Let me quote the post I'd initially stuck on your
thread...
1) How many people, consciously or otherwise, actually bother to
keep in mind (or even know in the first place) that GST is only
applicable to businesses whose revenue exceeds S$1 million in a
given year? Technically, many commercial entities (ie.hawkers, etc)
do not actually collect S$1 million in revenue to begin with and
would have no business to pass on any GST costs to the consumer.
That said, as with any other theoretical legislations which can
never be practically and efficiently enforced, increasing prices on
the pretext of an increase in operational cost is more than a
sufficient excuse required for profiteering. Throw in a regime so
desperate for money with little regard for safeguarding consumer
interests (not at the expense of businesses anyway) and what you
see is effectively the ripple-effect of ill-conceived
policies.
3) Though not entirely relevant, there's actually an underlying
rationale behind it. In most parts of Europe and the US, for
instance, you do not actually have "official" policies whereby
things like "service charges" are levied in restaurants. However,
most customers - on their own free will - would take the initiative
to "tip" (pretty generously, I must add) and it's a gesture which
is expected from the party rendering the service (be it a waiter or
a cab driver). In many parts of Asia, however, such tipping
cultures are not prevalent and you see "service charges" (something
I personally don't endorse as I'd much rather favour the tipping
system where you're not duty-bound to tip, but that's another
matter) being levied instead. In view of such " inked-on-paper "
policies, I would imagine it only fair then that consumers be
charged for whatever "explicitly stated" charges and they be billed
right down to the cent and nothing more. What seperates other
countries adopting such tangible policies of billing from Singapore
is indeed the rounding off process. I concur with you that it is
indeed another "uniquely Singapore" scam that many business
entities which actually levy explicitly-stated charges have
actually got the audacity to shamelessly profit further by rounding
up - instead of rounding off - the costs passed on to the consumer.
I suppose the least you could do is boycott such
merchants.
What dragg is trying to say is that only shops/merchants with the
GST certificate (ie.their annual turnover is above $1 million) are
entitled to levy GST (as in, explicitly state the cost of the item
and/or GST seperately) on goods/services rendered. In other words,
merchants whose revenue do not exceed $1 million cannot charge GST
for the goods/services rendered - of course, we all know how easily
they can get round this by using other excuses to increase the cost
(bottomline is, they cannot legitimately use GST as an excuse).
