PUB woes!

last SG · 2006-03-19T11:05:32+00:00

Living without electricity is not an unusually rare sight. For many menial workers real income real not likely to increase on the contrary its going down.

qpicanto SG

Electricity used $77.15
Water used $13.33
TOTAL $90.48

Water borne fee $3.42
Sanitary Applicance fee $6.00
Water conservation tax $4.00
(30% of total usage)
GST $5.11
Refuse removal fee $7.63
TOTAL $26.16

GRAND TOTAL $116.64

Tax and fees paid total 29%. Any comments Question

anonymouscoward SG

Depends on what you live in. I live in a condo and I travel every week. My home is mostly empty but I pay approx $150 every month.

browniebaobao SG

my bills also suddenly shoot up >$50 suddenly!

qpicanto SG

My concern is the conservation tax starting from 30% for usage up to 40 metre cube. If you have a big family sure you will exceed the limits and end up paying 45% tax even when you are a conservative user.
How does the tax help in the water conservation in this respect ?

qpicanto SG

How is our charges compared to those overseas?
Should water dependency be factored in the pricing? Water is scarce in many places. We do not face shortage in the near future, new water sources developed cost money but also increase the supply of water reservoirs.

Thailand_Hero SG

no big deal wat…just a small amount…

lotus999 SG

Extract from NMP Steve Chia's Budget Speech Debate 2006:

18. Table 6.2 of the Budget Highlights shows that other taxes, other fees and charges, and others account for S$4.36 billion in FY2004, S$3.87 billion in FY2005, and estimated S$3.97 billion for FY2006 respectively. These revenue receipts are higher than total GST collections of S$3.47 S$3.6 and S$3.75 billion respectively for each of the following years. Yet, they are all lumped together as others together with stamp duties, foreign worker levies etc.
19. Can the government be more specific about the etc etc? These are not small peanut amount of money that the government collects. The total revenue from these others is bigger than the revenue collected from the 5% GST, and I think it is important for these others to be more clearly and transparently reflected.
20. From the appendix 7.1 again, we understand that the government expects to collect S$870 million from stamp duties, S$160 million in water conservation tax, and S$1 billion from other taxes, although it is not reflected what this other taxes is about that it can amount to a billion dollars. Is the S$111 million collected from the Radio and TV licences reflected in this $1 billion too?
21. The point I am driving is this Sir: That the government should scrap (or at least drastically reduce) the water conservation tax, the radio and TV licenses, and the Domestic Foreign worker levy. They can afford to, and they should.
22. Water is an essential constituent for life. Without it, we all die. Thus the message to conserve is important. But to impose a water conservation tax from the first drop of water coming out from the tap is wrong. People should not be taxed for at least the first 15 cubic meter of water needed for daily necessities and living. Any taxes imposed on the excess water used above that amount will be reasonable. Not below it.
23. This is especially so since the technology to produce desalinated water is here, and water is no longer a limited resource, constantly threatened to be cut off by our Malaysian neighbors. With this new secured source of unlimted water supply from the sea, residents should be charged fair market rate from the provision of such water, and not be imposed such out-dated unfair taxes. I hope the Ministry of Environment and water resources will expedite their reviews and remove it soon.
24. As for TV and Radio license fees, it is not fair for residents to do national service, and subsidize our national objective of promoting local content developers. That economic objective should be funded by the government. The government can afford to subsidize more than the current S$5 million given for this fledging industry. License fee holders should not be asked to fund this government objective. This is an out-dated tax and should be reviewed and abolished soon. Only England, Ireland and some other commonwealth states continue to impose this license fees. Other developed nations like America no longer impose such fees to subsidize national broadcasters. I hope MICA will act on this soon.
25. The Government should also reduce the foreign domestic worker levy, so that the minimum pay of these migrant workers can be raised. It is incredible that the government earns more from its levies than the domestic worker herself. This is cruel, and profits excessively from the undue hardship of migrant workers. With better pay, Singaporeans can recruit more experience maids to look after their families and not the fresh young maids coming here with adjustment problems, and no experience of working in a high-rise flat. The experienced ones are going Hong Kong and other countries leaving Singapore with new inexperienced workers. Looking at total government receipts, the government can well afford to be kinder.

Atobe SG

Is it any surprise that Steve Chia has made more relevance with his time in Parliament than the well rehearsed speeches made by the MPs from the Ruling Political Party in support of the Finance Minister's Budget ?

Is it any surprise that the Singapore Press will not give any space to Steve Chia's speech, but featured prominently PM LHL slanted attack towards the issues brought up by Workers' Party Low Thiaw Kiang ?

PM LHL had claimed that the Opposition Parties were trying to score political points in their effort to 'raid the Reserves' and give 'all Singaporeans a free lunch' - was this reflected in Steve Chia's presentation ?

It clearly shows the hypocritical standards that are followed by the Ruling Political Party in the manner that they conduct their Politics.

anonymouscoward SG

I tend to disagree with what Steve Chia said except for point 22. His suggestions liken those of the manchurian dynasty where officials use the country reserves to buy the favor of the people. While they gain political support and power, they bankrupt the countries reserve.

One should not take things for granted. The strong reserves we have is a factor that Singapore continue to gain respect and importance in the world economy.

qpicanto SG

The 30% water conservation tax is too high for a start, more like a rate for a late penalty charge. Instead of conserving water it would have the opposite effect instead, at least for the big families. Even before they start to conserve water the tax is waiting for them! We are talking about a hefty 45% at $1.40
above 40 meter cube.

anonymouscoward SG

Agree that 30% is preposterous. Not just that; our electricity and water borne fee keeps going up and up without so much as informing the public (except for a small, barely readerable article in the papers)

Atobe SG

Originally posted by anonymouscoward:
I tend to disagree with what Steve Chia said except for point 22. His suggestions liken those of the manchurian dynasty where officials use the country reserves to buy the favor of the people. While they gain political support and power, they bankrupt the countries reserve.

One should not take things for granted. The strong reserves we have is a factor that Singapore continue to gain respect and importance in the world economy.

It goes to show that when a 'Myth' is spoken often enough, it will soon become the 'Truth' .

Has the propaganda of the Ruling Political Party aka the Government been so effective that even the simplest educated person can believe that WHENEVER the OPPOSITION propose any public expenditures it will bankrupt the Nation; and that only the Ruling Political Party aka the present Government is capable of spending BILLIONS WIHTOUT EVEN SEEN to be BANKRUPTING THE NATION - besides the fact that it is BRIBING the same Citizens ?

Should we not see the same dollars that are being PRESENTLY PROPOSED to be disbursed by the Ruling Political Party aka the present Government as PRE-ELECTION VOTE BUYINGS ?

The Ruling Political Party is playing a game of 'scoring points' as much as the Opposition Party, and it is only right that both sides should sharpen their wits in this combative competition of IDEAS.

We should view - with the same set of glasses - the PROPOSED AMOUNTS of disbursement from the Opposition Parties and instead judge the EFFECTS of the benefit to Singaporeans in the short and longer terms.

The debate on PUBLIC EXPENDITURES between the Ruling Political Party aka the present Government and the Opposition should be viewed by all of us as a COMPETITON of EFFECTIVE EXPENDITURES.

We should judge the Public Expenditures on the effects that can be brought to rein in the High Cost of Living that has been impacted by the various unreasonable high costs that only reap in huge surplus in revenue to the Treasury, and with the numbers hidden into mysterious anonymous accounting labels.

anonymouscoward SG

Originally posted by Atobe:

It goes to show that when a 'Myth' is spoken often enough, it will soon become the 'Truth' .

A truth is a truth no matter how you project it to be. Where will the government get its reserve if it stops all this collection?

Perhaps we can sell our natural resources? Oops.. we DON'T HAVE ANY.

Has the propaganda of the Ruling Political Party aka the Government been so effective that even the simplest educated person can believe that WHENEVER the OPPOSITION propose any public expenditures it will bankrupt the Nation; and that only the Ruling Political Party aka the present Government is capable of spending BILLIONS WIHTOUT EVEN SEEN to be BANKRUPTING THE NATION - besides the fact that it is BRIBING the same Citizens ?

Common sense.. and even children can tell you that when there is no income to sustain expenditures, any country will go bankrupt.

Btw... who says anything about bankrupt? I'm saying it is good for a country to have a strong reserve. Stopping collection will weaken this reserve.

Should we not see the same dollars that are being PRESENTLY PROPOSED to be disbursed by the Ruling Political Party aka the present Government as PRE-ELECTION VOTE BUYINGS ?

That's why it is an insignificant one time goody. Beside, most Singaporeans are not so dumb as to be bought over by this mediocre gesture.

We should view - with the same set of glasses - the PROPOSED AMOUNTS of disbursement from the Opposition Parties and instead judge the EFFECTS of the benefit to Singaporeans in the short and longer terms.

And when should we look at long term? When crisis happens?? What Steve Chia is proposing is the waver of conservation tax. A reduction or tax when it exceeds a certain amount is good; but not waver.

qpicanto SG

Laying of water pipes is part of infrastructure investment. It is there for a long time. As such waterborne fees should not be pegged to usage.

The utilities charges should receive as much attention as the public transport costs.

pearlie27 SG

Yes it is cruel of the govt to profit excessively from the domestic workers.

anonymouscoward SG

The role of our government is to take care of its citizen; not foreign workers. If the foreign workers are not statisfied with their pay, they can choose not to work in Singapore. It's a willing-buyer and willing-seller issue.

A domestic helper in Hong Kong earns a minimum wage of HK$3670 under their manpower laws (excluding the US$51 levy and other requirements on the employer). That's about S$860. Even if the government waive the full levy, they'll still earn than those in Singapore. I'm sure the opposition has done research on this but why does he still suggest this then? Lack of proper research or on purpose to gain support from local and foreigners?

Why would our government want to reduce the levy, give the money to domestic workers and contribute to a foreign economy?

There are tons of poor people in Asia. In China, a typical worker in poorer province earns no more than US$87 a month.

The government should reduce it's levy. But the opposition should have suggested that the savings be passed on to its citizens to help with living expenses, children's education etc..

euphratis SG

Foreign woker don't pay the levy! Found your argument wrong. The citizens have to pay. Lowering the levy = lowing the burden.

Beside not levy in HKG, salary there are 20% more than Spore but then again you have other issue like price of housings, no public housing & etc.

anonymouscoward SG

There is nothing wrong with my argument. I'm fully aware that the levy is paid by the employer.

Read the paragraph again. The opposition is suggesting that government lower the levy so that Singaporeans can pay more to the foreign workers; in order to attract more experience workers.

I'm asking why should we reduce the levy and pass the savings to foreign workers.

qpicanto SG

What about the non-domestic conservation tax? For businesses that need to use a lot of water, it is not easy for the agency to decide when the usage is excessive. However, the blanket application of the conservation tax of 30% on all units of water used, say in a coffee shop that need a lot of water to wash the dirty dishes, could indirectly influence the price of a drink.

Atobe SG

Originally posted by anonymouscoward:

Original post by Atobe:

It goes to show that when a 'Myth' is spoken often enough, it will soon become the 'Truth' .

Reply by anonymousecoward
A truth is a truth no matter how you project it to be. Where will the government get its reserve if it stops all this collection?

Perhaps we can sell our natural resources? Oops.. we DON'T HAVE ANY.

If you intend to follow the Politics of the Ruling Political Party, at least learn to do it the way it is done by Them.

Lie in a way that no one knows it is a Lie.

Did the Opposition MP propose that a Government stops all this collection, or did the Opposition MP suggest that CERTAIN TAXES be abandoned, and if not possible to be abandon - could the taxes not begin after a set upper limit ?

Can you comprehend the difference between a TWISTED FACT and a LIE ?

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
Lenin (1870 - 1924)

Any fool can tell the truth, but it requires a man of some sense to know how to lie well.
Samuel Butler (1835 - 1902)

The best liar is he who makes the smallest amount of lying go the longest way.
Samuel Butler (1835 - 1902)

Original post by Atobe
Has the propaganda of the Ruling Political Party aka the Government been so effective that even the simplest educated person can believe that WHENEVER the OPPOSITION propose any public expenditures it will bankrupt the Nation; and that only the Ruling Political Party aka the present Government is capable of spending BILLIONS WIHTOUT EVEN SEEN to be BANKRUPTING THE NATION - besides the fact that it is BRIBING the same Citizens ?

Response by anonymouscoward :
Common sense.. and even children can tell you that when there is no income to sustain expenditures, any country will go bankrupt.

Btw... who says anything about bankrupt? I'm saying it is good for a country to have a strong reserve. Stopping collection will weaken this reserve.

Common sense is not so common, when one refuse to exercise some flexibility in thinking, and open one's eye to see situations with some difference in perspectives.

Did LHL say that the Opposition's plan was to bankrupt the country with the Opposition's proposal of 'spending without collecting' ?

Is it good for a country when every cent of the Citizens is collected till the State Treasury is OVERFLOWING with surplusses ?

Is it good for the Citiznes when their hard earned monies are soaked up by the multiple services which they are dependant on, and which are monopolised by the State created enterprises that knocked out all other private enterprises ?

What benefit is to the Citizens, when all the monies collected that enrich the Government is spent on OVERSEAS FINANCIAL ADVENTURES - purchasing foreign assets at such HIGH PREMIUMS that our blood money is spent on ?

Original post by Atobe :
Should we not see the same dollars that are being PRESENTLY PROPOSED to be disbursed by the Ruling Political Party aka the present Government as PRE-ELECTION VOTE BUYINGS ?

Response by anonymouscoward
That's why it is an insignificant one time goody. Beside, most Singaporeans are not so dumb as to be bought over by this mediocre gesture.

Are you missing the core of the issue that is being debated ?

The Opposition Expenditure Plan is ridiculed by the Ruling Political Party, and yet the Ruling Political Party Expenditure Plan is no different from the Opposition.

Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
Ambrose Bierce (1842 - 1914), The Devil's Dictionary

Original post by Atobe :
We should view - with the same set of glasses - the PROPOSED AMOUNTS of disbursement from the Opposition Parties and instead judge the EFFECTS of the benefit to Singaporeans in the short and longer terms.

Response by anonymouscoward
And when should we look at long term? When crisis happens?? What Steve Chia is proposing is the waver of conservation tax. A reduction or tax when it exceeds a certain amount is good; but not waver.

The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
Alan Kay

Life wouldn't be worth living if I worried over the future as well as the present.
W. Somerset Maugham (1874 - 1965), 'Of Human Bondage', 1915

Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970),
"Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?", 1947

When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also admit that some things are much more nearly certain than others.
Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970),
"Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?", 1947

You are going to let the fear of poverty govern your life and your reward will be that you will eat, but you will not live.
George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)

It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869 - 194 Cool

Good people are good because they've come to wisdom through failure.
William Saroyan (1908 - 1981)

When there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income.
Plato (427 BC - 347 BC), The Republic