I'm glad you can see what I have to put up with. If I don't respond, the rest of the readers get the wrong impression that they carry with them for a long time.
If I do respond, people think I'm trying to defend the indefensible.
-
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.
Sylvia Lim has suggested 25% income tax for those earning above $1 million.
- Thread starter makapaaa
- Start date
I'm glad you can see what I have to put up with. If I don't respond, the rest of the readers get the wrong impression that they carry with them for a long time.
If I do respond, people think I'm trying to defend the indefensible.
The rich can only get rich if there are property rights, rule of law, supply of labour, and national infrastructure. In other words, you have to stand on the backs of your fellow men and benefit from the work of countless labourers. There's nothing wrong with giving something back to society in return, like paying a higher tax rate.
Taking back 75% of a million dollar salary after taxes still leaves enough for mistresses, social escorts, fine dining, multiple properties, etc.
there no tax incentive to register car under company name. in fact, the driver will be tax for the benefit of the car by the company. if the boss own the company, basically still his own $$ even register the car under company car. if the rich want to evade tax, all the more he should buy the bland toyota to pay the same car tax as the masses.
is there a need to raise taxes now considering the surplus we getting each year? instead of raising taxes, how about getting rid of gst for essential goods & services? to cover the lost gst revenue, bring in the luxury tax, ie.. LV, Prada, high end stuff etc etc... this a good way to tax the comfortable and also punish those who act rich.
Unfortunately your forum has attracted a lot of people bitter with their jobs who come in and talk about how to run an economy and a country. Then again, I shouldn't say unfortunate since it provides a source of entertainment for me to come in and kick them around a bit while laughing at all the angry abuses they throw at me. 
People who buy that shit are already being "taxed" by the company via the premium they are paying for a brand name.
If the government jumps on the bandwagon, all that will happen is that luxury shops will move somewhere else and the tax take goes down.
In the meantime, those who want luxury items can still get them somewhere else without paying additional taxes.
I don't believe that is true. The rich have far greater need for public law and order as well as property rights because they own more assets which require more protection. They also leverage on national infrastructure more. The poor may only take the train to work. The rich may need the railroad to move goods. Who has the greater need for national resources?
Unfortunately your forum has attracted a lot of people bitter with their jobs who come in and talk about how to run an economy and a country. Then again, I shouldn't say unfortunate since it provides a source of entertainment for me to come in and kick them around a bit while laughing at all the angry abuses they throw at me.
I don't mind the abuse I get either but the ignorance of the losers that populate this forum isn't entertaining for me. It fills me with despair to find that there are so many people who are so ignorant regarding the workings of an economy.
Take FBT as an example it's pretty obvious that many people aren't even aware of its existence yet they're providing social commentary here regarding how tax regimes should work.
Heaven help us if such people ever end up in positions of authority. Thankfully, it's very unlikely that this will happen anytime soon. :p
now ppl are paying premium to the brands local dealers, the govt just tax 10% more, still not worth the effort to hop on airplane to europe to buy.
The median income in SG is close to $4,000 per month so your figure of 60% of Singaporeans paying no tax cannot be true. Where did you get it from?
earn how much is consider rich? $500k, $1m, $2m? personally i dun think govt should tax the ppl who work hard for their money. yes, ppl here complain the towkays make their fortune on the back of the poor labourers. It not the fault of the towkays to make full use situation to make money. the govt shd instead set policies to prevent the towkays from exploiting his/her employees. to me, that win win, employee paid a fair wages while the towkay make a profit.
if the money earn by the towkays are plough back into the economy, such as expanding his operation or investing in the stock market, so the money will keep flowing. the govt should just raise taxes on stuff that only the rich can enjoy, such as owning a yacht, owning a supercar, staying in luxurious penhouse etc etc... oh... bring back estate duty abeit at a lower rate plus a max tax limit cap, said $5m estate duty max.
more than 50% residents earn less that $25000 annually. to pay income tax, one have to earn more than that to incur income tax.
Thanks for these examples. In countries like OZ, NZ, UK etc run by strong socialist ethos, these also happen to be first world countries with property rights and ample opportunities not just to get rich but STAY rich.
Philippines pales by comparison. Like SG, it is cronyism at the top but merely nominal capitalism for the masses.
This shows a country can be governed by a socialist ethos but still provide abundance of opportunities.
At the end of the day, tell me what is wrong with giving a little bit more back to society if you've made it?
Sylvia is asking for 25% taxes for goodness sake, not the 50% kind that wrecks western entrepreneurship and drives businesses away.
I have no problem with 25% if Sylvia proposes a constitutional amendment capping taxes at 25% and which requires a two-thirds majority in a referendum to increase it.
The truth of the matter is, 25% now. Welfare creep. 27%. More welfare creep. 30%. More welfare creep. Soon we'll be like the losers in Europe about to go bankrupt.
The truth of the matter is, 25% now. Welfare creep. 27%. More welfare creep. 30%. More welfare creep. Soon we'll be like the losers in Europe about to go bankrupt.
With the exception of the US, all the developed countries have high tax regimes. How did that happen? You will find the rich capitalists and their children residing in these countries. They want quality of life, well paved highways for their ferraris, well maintained state parks etc. They want their waiters to know about wines. They want their cooks to handle low carb diet etc.
They are not going find any of these in low tax countries.
Yet when you are in a high end restaurant in Mayfair and have a discussion about taxes, they will give you all the arguments about motivation, entrepreneurial spirit, hard work, risk taking, intellectual property, the lazy salaried employers etc. And when you ask them why are they are in London where the tax rates are high as 50%, they suddenly lose their voice.
Then there is the minority of tax exiles who after a while cave because their families can't tolerate being away from all the actions.
They are not going find any of these in low tax countries.
Yet when you are in a high end restaurant in Mayfair and have a discussion about taxes, they will give you all the arguments about motivation, entrepreneurial spirit, hard work, risk taking, intellectual property, the lazy salaried employers etc. And when you ask them why are they are in London where the tax rates are high as 50%, they suddenly lose their voice.
Then there is the minority of tax exiles who after a while cave because their families can't tolerate being away from all the actions.
I can't speak for OZ and UK because I've lost touch. However, I know for a fact that very few on the NZ rich list actually reside in NZ because of the taxes.
Michael Fay/Douglas Myers who bankrolled the America's Cup challenge, Graham Hart who is worth Billions, Eric Watson, Richard Chandler etc all live somewhere else for obvious reasons. Many moved when the labour government increased the top tax rate from 33% to 39% in 1999.
Are they selfish?... greedy? judging from the philanthropy and charity contributions of many of them, they aren't exactly scrooges but the fact remains that no human likes having their wealth removed by force via legislation. We like the freedom to choose who we extend our generosity to.
If you look at where the welfare dollars go in NZ, I can understand their reluctance to subject themselves to the tax laws here.
At the end of the day, when taxes are increased, it is the salaried man who gets hit the hardest. The real millionaires are left untouched because they are mobile and smart.
They don't lose their voice. The remain silent for obvious reasons and it's because they don't pay the 50% rate.
There are twists and turns in the rules that enable them to escape the net.
If you have been here long enough, you should know that I am pedantic when it comes to housekeeping but liberal when it comes to content.
You have been placed under moderation so I can review your posts from now on. They will be allowed out of the moderation queue only if you revert to the default font size. I don't mind a variation of font size for emphasis when necessary but not in every single message.
Similar threads
