Casino Levy to be raised after Elections?

[aurvandil]

So let me ask what is the desired deterrence effect everyone is looking at?

The KPI set by Minister Balakrishnan is 1 Singaporean Resident : 4 Foreigners.

Minister Balakrishnan did not release the number of foreigners that visited the casinos during this period. However based on tourist arrivals for the period, it is likely that this KPI has been missed by a wide margin.

Hence using Minister Balakrishnan's own KPI, the levy has failed to achive the desired deterrence effect.

 

[silverfox@]

The KPI set by Minister Balakrishnan is 1 Singaporean Resident : 4 Foreigners.

Minister Balakrishnan did not release the number of foreigners that visited the casinos during this period. However based on tourist arrivals for the period, it is likely that this KPI has been missed by a wide margin.

Hence using Minister Balakrishnan's own KPI, the levy has failed to achive the desired deterrence effect.

Like I told you earlier, 5 visits to toilet daily is 5 visits made by you alone or 5 different people use daily.

I think you are confused.

Deterrence effect is deter what? deter who?

Why I said you are confused.
If based on your 1 resident: 4 foreigners.

Let's say 400,000 foreigners this month enter casino, only 100,000 residents can enter.
If next month 200,000 foreigners come, can take in only 50,000 residents?
What if december 600,000 foreigners come sg for end of year holidays, that means to say there is an increase in quota to allow 125,000 residents to enter?

 

[aurvandil]

Levy goes to help the country's coffers. If the levy I paid goes to charities or old aged home, seriously I don't mind, at least I did my part to help the country. :p

Now that you mention it, I don't remember reading about how charities or old aged homes were getting increased funding thanks to the casino levy funding. The only thing I remember is that that the YOG went over budget to $387 million. I wonder if there is where your levy money went ! :p

 

[aurvandil]

Like I told you earlier, 5 visits to toilet daily is 5 visits made by you alone or 5 different people use daily.

The Minister did not release the breakdown so we can only speculate. Which howerver sounds like we got a more serious problem:

1) 1,000,000 Singaporeans visited the casino 1 time in 7 months
2) 100,000 Singaporeans visited the casino 10 times in 7 months

 

[CCBcsj]

I hope they do away with the levy. Singaporeans who want to gamble away their life savings should be allowed to do so. They have a right to do whatever they want with their own money.

Only if they sign a renunciation of citizenship before they do. I have no intention to pay taxes to feed these lousy loafers.

 

[silverfox@]

Now that you mention it, I don't remember reading about how charities or old aged homes were getting increased funding thanks to the casino levy funding. The only thing I remember is that that the YOG went over budget to $387 million. I wonder if there is where your levy money went ! :p

You seem to be very happy if the levy revenue goes to YOG instead.
The main problem is you tend to always assume things on the worst side of life.

I hope the levy revenue collected can be of some help to the needy or in building the nation. I would not be giving snide remarks that the money would be going to some losses here and there.

If thinking that the levy revenue goes to YOG budget makes you happy over it, you should be happy assuming that.

 

[silverfox@]

The Minister did not release the breakdown so we can only speculate. Which howerver sounds like we got a more serious problem:

1) 1,000,000 Singaporeans visited the casino 1 time in 7 months
2) 100,000 Singaporeans visited the casino 10 times in 7 months

How many Singaporeans visit Sg Pools booth in 7 months.

What's the serious problem here? Does that figure alarm you till it can't make you sleep? Since you like assuming, why not you tell us how much of these figure is in debt and problem gambling?

 

[UpYoz_olo]

I have actually thought of this process but have some reservations over the intrusion of privacy.

But I think this may be a good step forward to prevent "over consumption of gaming" if it is being implemented.

Goh Meng Seng

Shit man, you are really par excellence for showing how stupid you are. Voters who allow you to even keep your election deposits must be mad or have IQ even lower than you. But there again, voters have proven they are capable of anything.

In fact, the best way to bring down PAP is to have you joining their ranks :p


:oIo:

 

[silliporean]

If they are serious about curbing poor Singaporeans into the casino, up the ente, entry by invitation only, that is for those who could lay down at least $50,000 as game chips to be safe keep by the casino under the person's account and name. In that manner, you will see thousands will automatically be disqualified..and of course the government need not justify to the public anymore on what those casino levies would be used for...

 

[popeye]

My prediction: $100 - 1 day, $2000-50 entries, $5,000 -unlimited.
The cash-rich, everyday punters to good to hv missed..
Prob, a false alarm to spur annual $2,000 signings to recover YOG surplus..

Sidetracking...If i signed $2,000 (stated non-refundable), I go 5 times, then go to NCPG to admit I am compulsive big-loss gambler, and ask to refund $1,500, to revoke myself entry and forced-discipline, how will the authorities respond to me?
I wonder...

 

[aurvandil]

How many Singaporeans visit Sg Pools booth in 7 months.

What's the serious problem here? Does that figure alarm you till it can't make you sleep? Since you like assuming, why not you tell us how much of these figure is in debt and problem gambling?

As I said before, my main point is that there are much better ways at controlling problem gambling. A good example would be a casino card that limits how much you can gamble based on your monthly income.

If we are concerned about Sg Pools, we can easily extend the concept to having a Pools card that limits how much you can bet based on your monthly income.

The concept of setting limits based on monthly income is a well established one. The banks and credit card companies have been using it for years to determine how much credit to grant you.

I don't understand why you are so insistent that we must stick with the levy system as if it were the prefect way to control problem gambling. What's worse is that you are insisting that the amounts are cast in stone and cannot be changed until the end of time even when empirical evidence emerges that it is not working proplerly.. Completely silly and ridiculous ...

 

[ah_phah]

if they wanna prohibit sporns from gambling, just put a ban on entry for sporns.
if they wanna impose levy & call it a deterent, nothing's gonna stop them from entering.

 

[shOUTloud]

I think it is ridiculous to link visit to casino with one's salary. Where do we go from there? Medical records for drinking and eating high cholesterol food? Singapore is too much of a nanny state as it is.

I think more education would be useful and maybe curbs on marketing efforts by the two IRs.

 

[aurvandil]

I think it is ridiculous to link visit to casino with one's salary. Where do we go from there? Medical records for drinking and eating high cholesterol food? Singapore is too much of a nanny state as it is.

I think more education would be useful and maybe curbs on marketing efforts by the two IRs.

a) If you earn $10,000, pay $100 levy and lose $900 casino gambling, there isn't a problem.

b) If you earn $1,000, pay $100 levy and lose $900 casino gambling, there is a BIG problem.

If we carry on with the current levy system, the body count from b) will pile up and eventually explode as a big political problem for the PAP.

 

[Baroko]

The primary purpose of the entrance levy is to discourage Singapore citizens and PRs from gambling.

IMHO the $100 levy should stay as it deters small time gamblers from visiting the casinos too often. It is a good deterrent as it is a big pinch on the pockets of this group.

However I think the annual $2000 fee should be raised. Those who paid for the annual levy are more serious gamblers with deeper pockets intending to visit the casino more than 20 times a year. So even raising this annual levy to $6000 should still be reasonable as it still allows the serious gamblers to visit at least 3 times a week at slightly less than $40 each visit.
Some may consider this expensive and unfair, but did we build two casinos for our citizens to gamble away their hard earned money and savings? The answer is NO, of course. We build two casinos and named them IRs so as to attract more foreigners and visitors to contribute to the economy; so that the authorities can collect more tax revenues to improve the lives of the citizens and residents. Of course this opens the door to another discussion.

 

[chewed]

The primary purpose of the entrance levy is to discourage Singapore citizens and PRs from gambling.

IMHO the $100 levy should stay as it deters small time gamblers from visiting the casinos too often. It is a good deterrent as it is a big pinch on the pockets of this group.

However I think the annual $2000 fee should be raised. Those who paid for the annual levy are more serious gamblers with deeper pockets intending to visit the casino more than 20 times a year. So even raising this annual levy to $6000 should still be reasonable as it still allows the serious gamblers to visit at least 3 times a week at slightly less than $40 each visit.
Some may consider this expensive and unfair, but did we build two casinos for our citizens to gamble away their hard earned money and savings? The answer is NO, of course. We build two casinos and named them IRs so as to attract more foreigners and visitors to contribute to the economy; so that the authorities can collect more tax revenues to improve the lives of the citizens and residents. Of course this opens the door to another discussion.

and you seriously believe that..??

 

[silverfox@]

if they wanna prohibit sporns from gambling, just put a ban on entry for sporns.
if they wanna impose levy & call it a deterent, nothing's gonna stop them from entering.

How come no one suggested that Singaporeans should be banned from Genting Malaysia? Just because its 6 hours away from Singapore and its not worth to suggest?

 

[sleaguepunter]

People who never gamble will not understand how a gambler will think, so how can come up with ways to control gambling? Do i gamble? Yes i do. Did i suffer from it? Yes i did as my dad ran up gambling debts when i was still a kid. Do i support the levy? No i dont. I have never visit and have no intention of stepping into a casino. I never been to genting highlands all my life.
Is the levy working, no it dont. In actual fact, gambling addicts are the same as ciggies addicts. Singapore had raised tobacco tax till so high, did u see a reduction in smokers? No rite... as now more women took up smoking. same thing as the casino levy, even raise it to $10000 for a year entry, the same number of ppl will still apply for it. In fact, a casino membership card may become a status statement which may cause a rush of applications.
Look at how much were punted on 4D on weekend, the amount is staggering. How many aunties blew their family grocery money on spools scratchit? It a stupid game yet many aunties buy because it easy to understand but ppl with a bit more brain will know scratchit is a scam. Why u anti gambling lobby never raised hell at spools in regards to this spools product? This is worse than casino as it basically cheating $$ from the lower income bracket of the society.
You know why ppl like to gamble, yes can win money. But it the shiokness of winning that make ppl to try their lucks. It feel damn shiok when you got it right when others fail. It the rush of adrenaline during winning that gamblers crave for.

 

[jimmyfallon]

Lets wait for the next asian crisis to hit and they will lift the entrance fee then all he will have to eat are his own words.

 

[ah_phah]

How come no one suggested that Singaporeans should be banned from Genting Malaysia? Just because its 6 hours away from Singapore and its not worth to suggest?

because genting is not PAP's playground, they can't call the shots beyond the boundaries of sovereignty.