30% Water Tax Sign of PAPee Insatiable GREED!

[makapaaa]

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>Water tax at odds with pro-family policies
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>




<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->MANY consumers will agree with national water agency PUB's acknowledgement ('Need for water conservation tax', July11) of Mr Paul Chan's view ('Shouldn't we pay less for consuming water?', July 8) that Singaporeans have been conscientious and supportive of water conservation measures.
Few will disagree with the agency's caution about the scarcity of water and need to conserve it as a precious resource.
But the issue raised by Mr Chan, which the PUB did not address, was whether the water conservation tax is out of date. Just as estate duty has been abolished, the water conservation tax should be scrapped for the following reasons:
The tax is at a very high rate of 30 per cent. In addition, the goods and services tax (GST) at 7 per cent is imposed over and above the water conservation tax. Indirectly, the Government collects additional GST as a result of the water conservation tax.
The water conservation tax is also at odds with two key public policies: encouraging families to have more children and encouraging adult children to support their elderly parents.
The water conservation tax seems to penalise those who have more children and who support their aged parents as more people in a household results in more water consumption.
When the GST was introduced, it was marketed as a fairer tax because the more you consume, the more tax you pay. So, do we still need a water conservation tax? It is time that the tax is reviewed.
Manmohan Singh

 

[makapaaa]

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>Water conservation tax hard to swallow
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>




<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to last Saturday's letter ('Need for water conservation tax') by Mr Chan Yoon Kum, assistant chief executive of national water agency PUB, in response to my letter ('Shouldn't we pay less for consuming water?') on July 8.
Mr Chan did not address the crux of my question,

​

which was this: After many decades of conscientiously and successfully pursuing water conservation measures, is it necessary to continue using a hefty pricing mechanism to penalise consumers for some incremental reduction?
What is the ideal limit of water consumption in our hot and humid climate without compromising basic hygiene that would convince the PUB to remove the water conservation tax and waterborne fees?

According to a study in 2003, 'The water issue between Singapore and Malaysia: No solution in sight?', by Dr Lee Poh Onn, a Fellow of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore produced 1.3 million cubic m of water per day. The PUB revealed that by last year, the daily capacity had increased to more than 1.4 million cubic m, of which domestic households consumed half and the rest was sold for commercial revenues.
The report quoted that our raw water processing cost was 25.3 cents per cubic m. Dr Lee summarised the production cost of imported water at 26 cents, Newater at 39 cents and desalination water at 78 cents (exchange rate of S$1 to RM$2.08 in 2003).
By 2011, the PUB will be producing 1.33 million cubic m of water (0.68 million cubic m from catchments, 0.4 million cubic m from desalination and 0.25 million cubic m of Newater).
Based on the 2003 study, the average cost would be 41.5 cents per cubic m. With a 20 per cent increase, the cost is about 50 cents per cubic m.
There is hardly any justification for responsible consumers to pay $2.21 per cubic m of water quoting Mr Chan's example.

=> Or a whopping 432% profit margin! Expect the likes of mabroky to talk cock on mkt subsidy, etc.

The water tariff in Johor Baru is 36 cents (90 Malaysian sen), while that in Hong Kong is HK$4.15 (80 Singapore cents) per cubic m.

Is it logical or reasonable for Singaporeans to pay over four times the recovery cost of drinking water - a basic human need?

While it is laudable that Singapore proudly and unselfishly helps solve the water dilemma by sharing its drinking water technology with the world, the country's citizens should also share the benefits of Singapore's water success.
It took us a long time to get to where we are now; where we are self-sufficient with less imported water if needed on a sustainable basis.
Tax revenues and sanitary fees should cover the maintenance cost of the sanitation system. Hence, the water conservation tax and waterborne fees have lost their intended purposes. They can only become an extra burden on citizens.
Paul Chan

 

[mscitw]

Lackey Chan owes his fat cat pay to the regime.

He must twist facts to support the regime's high taxes on water.

This is peasantpore.

 

[JohnTT]

Why review the taxes conflict? The govt wants money what....
So what if tax upon tax, count yourself lucky that the govt did not tax upon tax upon tax. Welcome to Singapore. Uniquely Singapore.

Complain somemore.....give you one more tax later......