The reply is not addressing the the writer's points. I quote
him.
"First, there is a Water Conservancy Tax of 30 per cent which is
levied on the full cost of water consumed. By its name, I would
have thought the purpose of this tax, and acceptably so, is to
penalise consumers who use water excessively. However, the tax is
levied on every dollar of water consumed regardless of the quantity
used, even though a consumer's usage is well below the national
average stated in the bill as is in my case. Hence it is no more
than a disguised additional 30 per cent increase in the published
water rate of $1.17 per cu m. Water is an essential item
and conservancy from absolutely no usage is not an option.
To serve the conservancy cause, shouldn't the tax kick in only if
usage is excessive?"
His point is valid. Water is an essential item. On the other hand,
why is the water tax not structured in such a way as to encourage
convervation? But at a flat rate, regardless whether one is
conservative or wasteful.
Now we know. If you are conservative, you are still taxed (at 30%).
But if you are extremely wasteful (ie exceeding 40
cu m per month), you will be taxed even more (at 45%).
This is policy gone wrong, isn't it? I quote him on the second
point.
"Second, the Water Conservancy Tax, which is by no
stretch of imagination an item of goods or services, is
also subject to GST. It is unreasonable as a matter of
fundamental principle that a tax is imposed on a tax
payment."
The writer's point is even more valid. He simply ask- why is a
direct tax lavied on a direct tax?
From the reply, I quote "GST is charged on the final value
of any goods or services consumed in Singapore."
We could have understand the govt's reasoning if the water
conservative tax is an indrect tax. But it is not. Why are we
paying 7% GST on top of 30-45% tax?
From this such incident, the ramtification GST increase is far
greater than 7%, isn't it?
