Congress of Political Economists in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in January 1992. Ian Lambert is a graduate in Mathematics and Law from Trinity College, Cambridge. At the time of this paper, he practised law in the Cayman Islands.]

 

INTRODUCTION

Is taxation just democratic theft?

There is a modern tendency to think that it is and that any tax is just, provided it is levied by a democratically elected government and is impartially enforced. However, the mere fact that the rules are the same for everyone is no guarantee that they are just. We do not make murder and theft just, merely by allowing everyone to commit such acts on the same terms.

The search for justice in taxation has been virtually abandoned, except by those who seek to use the tax system as a means of redistributing wealth and promoting what they call " social justice" , i.e., as an attack on property rights. It seems to be readily conceded by everyone that all taxation must be an attack on property, in the sense that the government (if democratic) is entitled to take without giving anything in return. We need a tax system that embodies the ideas of economic justice and genuinely respects property rights.

At the outset, I should emphasise that by " taxation" I mean the funding of government expenditure where that expenditure cannot properly be funded through any market mechanism, because it is for an essentially intangible service. There are many tangible services which the government provides and which can be put on a proper contractual basis. Typical examples include nationalised or state-owned industries, from telecommunications to coal and steel. These are tangible services and products, which the consumer directly receives and uses.

Why, therefore, do governments make it hard for themselves?

Surely it is easier to provide the consumer with a service or product for which he is charged a price, and is happy to pay it, than to take a tax begrudgingly handed over to pay for the same service, which is consequently not properly understood or valued by either the producer or the consumer. Throughout the world, such services and products are (rightly) the subject of privatisation programmes, where the consumer is once again made sovereign and dictates the product and its quality, through the market.

However, there are other services which government provides that are essentially intangible and from which the citizen indirectly benefits, such as defence, police, embassies in foreign countries, parliament etc. The provision of these cannot be put on the same market basis as for tangible services and products directly consumed. They must therefore be funded by a levy on the citizen which is necessarily compulsory, and is therefore properly termed " taxation" .

This paper considers the principles according to which such taxation should be levied.

It uses Adam Smith's four maxims of taxation (put forward over two hundred years ago) as a starting point for sixteen modern principles of taxation which will form the basis of a tax system which is simple, just and lasting.

These principles are founded on a philosophy which does not accept the theory of the " social contract" as the basis for society. Under that theory, every citizen is deemed to have contracted with the state to become a member of society and assume the benefits and burdens of such membership. Under that theory, the taxpayer is already deemed to have agreed to pay the taxes levied on him and there are consequently no natural limits on the power of the state to tax him.

By contrast, Lambert's Modern Principles of Taxation are founded on the long hallowed principle of restitution -- the moral obligation to restore to another -- in the case of taxation it is the community -- the property or value conferred on him by that other (otherwise than by way of gift or contract). He who takes the benefit must take the burden, but only to the extent and measure of the bent it conferred. On this theory, taxation is not theft (democratic or otherwise) it is a means of restoring to the community, the value bestowed upon the taxpayer by the community.

 

GST is bad for commission-based personnels. Many a time, the client refuses to pay GST ended up the commission being reduced as the agent has to pay the GST on behalf of the client.   

Laulan      ( Date: 09-May-2011 10:45) Posted: The only snag in the GST system is the refunding of the taxes to both companies and social visitors who come to shop in Singapore. For those in business, you will understand what I mean.   If you are a GST registered company, what you paid as GST can be claimed back against what you charged for GST. (Cancelling of input and output taxes as IRAS will explain if you wish to learn more.) Thus businesses are not much affected. Your firm pays 7% GST (output)for the goods you procure, and you charge your customers 7% GST (input) for the goods you sell.   If output GST is $1000 and input GST is $1200, you pay effectively $200.   On the other hand, if output is $1000 and the input GST is $800, you could claim back $200 in cash.   So you see, businesses are not affected. For the consumers, it is 100 per cent out from their pockets, unless you are the social visitors or foreigners coming in for short stay, you could claim back everything you paid as GST if the GST add up to $50 and above.   So this is the discontent Singaporeans are feeling. The bulk of GST paid to the treasury actually comes from Singaporeans. This is the hard truth, check it out for yourself and work out the mathematics to see for yourselves.   Cheers.    simplesimon      ( Date: 08-May-2011 22:03) Posted: I was against GST like most citizens although I do not simply spend on wants. Recently one young economics graduate (who wants more opposition MPs in the Parliament) explain to me that GST is a fairer tax as it is difficult for the unscrupulous to escape taxation, unlike income tax. I think most of us is afraid that GST increases to those in the western countries which has high VAT.