Gahmen, not employer should pay 17% CPF contribution, so that Singaporeans can be on

[bic_cherry]

Gahmen (not employer) should pay 17% employer CPF contribution, so that Singaporeans can be hired on EQUAL footing as foreigner PMET in terms of company's affordability to hire...

See letter by a reformed Sinkie ex-HR-manager who now regrets the mistake in his past Evil ways... What previously made economic sense on behalf of his employer (MNC) (more affordable foreigner PMETs) were bought at the high attendant cost of diminished opportunities for Singaporeans and PR, and possibly a disenfranchised and demoralised Singaporean PMET labour force since foreigners are EXCUSED from the employer 17% CPF contribution and Singaporeans are now also discouraged by the ever elusive CPF drawdown age.

(Alternatively, Gahmen can impose a 17% employer levy for employing foreigner PMETs, to equate the 17% employer CPF payable when Singaporean/PR are hired.

(Pict source(CPF rates, current and after 1.1.2015))
Not happy with Gahmen paying/ absorbing the 17% employer CPF? Then please convince me that the current practise of unemployed Singaporean PMETs becoming taxi drivers/ phantom workers to satisfy MOM work permit holder's 'dependency ratio' is any better since phantom work is all about Potemkin work: in as much our economy seems to be built on......

Local PMEs don't have it easy
Published on May 31, 2014 1:22 AM
I REFER to the report ("MPs want more protection, support for local PMEs"; Tuesday)
When I was the general manager of a local IT company and, subsequently, a financial controller for a Dutch multinational corporation, I preferred hiring foreign mid-level staff for the following reasons:
- The company did not need to pay CPF contributions for them;
- Their salary expectations were lower than Singaporeans'; and
- Their skill sets and experiences were on a par with those of Singaporeans.
The total cost differential between local and foreign professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) was 20 to 40 per cent.
An Asian foreign employee with a degree and work experience can easily afford a city apartment and family sedan in his home country if he makes $200,000 during his stint here.
In Singapore, $200,000 would allow a Singaporean with the same qualifications to buy only a three-room HDB flat in outlying regions like Woodlands or Jurong. A family car would set him back by $120,000.
An Asian foreigner's cost of living back home is so much lower than ours. Hence, he is more willing to work for $3,000 to $5,000 a month. But a Singaporean graduate earning $4,000 a month will be trying to keep up with inflation.
It does not make sense that a foreign PME working here has a bright future, while his Singaporean counterparts are struggling with their living expenses, unless they are in strong sectors like banking and health care, where pay is high.
A levy is imposed when one hires a maid, but there is no such tax for hiring foreign PMEs. No wonder foreign PMEs were replacing local ones at an increasing rate until tighter restrictions were imposed last year.
At the moment, the local PME retrenchment rate is still high as employers are hiring foreigners for the cost savings.
Over the medium to long term, this will weaken Singapore's economy as local PMEs will become structurally unemployed as they lose their skills and employability.
Lim Kay Soon
Local PMEs don't have it easy

All this HAS TO BE DONE before/if GST is raised to 10%:

 

[bic_cherry]

Hwz...

Thread source (HWZ): Gahmen, not employer should pay 17% employer CPF contribution, so that Singaporeans can have EQUAL footing
no point imposing a 17% tax on foreigner. these foreigner have the advantage of the currency at their side. they can afford to downplay. but can sinkies down play their value?

When U say "foreigner have currency at their side": u mean to say that foreigner PMET are here mainly to earn $$$ here (scrimp and save to avoid SG GST) so that they can retire early/ wealthy in their own homeland (zero GST).
Singapore has vibrant economy and tourism business's simply because Singaporeans serve NS and are largely NOT JUST LAW ABIDING BUT ALSO LAW ENFORCING: e.g. SCDF, police, SAF NSmen: who are paid peanuts during NS and for those with low/ no salary, peanuts for performing NS ICT/IPPT etc but are ready to assist when anything happens: e.g. STOMP about inconsiderate behaviour, call the cops when fire/ robbery/ RTA noticed, do CPR on unconscious people, pick up,litter (SKM) etc.
SAF itself costs in excess of S$12.56billion p.a. to run. Minus SAF, Singapore's vibrant economy will be less attractive than it currently is. Rather than Singaporeans paying MORE GST to cover the rising cost of running SAF (12.56billion SGD p.a.), foreigner PMET should be made to pay 17% employment pass levy on the three prong reason(s) of:
1) to contribute to SAF on which the vibrancy of the SG economy stands, these foreigner PMETs whom companies currently adore due to 17% employment 'tax' savings must be taught to understand that a safe and secure Singapore does not come cheap.
2) to remove companies incentive to hire foreigner PMETs over Singappreans by making the 17% company contribution mandatory FOR ALL EMPLOYEES (except that citizens/PR get theirs in the form of CPF top up (status quo)).
3) encourage foreigner PMET to apply for citizenship/ PR (must cancel their current citizenship to qualify), contribute to Singapore's nationhood in the long run and have their offspring serve NS rather than leaving Singapore at the drop of the hat should Singapore be invaded by a foreign land (property prices will also be less volatile if the occupants are citizens rather than foreigner PMETs).

Citizens should NOT have to suffer the 3% rise to 10% GST as they have already contributed by serving NS and reservist duties for peanut allowance (see chart below). Foreigner PMETs must do their part now by paying 17% foreigner PMET employment pass levy.

As for the last part of your question, ".., they can afford to downplay. but can sinkies down play their value?" Sinkie's will just have to upskill to take on better paying PMET jobs: e.g. by maybe puting the 17% foreigner PMET levy into a CPF Edusave fund for every Sinkie that can be used to up skill or learn new retirement skill etc (e.g. join an adult university, take post graduate courses etc). Giving employers a 17% discount/ tax rebate for hiring foreign PMET is really going too far already. Sad that Sinkie's are so dependent on foreigner PMETs, we are on the verge of prostituting ourselves to them through the government giving companies a tax rebate of 17% for hiring foreigners (if U can appreciate the savings from not having to pay employer CPF of 17% in that way). Yes, GDP might fall slightly with the introduction of a new foreigner employment pass levy of 17% to give Singapore citizens an equal footing as foreigner PMETs, however, considering the possibility of then being able to avoid increasing the planned GST rise of 3% to 10%, I say we have made the dignified and most respectable choice moving forward.
PM Lee said recently that 'Singapore belongs to everybody': those on employment passes as such should thus understand that they too are responsible for contributing to SAF's S$12.56 billion p.a. budget. The peace and security for all within and around this island state: none of it has come free...

Pict: NS reservist who are paid the usual peanuts (S$480 to $1180 p.m if they are either students or between jobs (pro-rated for NS duration)(IMG source)

[Chart: Singapore NS allowances from April2012 onwards.]

Singaporeans shouldn't be the only ones footing the SAF through GST rise, SAF itself costs in excess of S$12.56billion p.a. to run. , at least not after they have served 2 years of their lives/ more, and for some, still serve for essentially peanuts allowances.