Understood Atobe, perhaps I was a little hasty in saying
"bitching". No reason why we have to resort to personal attacks and
that was admittedly hitting below the belt. But to respond to your
queries:
Great to know that you are able
to change your opinion.
In any case, one should
be prepared to accept the same as what one can
deliver, which makes me unable to resist but to compare to the
Singapore Political Leadership being unable to accept the same
robust treatment that they will so uninhibitedly dish out to
the members of the Alternative Parties.
a) Lowering the gas tax essentially means lowering the
price of fuel at the pump. I understand the difference between
subsidies and removal of taxes, but in both cases you are
stimulating relative demand. I do not argue prices may not continue
to increase if oil prices increase, but you're essentially
rewarding those who use fuel and removing an impt revenue source.
Do you not understand the same debate is flaring in the US, where
every economist in the land has derided Hillary's campaign promise
to revise fuel taxes. Same rules here.
How can demand be stimulated when
the number of cars are also modulated through the COE mechanism
?
Why will you doubt the ability of
this Government to find alternative means to regain their revenue
even as they remove some existing one ?
Rest assured that this Government
will not allow any reward to those who use fuel and
remove the important revenue source - as the Government can
easily make the usage of cars to be made more
prohibitive by extending the network of ERP gantries, raising the
ERP charges, and prolonging its operating hours; as well as
by other revenue collection means such as public car parking
rates.
As matters stand, this Government
has already begun to quietly spring onto Singaporeans
- on a regular annual basis - additional ERP gantries,
extending operating hours, increasing ERP charges - all
done without even the Road Tax being further reduced as
''assured so convincingly by Minister MBT when the ERP was
first introduced when he was the Transport Minister..
b) As to you thinking of a breakdown in public transport systems
due to singaporeans not able to take buses/mrts... Well the
substitution effect of those choosing to take public transport over
their now much more expensive automobiles have actually helped
increase ridership. As to R&D for fuel alternatives to oil...
are you serious? You want Singapore to fund research for this when
supernations like the US as well as private
investments are already channeling billions into
alternative energy research?
The public transport system is not
immune from the market forces nor from the
cyclical global stresses hitting the Singapore
economy.
Taxis are already affected with a
lower passenger count, and soon with the proposed buses being
allowed again to operate on the same routes as the MRT - there is a
definite cost advantage for the public to take the bus over
the train.
The public transport system
cannot satisfy the innate human desire to own an
automobile for varied personal reasons; and the Weekend Car
may probably become more popular although limited by a reduced COE
available monthly.
Why should Singapore not invest
money in R&D for an alternative oil substitute - especially
when it has a large global market ?
By your reasoning that
if super-nations are pouring billions into searching for
alternative energy resources, Singapore should not put our toe into
this area. We should then ask why will Singapore also invest
monies in R&D into Defense Science when Supernations are
already in the cutting edge of defense technology ?
Similarly, why
will the Singapore Government draw more foreign
investments into Singapore and also investing in their local
ventures in Bio-Science and Pharmaceutical R&D in competition
with the leading centres around the globe ?
There are niche areas where the
supernations are taking a different track from what can be done in
Singapore - such as putting money in accelerating the R&D in
the use of palm oil as an alternative fuel source when we can
capitalise on the abundance of this commodity in South-east
Asia.
Singapore can take a lead role in
R&D to assist the neighboring countries in the R&D for new
and improved strains of palm oil that will produce higher yield per
acre of land in these countries.
c)when talking about welfare services you use Sweden as a
comparison, well you state that "they take a fixed sum up
front." Feel free to move to a country which takes just a hair
under 50% of GDP in taxation income. I'll be happy to take the
20-25% income tax and GST anytime over that... Hidden taxes? Ummm
GST is as crystal clear as you can get... Also, please note that
Sweden is much larger than Singapore, has a hinterland which is
resource rich. Do we also have cheap hydropower to draw upon?
The tax structure maybe hefty on
the Swedes, yet they are a happy and contented lot with a
population that is faster growing than the other
neighboring European countries with lower tax rates. The
Swedes are a happier community and more so when compared to
Singaporean with your supposed idea of a lower tax
environment.
This is largely due to the fact
that even as the income tax structure placed onto the
working Singaporean maybe low, there is a plethora of Government
Revenue mechanism that is daily raping our wallets as Singaporeans
go about their social and economic activities.
Yes, the 7% GST is
crystal clear and is all encompassing in every commercial
activity that Singaporeans consume and add to the low tax rate that
is imposed on income.
Did you overlook the other hidden
tax paid by Singaporeans - that will include the import duties
paid on luxury items, with the retail prices again being levied the
7% GST ?
Similar examples exist in the sale
of automobiles when the PARF tax on the imported car is
computed into its final retail price that is subjected to
7% GST - resulting in GST tax being
levied on the amount stated as PARF tax. Please
correct me if I am wrong, and I stand to be corrected on
this.
You may claim that not all
Singaporeans can afford to purchase a car, we can take the basic
item of electricity, with the tax on fuel used to generate
electricity being priced into the electrical charges, and our
Utility Bill being charged a 7% GST again.
The infrastructure cost for
sanitation is paid through tax revenues collected, yet Singaporeans
are again charged on a monthly basis for the number of toilets
installed per household. This computation method may
soon be changed to sanitation charges being computed from an
arbitrary estimated percentage of the amount of
fresh water used and enter the sewer system.
Yes, GST is also to be paid on top
of the sanitation charges.
The cost of hospital and medical
care is being recovered from Singaporeans who are unfortunate to
succumb to the necessity of using these facilities; and despite the
cost being supposedly subsidised. There is no knowing if these
artificially and arbitrary priced medical bills are not
first raised before being lowered by supposed subsidies,
and with the final balance actually being the true amount to
be paid and not subsidised.
We should be astounded that
despite our stronger Singapore Dollar, the cost of our
medical services is not lower when compared to similar
services provided in facilities with similar medical
standards and best practises as in Thailand
- where the medical staff is also FT, or similarly
local Thais scholars receiving medical training abroad in
similar institutions attended by Singapore students.
Sweden maybe a large country with
a bigger hinterland with hydro-electric power{?}, however, do you
know that most part of the country is inaccessible and
uninhabitable for most part of the year ?
With a population that is only
twice that of Singapore - 9,045,389 vs 4,608,167 - Sweden has
some surprises when one compare her with Singapore in the
manner that public funds are collected and results
achieved.
Distribution of Family Income -
2007 Gini Index: Sweden 22, Singapore 42.5 with the
value 0 being the most equitable.
{source: http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/20429046
}
.
Budget 2007: Sweden - Revenue
$241.2 Billion Expenditure $229.1 Billion; Singapore Revenue $27
Billion Expenditures $21.5 Billion
Public Debt 2007:: Sweden 41.9% of
GDP; Singapore 101.2% of GDP - this item consist the cumulative
total of all government borrowings less repayments that are
denominated in a country's home currency.
GDP [purchasing power parity]
2007: Sweden $333.1 billion; Singapore $222.7 Billion
{source:
Sweden : https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sw.html -
Singapore: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sn.html
d)affordable housing for all. By this I don't mean everyone can
afford to buy a HDB flat. That's not a god given right, but the
Singapore gvt has subsidized public housing so having a place to
live in while difficult for poorer income groups, are still within
their reach. But as always, gvts cannot and should not cater to the
lowest common denominator otherwise you end up with a welfare state
like the US with its attendant problems
Singapore government subsidise
public housing ? This must be the joke of the century when this
Government will seize private land at below market rate
compensation and sell the home with the cost of land based on
market prices.
The US Government do not involve
itself in any direct public housing construction on the scale of
the Singapore Government, which has made Public Housing an
profitable enterprise in itself.
Your postion in
not catering to the lowest denominator will only result
in Class division, a proposition that is against the social grain
of the Ruling Political Party in levelling the field for
all.
Anyway, let's agree to disagree. I personally feel Singapore has
done a great job by all the relevant benchmarks. Everyone has their
own opinions and all the data spouted here won't change most who
are committed to their viewpoints, be it yours or mine.
It all depends on the benchmark
that one prefer to use to measure the state of affairs in
Singapore. It is always convenient to compare ourselves with
the lowest denominator, so that Singapore will always be in
the superlative class - which I presume you will surely not approve
given your earlier position on this.
If we strive to be in the
same league as the First World, surely it is not too much
to measure ourselves using the same standards as the First World;
otherwise are we not deluding ourselves into complacency
?
If we always agree to
disagree to avoid confronting the issues - can such a status quo
lead to any progress to understanding the truth and find a way out
of the quagmire ?