PAP should not bully poor people by increasing GST in Singapore. Property Tax is really so PEANUTS in Singapore, PAP should stop exploiting poor people in Singapore to reward rich people. Really tiny peanuts (mediocre) property taxes collected in YA2017 of puny S$4.4 billion, even by Emeritus Snr Minister Goh Chok Tong and his wife standards https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/20...l-pay-and-defence-budget-at-grassroots-event/ : However, the amount of GST collected was already shockingly high at S$11.1 billion; and GST is a regressive tax mind you that. pict from: https://sbr.com.sg/economy/news/singapore-tax-revenue-68-502b For most Singaporeans, property is a measure of wealth (Annual GST credits and hospital means testing is based on residence property annual value). However, many Singaporeans are just scraping a living to get by. The large amount of wealth (relative to a tiny income contribution to GDP fraction) just sloshing around in Singapore is evidenced by the fact that wage share of GDP is just a low of approx 42% as at 2016: https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/getting-the-picture-right-on-wage-share-in-singapore Property tax is more akin to a tax on capital/ wealth, which should be the focus of an egalitarian government but PAP seems to choose to protect the rich at the expense of the poor by not increasing property taxes through progressive taxation but instead raising GST to 9% by 2021 https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...ed-from-7-to-9-sometime-between-2021-and-2025 , deceptively using Scandinavian rates of 25% VAT as reference to hoodwink Singaporeans into acceding when there are hardly any comparable welfare benefits in Singapore which are the norm in Scandinavian states. Wouldn't the greater wealth divide in Singapore be better targeted by increasing property taxes in a progressive fashion using progressive personal income tax scales as a guideline? As of 2017, property tax collected is REALLY MEDIOCRE AND PEANUTS because at $4.4b, it is only 39.6% of the $11.1 billions in GST collected. Even raising commercial and industrial property tax is unlikely to signifantly increase costs of living that much because poor people will have the discreation NOT to shop at opulent and expensive central locations like orchard road or Marina Bay Sands area but travel out further to warehouse and factory outlet locations. TAXES ON WEALTH SHOULD AT ALL TIMES EXCEED TAXES ON INCOME, since wealth is afterall an accumulation of EXCESS (superfluous) income. Cash wealth cannot be taxed because it can be hidden in bitcoins etc. However, all Singaporeans serve NS for no salary to defend land, as such, those who live in big and opulent properties (some on >50,000 SQ ft FREEHOLD land and worth >S$93 million https://www.edgeprop.sg/property-news/most-expensive-good-class-bungalows-sold-singapore-2018 ) ought to shoulder the majority burden of the SAF budget to protect the value of their properties which run into many millions of dollars as compared to leasehold HDB flats. [Letter to Today] NS a duty, not a job — thus no ‘salary’: Mindef It is only decent for the PAP to raise GST after the amount of property tax collected is in excess of the amount of GST collected and at no time should the amount of GST collected ever exceed the amount of property tax revenue collected by the government of Singapore. For now, since the salary contribution to GDP is approx 42% with wealth (earnings from rent) contributing the other other approx 58%, I would like to propose that target total property tax collection should be 58/42* $11 billion= S$15.19 billion, a $10.79 billion margin of increase over the current puny $4.4 billion collected. PAP must exhaust the increase in property tax on rich towkays in Singapore before fleecing or scamming the poor people in Singapore. Lastly, PAP pls be aware that nobody will respect those who bully the weak and those who cannot defend themselves, no matter how much u earn. Respect is earned and not given: "If the annual salary of the Minister of Information, Communication and Arts is only $500,000, it may pose some problems when he discuss policies with media CEOs who earn millions of dollars because they need not listen to the minister's ideas and proposals. Hence, a reasonable payout will help to maintain a bit of dignity." - MP Lim Wee Kiak apologises for comments on pay [IMG URL] PAP, SHAME ON YOU. You BULLY and COWARD. ============== Reference: Property tax should be tiered using the following income tax scale as guide: pict source: https://www.3ecpa.com.sg/resources/singapore-taxation/singapore-personal-individual-income-tax-rate/ All principal amount tiers may be shrunk by multiple of approx 4 and the respective tiers be taxed according to income tax tiers in a progressive manner: e.g. the first $5,000 in annual value is zero rate tax. The first $80,000 AV attracts $11,138 property tax, thereafter it's 22%.
Citizens should make the politicians adapt and not adapt to the politicians corrupt ideals. The people united can never be defeated.
New edited version: PAP should not bully poor people by increasing GST in Singapore. Property Tax is really so PEANUTS in Singapore, PAP should stop exploiting poor people in Singapore to reward rich people. Really tiny peanuts (mediocre) property taxes collected in YA2017 of puny S$4.4 billion, even by Emeritus Snr Minister Goh Chok Tong and his wife standards https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/20...l-pay-and-defence-budget-at-grassroots-event/ : However, the amount of GST collected was already shockingly high at S$11.1 billion; and GST is a regressive tax mind you that. pict from: https://sbr.com.sg/economy/news/singapore-tax-revenue-68-502b For most Singaporeans, property is a measure of wealth (Annual GST credits and hospital means testing is based on residence property annual value). However, many Singaporeans are just scraping a living to get by. The large amount of wealth (relative to a tiny income contribution to GDP fraction) just sloshing around in Singapore is evidenced by the fact that wage share of GDP is just a low of approx 42% as at 2016: https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/getting-the-picture-right-on-wage-share-in-singapore Property tax is more akin to a tax on capital/ wealth, which should be the focus of an egalitarian government but PAP seems to choose to protect the rich at the expense of the poor by not increasing property taxes through progressive taxation but instead raising GST to 9% by 2021 https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...ed-from-7-to-9-sometime-between-2021-and-2025 , deceptively using Scandinavian rates of 25% VAT as reference to hoodwink Singaporeans into acceding when there are hardly any comparable welfare benefits in Singapore which are the norm in Scandinavian states. Wouldn't the greater wealth divide in Singapore be better targeted by increasing property taxes in a progressive fashion using progressive personal income tax scales as a guideline? As of 2017, property tax collected is REALLY MEDIOCRE AND PEANUTS because at $4.4b, it is only 39.6% of the $11.1 billions in GST collected. Even raising commercial and industrial property tax is unlikely to signifantly increase costs of living that much because poor people will have the discreation NOT to shop at opulent and expensive central locations like orchard road or Marina Bay Sands area but travel out further to warehouse and factory outlet locations. TAXES ON WEALTH (/ostentatious consumption like palacial residences) SHOULD AT ALL TIMES EXCEED TAX RATES ON INCOME, since wealth is afterall an accumulation of EXCESS (superfluous) income. Cash wealth cannot be taxed because it can be hidden in bitcoins etc. However, all Singaporeans serve NS for no salary to defend land, as such, those who live in big and opulent properties (some on >50,000 SQ ft FREEHOLD land and worth >S$93 million https://www.edgeprop.sg/property-news/most-expensive-good-class-bungalows-sold-singapore-2018 ) ought to shoulder the majority burden of the SAF budget to protect the value of their properties which run into many millions of dollars as compared to leasehold HDB flats. [Letter to Today] NS a duty, not a job — thus no ‘salary’: Mindef It is only decent for the PAP to raise GST after the amount of property tax collected is in excess of the amount of GST collected and at no time should the amount of GST collected ever exceed the amount of property tax revenue collected by the government of Singapore. For now, since the salary contribution to GDP is approx 42% with wealth (earnings from rent) contributing the other other approx 58%, I would like to propose that target total property tax collection should be 58/42* $11 billion= S$15.19 billion, a $10.79 billion margin of increase over the current puny $4.4 billion collected. PAP must exhaust the increase in property tax on rich towkays in Singapore before fleecing or scamming the poor people in Singapore. Lastly, PAP pls be aware that nobody will respect those who bully the weak and those who cannot defend themselves, no matter how much u earn. Respect is earned and not given: "If the annual salary of the Minister of Information, Communication and Arts is only $500,000, it may pose some problems when he discuss policies with media CEOs who earn millions of dollars because they need not listen to the minister's ideas and proposals. Hence, a reasonable payout will help to maintain a bit of dignity." - MP Lim Wee Kiak apologises for comments on pay [IMG URL] PAP, SHAME ON YOU. You BULLY and COWARD. ============== Reference: Property tax should be tiered using the following income tax scale as guide: pict source: https://www.3ecpa.com.sg/resources/singapore-taxation/singapore-personal-individual-income-tax-rate/ All principal amount tiers may be shrunk by multiple of approx 4 and the respective tiers be taxed according to income tax tiers in a progressive manner: e.g. the first $5,000 in annual value is zero rate tax. The first $80,000 AV attracts $11,138 property tax, thereafter it's 22%. =================== PS: There are approx 2800 good class bungalows (GCB) in Singapore (with explicit laws to restrict kids and poor people from trespass into the vicinity), "The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) has opted to gazette Good Class Bungalows GCBS with 39 areas protected. The explanation for this was to protect the high environmental quality of these established massive bungalow areas from the intrusion of more intensive forms of housing like semi-detached or patio houses." https://www.goodclassbungalows.com.sg/about-gcb/ the average price of a GCB is S$21.3 million according to https://dollarsandsense.sg/heres-salary-need-earn-afford-homes-singapore/ and described in the table below: Table showing Singapore Housing Prices by type and salary requirements for approved bank loans.
How much for a two story house with a spacious garden? Interesting, I just looked it up. Apparently foreigners can buy an apartment or penthouse suite, but are not permitted to buy a "Good Class Bungalow". Apparently Singaporeans are greedy about their land and don't want wealthy foreigners buying it up.
In the chart above, would be classified as a bungalow. However, since the definition of "spacious" would vary according to person, u might want to search for "GCB" and "Singapore" for the details, definitions and price range of Good Class Bungalow in Singapore. Some details are contained in my updated article above. A/m chart prices are in SGD and yes, in general, u need to be a Singapore citizen to own a GCB or even a landed property for that matter, except for on Sentosa island in general.
I applaud Singaporean straightforwardness. In most other English speaking countries, if someone even proposed a law like that it would be shouted down for being RAAACCIST... related older thread: New Zealand bans most foreign property buyers
What an incredibly silly statement. In most other English speaking countries (perhaps all of them) restrictions on foreigners buying property would barely raise a ripple. They didn't in Australia, they wouldn't in Botswana or Guyana (queue desperate google search for the inevitable lone voices as 'proof' of a nonexistent 'shouting down'). Of course, Singapore is a one party state with complete control of the media and a history of threatening dissenting voices, so there isn't much 'shouting down' of anything (not never, but rarely).
