Sorry, but the bias in your title just suggested that U had lost the plot..
Anyhow, thanks for bring up the topic of' LEVY FOR ALL FOREIGNERS' up.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
He favoured foreigners when he was boss, now he is retrenched, he wants PMET levy
- Thread starter SadPlumpGal
- Start date
Anyhow, thanks for bring up the topic of' LEVY FOR ALL FOREIGNERS' up.
I stated my position very clearly, you are the one who has lost the plot and started attacking me.
I want to highlight why SINGAPOREAN MEN need to be stronger and have more backbone.
When he was boss, he hired foreigners so that he can earn his money; when he was out of a job, he wants the government to nanny him.
By all means, suggest policies to level the playing field, but remember what goes round, comes round.
I want to highlight why SINGAPOREAN MEN need to be stronger and have more backbone.
When he was boss, he hired foreigners so that he can earn his money; when he was out of a job, he wants the government to nanny him.
By all means, suggest policies to level the playing field, but remember what goes round, comes round.
Doubt he is saying that, and neither will PAP logically do that (they are tight fisted with $$$ in ALL aspects except how much they pay themselves).
However, I've always thought that having an Edusave fund till one retired would be nice (everyone gets a top ). The money from Edusave would be usable for basic courses or local university courses/ degree etc. If unsused by retirement age/ incapacity to work due to illness etc, then the owner could transfer to medisave/ special account etc in whatever sequence that is the CPF practise: will allow people to pursue training in their dream job in later life etc...
The mention of a fund sends shivers ...the PAP will make us pay ...it will be another cheap loan to them.
Mr Lim Kay Soon stuck his head out to write the 2 letters which he knew would certainly ruffle feathers.
Speaking of backbone, please tell the average PAP MP to find his:
E.g.:
Joining the PAP to exploit loopholes in the GRC system of elections for personal gain: "some assurance of a good chance of winning at least (his) first election"
'Without some assurance of a good chance of winning at least their first election, many able and successful young Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics,' Mr Goh Chok Tong, June 2006 ['GRCs make it easier to find top talent: SM'].
[Pict= [URL="http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2012/04/disassembling-grc-benefits-pap-1/"]Disassembling GRC system benefits PAP (Part 1 of 3)[/URL]]
Topping up one's 'dignity' by stealing tax payers $$$:
"If the annual salary of the Minister of Information, Communication and Arts is only $500,000, it may pose some problems when he discuss policies with media CEOs who earn millions of dollars because they need not listen to the minister's ideas and proposals. Hence, a reasonable payout will help to maintain a bit of dignity."
[IMG URL]
Allowing one to get distracted by a miserly few opposition:
Last edited:
Actually what is the difference between levy for work permit holders and this proposed levy for PMET? I think the govt will just happily pocket it and the money will not be given to unemployed PMET. If the govt do that, they will also need to give to all other workers who are unemployed.
Anyway levy already proven not useful to stop the employers from hiring foreign work permit holders. I think the only way is to have proper laws and govt monitoring for employers to prove they have done their best to recruit locals before giving the job to foreigners. Now the job bank method is half hearted and not proper.
No difference. Collect 100 percent levy and transfer that to an unemployed PMET. The government pockets the money when there are no unemployed or underemployed PMET.
Current levy is wayang only, that's why no impact.
I cannot deny that due to NS, Sinkapoor is an attractive city to live in. NS makes most citizens cooperative, hardworking and law abiding: the consequence is safe streets and a booming economy, so many many foreigners are attracted to work and live here and the property market is booming, thus the need for many construction workers. Without the foreigner levy, EVEN MOREforeign construction workers would be hired and construction move forward even faster: however, this then begets the argument if Singapore's development would be uniform or would it really then be GDP at all cost with a probable worsening of the wealth divide as it is in Hong Kong where some people either live on streets or in tiny unsafe 'cage units' where one cannot even stand up, let alone touch the floor with one's legs dangling down (I.e. very miserable life).
Even if the government pockets the $$$ from the foreigner PMET levy, still 2, if not 3 good outcomes occur:
1) GST which is almost guaranteed to rise after the 2016 GE can be postponed a few years.
2) the relatively cheaper cost of hiring foreigner PMET as compared to citizen/PR PMET will give Singaporeans an even playing field rather than shift locals to doing phantom work by standing in as phantom workers for work permit level jobs just so employers could be allowed to hire more foreign work permit holders after having satisfied the MOM 'dependency ratios': in the long run, this not only degrades the skills of citizens by making them professional phantom workers, but is also counter productive since the financial incentive to companies to hire foreigner PMETs gives local PMETs a raw deal if not an artificially deflated salary choice. This disincentive to be a local PMET will only weaken the Singapore economy when foreigner PMETs leave Singapore for greener pastures one day.
3) It will encourage more foreigner PMETs to take up at least PR rather than remain as foreigner PMETs: otherwise, Singapore's NS base will dwindle to the extent that Singapore cannot defend its own soil, then Singapore might have no choice but to be a city/district managed by the Federation of Malaysia.
There are many unsolved issues in Singapore today, however, raising foreigner PMET Levy's to match the level of employer CPF contribution is a long overdue one if U ask me.
Cage homes in Hong Kong:
BTW, since GE2011 and formally in papers since early 2012: they already say that GST should go up... But I always wonder if GST going up is the only choice. I think 7% is optimal at ⅓ of income tax rate: and GST SHOULDNT go up, unless property tax or income tax goes further up.
Last edited:
Similar threads
