Raise taxes on the Rich - in Singapore

[eatshitndie]

Thanks for the points. Sometimes in this situation, one wish for PaP style of management where they tell voters what they want or need, make decisions, execute decisions with impunity and tell voters that they are enjoying it....maybe US needs this kind of gahment to make things happen. No more endless politicking, no more gun lobbies...etc etc

the pap put the u.s. gov to shame. this fiscal cliff avoidance is a shame as tax stratification, inequity and the great tax divide between those making usd400k and above (or couple making usd450k and above) and those making less are further splitting and pitting one group, albeit very much smaller in numbers, against another. i would prefer that they either cut everyone's tax or increase everybody's tax. there are already different tax brackets depending on income earned. now they are widening these brackets. it will escalate and reach a point when the u.s. will be like france where the very rich get taxed at 75% of their income. if that's the case, wealthy americans might as well follow the french and emigrate to sg. park funds in sg, invest them and pay zero capital gains tax. with that kind of tax shelter in sg, there's no point for the wealthy to work and draw a pittance of a salary which is taxable.

 

[watchman8]

Whether they can afford to pay more in taxes is not the issue. The bone of contention is why they should be made to do so in the first place.

We've all been through the school system and most of us worked hard to score A+ in all subjects because good grades gave us more options and laid the foundations for a successful career.

Now imagine all those who scored 95 marks or higher having to give away 30% of their marks to the lazy and dumb asses in the class

So If you scored 95, you'd have to hand over almost 30 marks to some guy who only achieved 20 marks so he'd end up with 50 marks despite not having bothered to study for the exam while you burnt midnight oil to score 95 and the marks redistribution system designed to make things "fairer" for all meant you were left with 65 marks only.

High income earners did not give up bulk of 30 marks to low income earners. A lot of marks are used to pay for defense, police, hospitals etc.

Much of government spending has economy of scale. It does not mean that if government don't subsidies the medical cost of poor folks the total medical bill on government will drop proportionately. There is high fixed costs to maintain the entire hospital, staff and equipment. Same for military, police, roads, street lights etc.

 

[Leongsam]

High income earners did not give up bulk of 30 marks to low income earners. A lot of marks are used to pay for defense, police, hospitals etc.

Much of government spending has economy of scale. It does not mean that if government don't subsidies the medical cost of poor folks the total medical bill on government will drop proportionately. There is high fixed costs to maintain the entire hospital, staff and equipment. Same for military, police, roads, street lights etc.

I have no problems with taxes going to defense, infrastructure development, policing, the justice system and so on.

I have no problems with a flat tax rate so everyone pays a fixed % of what they earn to enable a country to function efficiently.

10% of $500,000 per year is a helleva lot more than 10% of $30,000. The rich always pay more in absolute terms.

What riles me is when the successful members of society are made to pay a disproportionate amount of taxes to "help" the so called "unfortunate" members of society. Success should not be penalised and failure should not be rewarded.

 

[enterprise2]

Even in a non progressive tax situation, they are already paying more tax.
the rich are already paying much more already. How can you say it won't hurt them? They they become poor?
Its a slipperry slope. You say 400k, someone already said 120k.

$120k/year is not rich...it's just getting along. $400k/year is upper middle class or even rich in today's context.

 

[Fook Seng]

Whether they can afford to pay more in taxes is not the issue. The bone of contention is why they should be made to do so in the first place.

Because they have been allowed to make that money. In a true law of the jungle situation where are no oppressive laws over the low income masses, these $400k earners would not have survived. Society as configured by the rulers allowed them to earn those salaries. They should pay much back to society. This is a fair exchange. Otherwise don't have a society with rules that benefit certain groups of people.

 

[Fook Seng]

What riles me is when the successful members of society are made to pay a disproportionate amount of taxes to "help" the so called "unfortunate" members of society. Success should not be penalised and failure should not be rewarded.

I have no problem with flat tax rates if there are no such disproportionate levels of income at the top. I am ready to prove anyone in the top income bracket that they are grossly overpaid, if he is willing to stand up to be judge.

 

[Kinana]

$120k/year is not rich...it's just getting along. $400k/year is upper middle class or even rich in today's context.

So you see, you fellas have differing opinions of what is rich.

 

[Kinana]

Because they have been allowed to make that money. In a true law of the jungle situation where are no oppressive laws over the low income masses, these $400k earners would not have survived. Society as configured by the rulers allowed them to earn those salaries. They should pay much back to society. This is a fair exchange. Otherwise don't have a society with rules that benefit certain groups of people.

They don't owe society anything, why should they pay back?

 

[cass888]

The law of the jungle is such that the winner eats all he wants and the losers eat the scraps. People should pay equal amounts for equal benefit - so the street lamp should cost the same to the Donald Trump as it costs Fook Seng since Donald Trump gets no more benefit from the street lamp as does Fook Seng.

I will grant that a Donald Trump can be made to pay a little more for police services - NOT because he can afford it and should therefore have it stuffed up his arse but because he has more to protect and therefore derives more benefit and requires more police time.

Doctors should cost the same to a Donald Trump and Fook Seng at least based on the time taken and medicines given. No more, no less. There is no justification for Fook Seng to get free medical treatment paid for by a Donald Trump.

I have no problem with flat tax rates if there are no such disproportionate levels of income at the top. I am ready to prove anyone in the top income bracket that they are grossly overpaid, if he is willing to stand up to be judge.

 

[watchman8]

I have no problems with taxes going to defense, infrastructure development, policing, the justice system and so on.

I have no problems with a flat tax rate so everyone pays a fixed % of what they earn to enable a country to function efficiently.

10% of $500,000 per year is a helleva lot more than 10% of $30,000. The rich always pay more in absolute terms.

What riles me is when the successful members of society are made to pay a disproportionate amount of taxes to "help" the so called "unfortunate" members of society. Success should not be penalised and failure should not be rewarded.

Maybe can do a hypothetical case. Lets say if the country gets rid of all the social security leeches, euthanize them. The immediate effect will be that many of the social security related workers will loss their jobs. Say if the government is able to redeploy them, and everyone in the country pay a flat rate income tax thereafter, except for the kids, disabled and retirees. How much lesser would individual pay in terms of income tax?

My gut feel is that in most countries, not much lesser, because social security for perfectly fit but lazy adults is actually only a small portion of total government expense. There will still be plenty of expenses for kids and retirees. Almost same expense for defense, police, govt admin etc.

Maybe the rate for NZ drop from 28% to 25%. Is there a need to get so upset if you see this in perspective?

 

[cass888]

$400k a year is merely average. These losers and whiners here can't even make $40k that is why they think $400k chin choi lui and use the green eyes to demand more tax on the $400k.

So you see, you fellas have differing opinions of what is rich.

 

[cass888]

In the true law of the jungle, winner gets all and loser starves to death.

Because they have been allowed to make that money. In a true law of the jungle situation where are no oppressive laws over the low income masses, these $400k earners would not have survived. Society as configured by the rulers allowed them to earn those salaries. They should pay much back to society. This is a fair exchange. Otherwise don't have a society with rules that benefit certain groups of people.

 

[Fook Seng]

They don't owe society anything, why should they pay back?

They owe society their high salaries. Some clown started the ball rolling by paying a million dollar bonus and some board started paying its CEO a million dollars salary. Then it seemed logical that more deserving ones should also be paid a million dollar. And when you were paying everybody else a million dollar salary, it seemed fit that you should be paying yourself a million dollar salary as well. One high led to another.

When the whole world seemed to be shooting for the sky, nothing you do seemed wrong, pulling everybody along except the lowest scums. With so much to spend, you buy into high end properties, low end as well. Property prices moved up. Those who earned high incomes were happy. They saw their investment, their second property, their third and even fourth property grew. To fund the high costs of salary in the ministeries and admin service, you needed to increase your revenues to meet your budget requirement. So as sure as the sun will rise, you raised charges for practically everything - bus fares, utilities, conservancy charges and you added in a land cost to your HDB pricing.

Of course the interest of the high earners would always be well-looked after. They were quite comfortable with all these changes. In fact they thrived in this environment. Their million dollar salaries multiplied to several millions. Then you started maintaining mistresses, girlfriends and lovers. For the low end scums, they had one property and a salary that never seemed to catch up. They might even need to sell their flats and downgrade to smaller ones or rent out their flat and move to a smaller rental flat. To the high earners, this was still affordable living.

Until the day arrives when what went up must must all come down (even satellites). The world is plunged into another recession. Many who have high incomes have over committed themselves. In this day of reckoning, are they honest enough to take an appropriate cut or will they keep on increasing the charges, spreading the burden to everyone with much lower incomes who are already hard pressed. As I have said in another thread, this dichotomy in our society will come to a head in two to three years' time when Occupy Wall Street becomes Occupy World. Can we avoid this? Of course we can if every rich man is like Warren Buffet who supports increasing taxes for the rich. We must make a distinction between taxing the businesses and taxing the individuals. Taxes on the businesses should be maintained at a reasonably low rate to support business survivability and growth but taxes on individuals are a different thing altogether as it can only affect wanton spending, no real hardship.

 

[Fook Seng]

In the true law of the jungle, winner gets all and loser starves to death.

In the true law of the jungle, an army of ants can kill an elephant.

 

[cass888]

But they rarely do, until the elephant is old and weak. Under the true law of the jungle, the winner gets the prey and the loser goes hungry. The true law of the jungle does not make the winning lion share the prey with the rest. The rest just get the scraps.

In the true law of the jungle, an army of ants can kill an elephant.

 

[enterprise2]

But they rarely do, until the elephant is old and weak. Under the true law of the jungle, the winner gets the prey and the loser goes hungry. The true law of the jungle does not make the winning lion share the prey with the rest. The rest just get the scraps.

I suggest you read up on the French Revolution. See what happens to aristocracy when they push their luck too far!!

 

[Kinana]

They owe society their high salaries. Some clown started the ball rolling by paying a million dollar bonus and some board started paying its CEO a million dollars salary. Then it seemed logical that more deserving ones should also be paid a million dollar. And when you were paying everybody else a million dollar salary, it seemed fit that you should be paying yourself a million dollar salary as well. One high led to another.

What wrong with being paid millions sir?

When the whole world seemed to be shooting for the sky, nothing you do seemed wrong, pulling everybody along except the lowest scums. With so much to spend, you buy into high end properties, low end as well. Property prices moved up. Those who earned high incomes were happy. They saw their investment, their second property, their third and even fourth property grew. To fund the high costs of salary in the ministeries and admin service, you needed to increase your revenues to meet your budget requirement. So as sure as the sun will rise, you raised charges for practically everything - bus fares, utilities, conservancy charges and you added in a land cost to your HDB pricing.

Investments and expenditures help stimulate the economy and provide jobs to people. How can you fault people for spending their money and making investments?

Of course the interest of the high earners would always be well-looked after. They were quite comfortable with all these changes. In fact they thrived in this environment. Their million dollar salaries multiplied to several millions. Then you started maintaining mistresses, girlfriends and lovers. For the low end scums, they had one property and a salary that never seemed to catch up. They might even need to sell their flats and downgrade to smaller ones or rent out their flat and move to a smaller rental flat. To the high earners, this was still affordable living.

The interests of all are looked into. Not just the poor but the rich as well.

Until the day arrives when what went up must must all come down (even satellites). The world is plunged into another recession. Many who have high incomes have over committed themselves. In this day of reckoning, are they honest enough to take an appropriate cut or will they keep on increasing the charges, spreading the burden to everyone with much lower incomes who are already hard pressed. As I have said in another thread, this dichotomy in our society will come to a head in two to three years' time when Occupy Wall Street becomes Occupy World. Can we avoid this? Of course we can if every rich man is like Warren Buffet who supports increasing taxes for the rich. We must make a distinction between taxing the businesses and taxing the individuals. Taxes on the businesses should be maintained at a reasonably low rate to support business survivability and growth but taxes on individuals are a different thing altogether as it can only affect wanton spending, no real hardship.

Recession comes exactly because you want to rob the rich and give to the poor. Just look at Europe and North America.

 

[Leongsam]

I suggest you read up on the French Revolution. See what happens to aristocracy when they push their luck too far!!

The lesson learned is that a strong and loyal army and police force has to be maintained to keep the peace and prevent the losers from helping themselves to riches that they did not earn.

 

[mojito]

Recession comes exactly because you want to rob the rich and give to the poor. Just look at Europe and North America.

Recession comes when the rich hoard and attempt to preserve value by purchasing assets like stocks and real estate. When people lose their jobs and have less money to spend buying the things they need for themselves, the economy sinks into a deeper depression.

 

[Kinana]

Recession comes when the rich hoard and attempt to preserve value by purchasing assets like stocks and real estate. When people lose their jobs and have less money to spend buying the things they need for themselves, the economy sinks into a deeper depression.

Recession resulted exactly because the govt wanted to rob the rich n give to the poor. The rich stop spending n investing n now everyone is poor.