(16-06-2014, 12:13 PM)Temperament Wrote: [ -> ]i think Malaysia and HK. have no estate tax for a longtime before Singapore relented to join them. i remember Pinky or someone in the G said estate tax still yielded quite a sum for the G's coffer.
But Singapore wants to be one of the "Financial Centres "of the world, so is estate tax holding the Richs of the world to park their money here? Out goes estate tax lol!
The latest happening is Singapore wants to be one of the GOLD TRADING Centre of the World, so Goh Say Tax has been removed from trading of gold. Is it still only in gold bars and not gold jewellery?
Out goes GST on GOLD TRADING lol!
But unlike HK's duty free on wine, Singapore has increased the duty on wine, liquor and beer.
Do you know how much a local can of 323 cc Tiger Beer cost now in NTUC. Super-mart? $2.90.
Poor local man-in-street how to have the "Give The Man A Tiger" moment now?
It has become a "Luxury item too", only for the better off.
i bet the duty on WINE, LIQUOR or at least for BEER will come down soon.
Why?
Our G has lost touch with the common people ability to pay lah. imho.
I can understand the govt's reason for making Singapore the centre of everything since we don't have anything. Financial centre, gold trading centre, arbitration centre blah blah. Estate taxes were abolished only in 2008, so i doubt they will be brought back anyway even though they will be super lucrative. But yes totally agree with you that they have lost touch with the people.
I don't agree with the fact that taxing the wealthy more will bring repercussions. No numbers to back it up but I think the wealthy in Singapore make a lot of tax free income already such as capital gains in stocks and property (VB forumners included
). In the US, the wealthy are taxed on both capital gains and inheritance taxes, but they seem to be getting wealthier instead (again my opinion only).
Do you know that someone earning 1 billion a year pays less tax than his P.A - personal assistant? in the U.S.
The income tax is high and also you have state and federal tax.
Why do you ask?
Because the tax code in U.S. has a lot of loop holes that the rich using their lawyers and tax consultants avoid paying taxes.
So essence the capital gains tax and other taxes actually hurt the middle income and others trying to built their wealth than benefit them.
Whereas the rich get richer... avoid paying taxes on their earned income.
These are not stories, these are facts that have been established and documented.
(16-06-2014, 02:06 PM)grubb Wrote: [ -> ]In the US, the wealthy are taxed on both capital gains and inheritance taxes, but they seem to be getting wealthier instead (again my opinion only).
(16-06-2014, 02:13 PM)flinger Wrote: [ -> ]Do you know that someone earning 1 billion a year pays less tax than his P.A - personal assistant? in the U.S.
The income tax is high and also you have state and federal tax.
Why do you ask?
Because the tax code in U.S. has a lot of loop holes that the rich using their lawyers and tax consultants avoid paying taxes.
So essence the capital gains tax and other taxes actually hurt the middle income and others trying to built their wealth than benefit them.
Whereas the rich get richer... avoid paying taxes on their earned income.
These are not stories, these are facts that have been established and documented.
[quote='grubb' pid='86402' dateline='1402898805']
In the US, the wealthy are taxed on both capital gains and inheritance taxes, but they seem to be getting wealthier instead (again my opinion only).
i think you are right. The really RICHs have a lot of help how to get richer. In fact anywhere in the world, they can do that. It's just like part of their business dealings. Some even change citizenship.
i think it's just being human.
http://www.topaccountingdegrees.org/taxes/
(16-06-2014, 02:13 PM)flinger Wrote: [ -> ]Do you know that someone earning 1 billion a year pays less tax than his P.A - personal assistant? in the U.S.
The income tax is high and also you have state and federal tax.
Why do you ask?
Because the tax code in U.S. has a lot of loop holes that the rich using their lawyers and tax consultants avoid paying taxes.
So essence the capital gains tax and other taxes actually hurt the middle income and others trying to built their wealth than benefit them.
Whereas the rich get richer... avoid paying taxes on their earned income.
These are not stories, these are facts that have been established and documented.
(16-06-2014, 02:06 PM)grubb Wrote: [ -> ]In the US, the wealthy are taxed on both capital gains and inheritance taxes, but they seem to be getting wealthier instead (again my opinion only).
Yup...
I recommend those who use bittorrent to go download the movie "INEQUALITY FOR ALL"...
http://yts.re/movie/Inequality_for_All_2013_1080p
It is a documentary movie by Ex-Labor Chief of USA and essential explains how inequality reaches current state in USA...
Replace the word USA with Singapore and you will notice the alarming similarities...
Actually I find that the whole MINIMUM SUM thing very confusing...
There is Minimum SUM and MEDISAVE MINIMUM SUM...
Does one's property automatically gets pledged to CPF when one failed to amass the minimum sum by age 55?
Overall, I find that the concept of CPF is a good thing but all the various changes along the way just makes it dubious and confusing...
Especially when CPF returns is below inflation rate currently, how will one retire with CPF alone?
I am in my mid 30s and I am pondering how am I going to stay employed after 40 amid the influx of Cheaper Engineers from 3rd world countries...
Imagine Sri Lanka Engineers (with dubious degrees) in Semicon fabs getting pay of $2,000 ~ $2,200...
The outlook for me is pretty grim as there's stagnating wages... Increasing cost of living (i.e. cost spikes upwards when u start a family with baby on the way)... Employability.... Asset accumulation... etc...
Guess I am ranting away and getting way off topic..
Anyway, I find the discussion here very informative ... Especially how everyone interprets CPF differently..
(16-06-2014, 02:13 PM)flinger Wrote: [ -> ]Do you know that someone earning 1 billion a year pays less tax than his P.A - personal assistant? in the U.S.
No prizes but my guess is Buffett
.
To be fair, income inequality is a worldwide phenomenon. I think I read somewhere that the last time wealth distribution was so unequal, it was the pre-depression days in the 1920s. I would even go as far as to say that this imbalance in the economy is going to create a lot more social distress and ultimately more volatility in the market.
(16-06-2014, 09:06 AM)corydorus Wrote: [ -> ]I think there is a huge misconception that people view CPF money is something Gov want to hide away from you "Forever" and therefore is viewed as Tax. The reality is people who retired or met the condition did get the money back.
Not just people who retired, most people who bought HDB flats or properties, paid hospital bills, etc have used the money that they so-called paid as tax. CPF is a tax
?
(16-06-2014, 02:54 PM)Zelphon Wrote: [ -> ]Actually I find that the whole MINIMUM SUM thing very confusing...
There is Minimum SUM and MEDISAVE MINIMUM SUM...
Does one's property automatically gets pledged to CPF when one failed to amass the minimum sum by age 55?
Overall, I find that the concept of CPF is a good thing but all the various changes along the way just makes it dubious and confusing...
Especially when CPF returns is below inflation rate currently, how will one retire with CPF alone?
I am in my mid 30s and I am pondering how am I going to stay employed after 40 amid the influx of Cheaper Engineers from 3rd world countries...
Imagine Sri Lanka Engineers (with dubious degrees) in Semicon fabs getting pay of $2,000 ~ $2,200...
The outlook for me is pretty grim as there's stagnating wages... Increasing cost of living (i.e. cost spikes upwards when u start a family with baby on the way)... Employability.... Asset accumulation... etc...
Guess I am ranting away and getting way off topic..
Anyway, I find the discussion here very informative ... Especially how everyone interprets CPF differently..
That's why in the end you have to be here. And try to be good at being a "passive businessman" for the rest of your life. Or run your own business if you can. i can't in running own active business.
Shalom.
(16-06-2014, 11:16 AM)piggo Wrote: [ -> ]To be honest, I've only looked at the scheme for my age group. We are only allowed to withdraw anything above the minimum sum. If we don't meet the minimum sum, our houses will be pledged to reach the minimum sum i.e we can be evicted if we live too long. However, thanks to the minimum sum, we'll be automatically enrolled to CPF Life that will give us an approximate 1.2k/mth in living allowances.
I'm not aware that you can be evicted if you live too long just because you pledge your property for the minimum sum. Which policy is that? However, I do know that if you over extend and buy a property that is beyond your means, and that you have to continue paying mortgages long after you stop working, then you may have a problem. But that has nothing to do with minimum sum or CPF; but everything to do with a lack of financial prudence.
(16-06-2014, 11:16 AM)piggo Wrote: [ -> ]So after locking up our savings in a negative real interest rate account... They are only willing to pay us back a insignificant amount after every month. Those who are not blessed with long life, loses... those survivors runs the risk of losing the roof over their heads.
Again, if you are getting the money back, it is not a tax. In the end, you may not get all back, but that is because in an annuity, its risk pooling and those who live long long will get more. And I still don't know where the risk of losing your roof comes from.
(16-06-2014, 11:48 AM)GPD Wrote: [ -> ] (16-06-2014, 11:05 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ] (16-06-2014, 10:58 AM)kichialo Wrote: [ -> ]Academics and economists in the US or in general are split into two camps - the right leaning ones who tend to be Republicans, and the left leaning ones who tend to be Democrats. The Republican types call for less taxes for the rich and support trickle-down economics. This has largely been the dominant model since 80s Reagan and responsible for the state of the rich-poor divide and inequality today. 
I read the article, the same way as I read analyst reports. I focus on facts presented, rather than the opinion of author.
What your opinion after digested the facts (in this case the numbers) presented? Let's forget the author opinion.
Agreed on the figures but the beer might not cost that much if not for the 9th or 10th man.
Addition:
Obviously the bar can still make profit on $80 so we can look at it another way, because of the 9th or 10th man, the bar charge $100 instead of $80.
The fifth man pay $1 more
The sixth man pay $1 more
The seventh man pay $2 more
The eighth man pay $3 more
The ninth man pay $4 more
The tenth man pay $10 more
Also, the overseas atmosphere may not be that somewhat friendlier as well. They can threaten to move but any new places they find, sooner or later other wealthy people will follow and once the their number increased, the same problems and issues will reoccur again. Move again after that? This issue is already a hot topic in many countries. The wealth knows this. Frankly their choices are limited and getting leeser by the day.
Interesting view. Let me verify it with numbers.
Both the tenth and ninth man contributed 77% of the "beer budget". So even the beer price reduced from $100 to $80, the group can afford only a much lower amount of beer without the two men, right? I hope my math doesn't fail me this round.
Well, I do think they know the need of higher contribution, but I reckon they expect recognition and respect on their contribution, rather been taken as "bullies". In the context of the "cute story", they don't expect to be beaten up for contributing more.
