1st world country, 3rd world situation, Uniquely Singapore

last SG · 2008-07-19T17:15:21+00:00

Don't forget based on the last ERECTION result 66.6 % of SIngapore is happy with the garment.So I would really be shocked if the PAP keeps coming back strong...

O o O SG

Eagle, I am still waiting for you to tell us how a company can benefits from employing Singaporeans to do nothing.

eagle SG

U mean a person who just use the established database for a day ? Is tat the overhead u r talking about ? If u talk about loopholes in giving money to the people, the loophole also exist if u wanna give to all old folks as well. I do not agree tat wasting a lot of money and a large portion to give to better off citizen is better. In fact I think tat is an overkill and is silly, causing unnecessary burden to society and unfair since we r taxing the poor to give to the rich

Why don't u hear yourself say it. "There is not creative accounting involved in employing someone to do nothing". It is not even classified as employee. Tis is already cheating the states tax money by making out fictitious workers. There r a million and one ways to cheat tax from the states and the law cannot list out all the possibilities. The clause tat "wilful intent" to edit account to "evade tax" is already grounds to charge the person for tax evasion. U think if u tell a judge "I employ tis guy to do nothing and give him all the profit of the company" and then he is found to transfer all the money back to u thus avoiding business tax is okay, then I challenge u to do write an email to IRAS about your scheme and see if they will give u the green light to conduct such a scheme. U claim it is not illegal and so confident of it, then prove it. If tat is legal, the no one has to give business tax.

https://www.iras.gov.sg/irashome/feedbackbusinesses.aspx

I have stated examples of people using creative accounting. But u just stubbornly think tat creative accounting is ok. Do u think the judge or the gov is stupid ? I have stated many times. Chapter 134 section 96

—(1) Any person who wilfully with intent to evade or to assist any other person to evade tax —

(a) omits from a return made under this Act any income which should be included;

(b) makes any false statement or entry in any return made under this Act; or

(c) gives any false answer, whether verbally or in writing, to any question or request for information asked or made in accordance with the provisions of this Act,

shall be guilty of an offence for which, on conviction, he shall pay a penalty of treble the amount of tax which has been undercharged in consequence of the offence or which would have been undercharged if the offence had not been detected, and shall also be liable to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both.

U already wilfully with intent to evade tax, which i have mention countless time. Tat is the only necessary ingredient to charge u

Real money ? Real money is not just giving to CPF but to his salary as well. If u did not give, u again have cheated tax.

I hope u realise tat in order to justify a person working for the company, it must fit the president employee in the gov gazette. If it is not within the president list, u can not consider tat as an employee and u cannot use his name as a local worker. Why don't u answer tis fact which i pointed countless times ?

1) Do u know the definition of employee

2) If the full salary is given out, then why don't u employ a real staff ? Wat is the novelty of your scheme ?

And so ? It is better than your earlier guess tat once a person is jobless for 3 moths he is not part of the statistic for unemployment. The above is the standard for all countries in calculating unemployment rate isn't it

I think u fail to read the previous reply accuratel. i stated tat PR went overseas to work, do not contribute to income tax and CPF and it may means tat he is calculated in the figure and considered as unemployed

Why don't u elaborate on why u specifically mention minority and majority in your rudeness debate ?

In the case of welfare, I would prefer an overkill than an underkil, especially for old folks who has contributed their youth and energy to the growth of Singapore

https://www.iras.gov.sg/irashome/feedbackbusinesses.aspx

—(1) Any person who wilfully with intent to evade or to assist any other person to evade tax —

(a) omits from a return made under this Act any income which should be included;

(b) makes any false statement or entry in any return made under this Act; or

(c) gives any false answer, whether verbally or in writing, to any question or request for information asked or made in accordance with the provisions of this Act,

U already wilfully with intent to evade tax, which i have mention countless time. Tat is the only necessary ingredient to charge u

All you are saying is the wilful intention to evade tax, when there's no such intention. The main intention, as said earlier, is to maintain a favourable foreign worker to local worker ratio. There is no false statement involved.

Both your previous examples have been proven to be totally unrelated to what we are disccusing. Those are due to discrepancies in accounts.

What I have described to you is the combination of 2 legal acts together, none of which you could prove illegal at all.

Real money ? Real money is not just giving to CPF but to his salary as well. If u did not give, u again have cheated tax.

So in your logic, an employee who is totally unrelated in blood giving back money to the employer is illegal? You might as well tell me if someone gave money to you, it is an illegal act.

I have answered according to your quote that contract of service can include "doing nothing". It is still a service to the company because the name is used for the ratio. Seems like you are the one who has constantly not been able to tell me why the act of doing nothing cannot be a contract of service to the company.

1) Do u know the definition of employee

2) If the full salary is given out, then why don't u employ a real staff ? Wat is the novelty of your scheme ?

The novelty is that the salary you paid out to employ a local in name is lower than the salary you would pay out if you had employed a local worker to do jobs like merely opening the door of your office every morning. In addition to that, you get a more favourable ratio, such that you can employ even more foreign workers.

I believe you still could not understand that going overseas to work means he will not be counted in the local labour force, of which the unemployment rate is derived from. The PR will be counted in the labour force of the host country he is working in.

Why don't u elaborate on why u specifically mention minority and majority in your rudeness debate ?

I've elaborated earlier. There's no need for me to consistently repeat posts to you if you consistently failed to read and understand properly.

O o O SG

In the case of welfare, I would prefer an overkill than an underkil, especially for old folks who has contributed their youth and energy to the growth of Singapore

Majority of the senior citizens have benefited from Singapore economic progress over the last 40 years and anybody who own a HDB 30 years ago, will all be seating on an positive asset which is worth about $250,000 today. Beside that, most old folks still have financial aid coming from their children and family members because after all, most Singaporeans still believe in Asian values.

Having said that, I believe there will always be some selfish Singaporeans like you, who believe that it is not your duty to take care of your aging parents

Beautiful951 SG

Having said that, I believe there will always be some selfish Singaporeans like you, who believe that it is not your duty to take care of your aging parents

I agree that many have benifited from the economic progress.

But who is really selfish no one really knows over the computer do they?

stupidissmart SG

In the case of welfare, I would prefer an overkill than an underkil, especially for old folks who has contributed their youth and energy to the growth of Singapore

U r being ridiculous here. I agree the old folks contribute to society. However the old folks get their due salary and reward as well when they r working. If we give money to all old folks, tax is gonna increase a lot. And u r giving to old folks who can be incredibly rich. Again I have eleborated repeatedly tat tis is taxing the poor to give to the rich, and tis is an extraordinary burden to the working class. However u refuse to coment on it and want to give so much money out for not apparent benefit or reason.

U employ someone to do nothing, u give him salary for doing nothing and tis salary is deducted from the company profit and result in a lower tax to the states. If i give the person a high amount of money (1 billion) , I can even claim the company is making a loss and ask for gov help. Isn't tis wilful intent to invade tax ?

Both your previous examples have been proven to be totally unrelated to what we are disccusing. Those are due to discrepancies in accounts.

What I have described to you is the combination of 2 legal acts together, none of which you could prove illegal at all.

I have already proved to u tat the definition of "employee" has to be in line with the description in the gazette. Do u read tis line at all ? U just evade tis question repeatedly

So in your logic, an employee who is totally unrelated in blood giving back money to the employer is illegal? You might as well tell me if someone gave money to you, it is an illegal act.

Giving money here and there is ok. But giving money tat result in a reduction of tax to the states is wrong. I can also come out with many other creative accounting as well. If going by wat u say, giving contractor money to renovate nothing is perfectly fine too. It is my money, I like the contractor to renovate nothing and it is my right ? Tat is your line of argument isn't it ? I can also give money to training firm to teach nothing. It is my money, there is no law tat states I cannot give money to training center to teach nothing and therefore it is perfectly fine.

Wrong. The above 2 companies had thought of more sophisticated means to cheat tax and got caught and charged to jail. U think u will be fine with your "salary to someone to do nothing" ? Tis is an obvious intent to evade tax.

Too bad your idea cannot work because the person doing nothing is not considered as an employee according to the employee's act

I have stated "may" all the while in the PR working overseas issue.

So lets come to the conclusion for PR and FT, which is the original problem we r discussing. Singapore has a low unemployment rate (2% according to eagle). Checking from google by keying words like "taiwan unemployment rate", it stated 3.9%. hong kong is 4.9%. China is 4.2 in urban. Japan is 4.1 while US is 4.8. So wat is the complaint ?

I've elaborated earlier. There's no need for me to consistently repeat posts to you if you consistently failed to read and understand properly

Since u fail to elaborate, then it shows your repeated emphasis on minority/majority as well as emphasis on her comong over to work is just trying to imply she has lesser right as a human to be rude to the local

eagle SG

I have already proved to u tat the definition of "employee" has to be in line with the description in the gazette. Do u read tis line at all ? U just evade tis question repeatedly

Too bad your idea cannot work because the person doing nothing is not considered as an employee according to the employee's act

I have stated "may" all the while in the PR working overseas issue.

Why don't you tell me too that GST is also taxing the poor to give to the rich? The poor are afterall still taxed.

The question is cost-effectiveness, which you have failed yet again to touch on other than telling me about computerised databases.

U employ someone to do nothing, u give him salary for doing nothing and tis salary is deducted from the company profit and result in a lower tax to the states. If i give the person a high amount of money (1 billion) , I can even claim the company is making a loss and ask for gov help. Isn't tis wilful intent to invade tax ?

Doesn't the statement in bold already defeats the purpose and intention which I have already stated? Still trying to rout the discussion elsewhere?

I have already proved to u tat the definition of "employee" has to be in line with the description in the gazette. Do u read tis line at all ? U just evade tis question repeatedly

Which is? There must be contract of service. Now tell me, which part said exactly that

"you have to give a person work to do if the person is your employee"

Again, I have to remind you that what your 2 companies did is illegal because of the discrepancies in the records. The accounts wrote that something was contracted out to Company N to do, but Company N does not have the record that it has done something of this nature. That's where the discrepancy lies.

Creative accounting a not, what I have described is legal, not to mention (as said a few lines back) that your warped idea of tax evasion totally defeats the purpose of hiring the local to maintain a favourable ratio.

Too bad your idea cannot work because the person doing nothing is not considered as an employee according to the employee's act

You still haven't not pointed out at all how doing nothing is not a contract of service. Or if I'm the employer, I can even put it down as having employed someone to sit at home to wait for important calls, which you won't rerout over at all.

It's the company's business on what work (if any) they want to give their employees.

Let's come to a conclusion on this too. Like I have mentioned, this is a legal loophole. It is officially legal, but it is unethical.

I have stated "may" all the while in the PR working overseas issue.

I didn't complain about the unemployment rate. -.-
I'm saying when unemployment rate is rising, why are FWs still as freely available as before, and in fact, being employed more readily that Singaporeans?

And again, which you have also agreed, FTs and FWs do have a role in Singapore, but it is the way in which the incumbent has handled it that does not appeal to us. More QC is needed.

Since u fail to elaborate, then it shows your repeated emphasis on minority/majority as well as emphasis on her comong over to work is just trying to imply she has lesser right as a human to be rude to the local

Read carefully. I have already said that I have elaborated earlier. Don't push everything if you do not want to read back. None of the previous posts were edited.

O o O SG

The question is cost-effectiveness, which you have failed yet again to touch on other than telling me about computerised databases.

How can you be cost-effective when you are distributing Singaporeans tax money to people who dont need it? Isnt this a classic example of someone being penny smart but pound foolish?

Beautiful951 SG

How can you be cost-effective when you are distributing Singaporeans tax money to people who dont need it? Isnt this a classic example of someone being penny smart but pound foolish?

No I don't think so.

O o O SG

No I don't think so.

Tell us why you think that giving out financial aid should be done base on age class instead of income class and why do you think that it is more cost effective.

Beautiful951 SG

Tell us why you think that giving out financial aid should be done base on age class instead of income class and why do you think that it is more cost effective.

Because I like loh cannot hah?

stupidissmart SG

Why don't you tell me too that GST is also taxing the poor to give to the rich? The poor are afterall still taxed.

The question is cost-effectiveness, which you have failed yet again to touch on other than telling me about computerised databases.

GST is a way to tax. Why u suddenly mention about tis ? If we follow your plan, we have to increase to 10%. U think it is good ?

Cos effectiveness wise, u have failed to say why will it be expensive to find how who r more needy. Just dumping money to everyone is the worst cost efficiency idea if your aim is to help needy elderly

Doesn't the statement in bold already defeats the purpose and intention which I have already stated? Still trying to rout the discussion elsewhere?

The cheating is the same, is just tat u feel the amount here is too much. However the whole mechanism is the same

Which is? There must be contract of service. Now tell me, which part said exactly that

"you have to give a person work to do if the person is your employee"

If u want to be an employer, if u wanna give a contract of employment, u must follow the employment act. Tat is the law. And wat is constitute an "employee", it is defined in section 2 of the act

"employee" means a person who has entered into or works under a contract of service with an employer and includes a workman and any officer or employee of the Government included in a category, class or description of such officers or employees declared by the President to be employees for the purposes of this Act or any Part or section thereof; but does not include any seaman, domestic worker, or any person employed in a managerial, executive or confidential position or any person belonging to any other class of persons whom the Minister may, from time to time by notification in the Gazette, declare not to be employees for the purposes of this Act;

Your work is just cheating.

If hiring a construction firm to renovate nothing is a defense, u think they will not use it ? If going for training to train nothing is a defense, u think she will go to jail ? There is no desprepancy. Durai say he employ the person to renovate. It can mean renovate nothing. The girl says she can give money for training. And it can mean training for nothing.

I challenge u already. If u think your system work and u claim it work, then send a email to ministry of manpower or IRAS and ask them if it is legal or not. Your idea is so absurb tat it makes worse sense than the two examples above

Is the person really sitting at home waiting for important call ? IF she is, then she cannot move anywhere during the hours and she need higher pay than doing nothing, which make it senseless for u to employ her.

Let's come to a conclusion on this too. Like I have mentioned, this is a legal loophole. It is officially legal, but it is unethical.

Tis is obviously cheating. U not only cheat the tax agency u also cheat the ministry of manpower. Up till now u only make claim but show to back up with Chapter 91 Section 2 on the employment act

I'm saying when unemployment rate is rising, why are FWs still as freely available as before, and in fact, being employed more readily that Singaporeans?

And again, which you have also agreed, FTs and FWs do have a role in Singapore, but it is the way in which the incumbent has handled it that does not appeal to us. More QC is needed.

U know in classic economic, too low an unemployment is not an optimised economy. How to increase the employment rate ? Before, I was told by u and reddust tat states very serious employment problems in singapore. Now I feel the problem is controlled..

Read carefully. I have already said that I have elaborated earlier. Don't push everything if you do not want to read back. None of the previous posts were edited.

I also told u tat I am no talking about foreigner but locals as well. If u wanna me to read back, I still have to tell u the emphasis on she is from another country looking for job is really... unfair

redDUST SG

a quik poll out there, is anyone reading the long-winded reply? i certainly didn't.

eagle SG

GST is a way to tax. Why u suddenly mention about tis ? If we follow your plan, we have to increase to 10%. U think it is good ?

The cheating is the same, is just tat u feel the amount here is too much. However the whole mechanism is the same

If u want to be an employer, if u wanna give a contract of employment, u must follow the employment act. Tat is the law. And wat is constitute an "employee", it is defined in section 2 of the act

Your work is just cheating.

Tis is obviously cheating. U not only cheat the tax agency u also cheat the ministry of manpower. Up till now u only make claim but show to back up with Chapter 91 Section 2 on the employment act

GST is a way to tax. Why u suddenly mention about tis ? If we follow your plan, we have to increase to 10%. U think it is good ?

Haven't I already told you that man hours are required to setup, maintain and backup such a system, not to mentioned HR costs incurred and other overheads in the bureacratic govt agencies?

The cheating is the same, is just tat u feel the amount here is too much. However the whole mechanism is the same

If u want to be an employer, if u wanna give a contract of employment, u must follow the employment act. Tat is the law. And wat is constitute an "employee", it is defined in section 2 of the act

You have consistently failed to show why a contract of employment cannot be of the work to do nothing with your posted employment act, and where exactly is it stated that a contract of service cannot be one that has no work to do when it is still a service.

"employee" means a person who has entered into or works under a contract of service with an employer

If you cannot pinpoint exactly where it is said that it is illegal, you are definitely taking the law into your own hands.

Let me reiterate to you

Durai say he employ the person to renovate. It can mean renovate nothing.
The girl says she can give money for training. And it can mean training for nothing.
In both cases, did the records claim something was done, not to mention it was service paid out to non-employees?

Yet in this case, is the record going to claim any work that has been done?

Tell me, in which of the above scenarios are there discrepancies between records and actual work done. If you can answer this, you should be able to see the point.

There you have it. Being senseless to employ someone does not mean it is illegal to employ someone, something which till now you cannot reconcile.

Tis is obviously cheating. U not only cheat the tax agency u also cheat the ministry of manpower. Up till now u only make claim but show to back up with Chapter 91 Section 2 on the employment act

I'm saying this to you again, before you call it cheating, you have to prove the employment invalid. You are claiming that employing someone to do nothing under a contract of service is illegal, yet till now, you cannot raise exactly which law states that it is, except bringing out 2 cases which are unrelated.

The emphasis is that if you are from another country doing a job here, the worst thing is to expect others to talk to you in your native language instead of the working language, when you are a service personnel.

eagle SG

a quik poll out there, is anyone reading the long-winded reply? i certainly didn't.

Let me shorten the bulk for you.

stupidissmart is telling me that it is illegal and against the law to employ someone to be doing nothing, and that is to him, considered evading of tax, especially if that someone (who is unrelated to the boss) voluntarily gives the salary back to the boss.

I'm telling him it is not.

O o O SG

Haven't I already told you that man hours are required to setup, maintain and backup such a system, not to mentioned HR costs incurred and other overheads in the bureacratic govt agencies?

IRAS already have all the information about the Singapore household income in their database and thats how the determine how much income tax you pay or if you qualify for buy HDB flats directly from the government.

Beside that, CPF already have all the information about your income history and the amount of money you have for retirement. Furthermore are you not aware that you can purchase a copy of your personal credit rating report from Singpost?

So please stop making up excuses to smoke your way around....

O o O SG

Let me shorten the bulk for you.

I'm telling him it is not.

Eagle, please tell us how a company can benefit from employing Singaporeans to do NOTHING in the company.

stupidissmart SG

Haven't I already told you that man hours are required to setup, maintain and backup such a system, not to mentioned HR costs incurred and other overheads in the bureacratic govt agencies?

Haven't I told u the system is ALREADY maintain now. It is for prison record, NS record, driving license, passport, income tax and many many other useful application. It is already maintained. Wat is the increase in cost ? Almost nothing ! It is just someone using a database for a day to generate the result

"employee" means a person who has entered into or works under a contract of service with an employer

I took my definition from chapter 91 of the employment act. Where do u take your from ? Dictionary ? Sorry but tis is a law issue and the definition of the law issue is the relevant one

It claim there is renovation and there is training. Did it mention "remove the roof, paint it green, polish the floor" and specific action like "training on inproving service by speaker ABC" ? They just state construction and state training. So wat is wrong with my defense ? U r just using twisted logic

There you have it. Being senseless to employ someone does not mean it is illegal to employ someone, something which till now you cannot reconcile.

Then your idea fail. It is not legal because u cannot substantiate the term employee in the employment act

I already told u it evade tax intentionally. As long as u have these 2 ingredients, u r considered to be tax cheat. Contracting someone to do nothing sounds ok, but because u r paying money from the company revenue, it has the effect of reducing the overall tax to the states. Tis is evading tax.

so the only problem u feel is because she speak chinese to u ?

eagle SG

I took my definition from chapter 91 of the employment act. Where do u take your from ? Dictionary ? Sorry but tis is a law issue and the definition of the law issue is the relevant one

Then your idea fail. It is not legal because u cannot substantiate the term employee in the employment act

so the only problem u feel is because she speak chinese to u ?

Ok, I shall agree on you with this.

I took my definition from chapter 91 of the employment act. Where do u take your from ? Dictionary ? Sorry but tis is a law issue and the definition of the law issue is the relevant one

Then your idea fail. It is not legal because u cannot substantiate the term employee in the employment act

I took from the same source as you, and till now, you are still unable to quote and tell me exactly which part of your source tells us that it is illegal to employ someone to do nothing, other than the quote in which you still cannot prove that "doing nothing" is not a contract of service. It's not like you are stating on record that the someone you employed has contributed such and such; there's no need for such a record in a company.

It is not my idea. I'm telling you it is already being done out there, and it still is. It is a legal loophole being exploited, and unless, as you have said, there's a minimum wage in Singapore, it will still be exploited.

You are wrong because there was totally no construction done, nor was there any training done. This was especially so for the 2nd case because accounts for those 3 companies mentioned exist. It is obvious that they did not state it in their records, which is the reason for the discrepancies.

Whereas in this case, there's no discrepancies at any level whatsoever.

1) If employing a local to obtain a more favourable foreign ratio such that you can more and cheaper FTs, and such that your total profit increases, you pay more tax, not less.

2) You have not evaded tax because the true profit is still declared.

so the only problem u feel is because she speak chinese to u ?

The problem is that she expects me to speak chinese when I spoke English. Would you, if you are a working as a cashier in Europe, say France, expect your customers to speak English to you, and give them a look and be unable to understand properly when they speak French to you>

O o O SG

Eagle, before you go on asking so many question, I would like you to tell us how a company can benefit from employing Singaporeans to do nothing. The reason I am asking you is because I dont think you know what the ratio of Singaporeans to foreigners a company must maintain under the labour law. And without knowing this how would you be able to tell us that a company will attemp to employ dummy Singaporeans to gain access to FT.

To say that employing dummy workers is not illegal only tell us your lack of understanding about corporate accounting.

e.g Suppose if company A make $1m dollar NPBT a year and to invade tax, he claims that he employ 10 workers at the cost of $50,000 each, which mean he "NPBT" will become $500,000 instead of $1m.

You tell me if this is illegal and you tell me if it is possible for an auditor to flush out this scam?

eagle SG

To say that employing dummy workers is not illegal only tell us your lack of understanding about corporate accounting.

e.g Suppose if company A make $1m dollar NPBT a year and to invade tax, he claims that he employ 10 workers at the cost of $50,000 each, which mean he "NPBT" will become $500,000 instead of $1m.

You tell me if this is illegal and you tell me if it is possible for an auditor to flush out this scam?

I would like you to tell us how a company can benefit from employing Singaporeans to do nothing

There's no point telling you because the answer has been posted many times. You need to open your eyes to read.

You tell me if this is illegal and you tell me if it is possible for an auditor to flush out this scam?

And since there are already companies doing it for quite a few years, are you telling me Singapore auditors are dumb enough not to flush this out? Are you also telling me that IRAS is that dumb not to even notice this and charge the "culprits"????

Or are you also telling me that MOM is that stupid not to charge the culprits under the posted employment act because you are telling me it is illegal to employ workers to do nothing (in which you want to call it dummy workers)?

Next, it is already wrong to use the phrase dummy worker (which actually means you are employing a non-existent worker, no name, no identification number, etc). An employee has been physically employed. There has been no evasion of tax, and by being able to employ more FTs for a higher profit, you pay more tax instead.

« Previous Page Next Page »