Hong Kong's budget is truly for the people, unlike..........
-
Originally posted by CM06:
Actually, i felt that this year's budget is so-so...not the best but not the worst. From what the Govt is budgetting i believe...that they are very worried about the economy for this coming year.
Did anyone remember the FM mentioning that they(the govt) are looking into ways to "tap" the reserves for next year? I suppose what they mean was to either draw or somehow reduce the money going into the reserve.
I can almost see why they withdrew Estate Duty. They want the rich people to live and park their assets here.(Good or bad i dont know)
Truth is, it's easier for the rich people to AVOID paying taxes on their income( or company revenue). You know the like. lawyers to find a loop hole and exploit it...type Something like the F1 driver hamilton living in switzerland with a small house to avoid the higher tax bracket.
The only way to tax the rich is to tax their consumption. You can declare you own nothing, are in bad debts while living in a huge bungalow on a 10 million dollar plot of land but you will have to eat drink take a dump and sleep. So GST is the way to go and "catch" these people.
Gst drawback is that it is a consumption tax - it makes consumption a more "luxurious" good instead. So if you are really hard up, you will be unable to consume alot of things. (not that it is a bad thing to deter the spendthrift but it really ruins people who wants to splurge on occasions)
The poor and not so well off owe little and can be taxed little anyway.
By the way, not matter what happens, HK has a big brother to bring everything in their economy back under control by force. We sadly do not have such backups.
My only grouch is that because we are a FREE economy, we get strangled by
the banks(i know economy is not doing well but housing loans ARE high vs savings rates these days ridiculous to be loaning 3-4% and giving back only 0.25% - 0.5% wth?!!)
the petroleum companies ( govt declare openly liaoz they get a FIXED tax per litre which means that the petroleum companies are the culprits because they want to maintain profit margins Ie, they must have a profit of say 20% so if they fork out $1 dollar for petrol, they must make 20c profit but if they fork out $2dollars they have to make 40cents even though it's the same amount of petrol!) (Remember, Diesel used to cost only 60-70cents. Now's it's more than $1.5! That's more than double already.)
What can the the government do when they are so powderful? "if you dont let the economy be free, we will shift the operations NORTH" then we die more
What the Govt can only do is to introduce alternative fuels and FAST so with more substitutes the free market will "lower" petrol prices. Problem is that alternative fuels are slow to come. R&D will take time. *sigh*. Subsidising petrol/ price ceiling will by the way means you are subsidising the RICH more since the really poor dont own a car. For the middle income, it's always kenna squeeze in the balls.
For those who wonder why Singapore Petroleum dont start selling lower prices - you will have to study economics for a detailed explaination (oligopoly + if you are not the big boys). The end result will still be make it not so profitable to here they will move operations north.
I can rant on forever...........
posted by CM06:
the petroleum companies ( govt declare openly liaoz they get a FIXED tax per litre which means that the petroleum companies are the culprits because they want to maintain profit margins Ie, they must have a profit of say 20% so if they fork out $1 dollar for petrol, they must make 20c profit but if they fork out $2dollars they have to make 40cents even though it's the same amount of petrol!) (Remember, Diesel used to cost only 60-70cents. Now's it's more than $1.5! That's more than double already.)
One also has to take into account the government's petrol tax of $0.44 per litre in Singapore
In other countries, the government provides subsidies for petrol to help it's citizens maintain a decent living.
Whereas, in Singapore we are not even asking for subsidies, we hope that the government will lay of it's petrol tax,
instead the government decides to make profit at the expense of her citizens by imposing petrol taxes despite the current inflated price of oil.
-
Rather than drift further from the topic that you have started,
let's set things straight, even if i pay YOU the 10 billion dollars, i doubt you can catch that twit in a month.
Next, SAF is an armed force against armed elements. They may have the manpower to deploy, they sure arent trained to plan how to catch crooks in HDB build up areas.
If you want to question, try looking at the SPF.
So rather than you skirt the hinting of how much SAF sucks and fails in this game of hide and seek with Kasturi, i rather you drop the issue.
I'm going to bed. Yeah i need my beauty sleep. I'm too dumb and ugly to fight with you.
P.S. If you had read that post of mine proper. You would have noticed - poor people cannot afford to own cars and drive them.
If you SUBSIDISE fuel, you will be subsidising the rich more than the pizza hut delivery man, the postman and the taxi driver will ever spend on diesel. Even if you dont tax fuel, you just make driving around in a limo cheaper for those can already are driving the limos mercs porsche and bmws.
The lack of tax so what? There's no guarantee that petrol prices will fall by the exact 0.44 cents per litre anyway. There's not even a clean breakdown on how much the companny earns per litre of fuel now. Even worst, oil hits 110 then prices go up by 50 cents...what are you going to do then.
Now, if you are talking subsidising public transport then that's something worth considering.
-
Originally posted by I-like-flings(m):
even b4 the wavier it's already alot cheaper than in sg lah.. that is why i always dun drink when i go back sg... i feel like a fool when i do that
Singaporeans have been fools for too long, some still persist in their stupidity. -
Originally posted by noisylion:
SG security said to be better then HK... but is it really?
Have I not said something broken and dunt can work?
Embarrassed Singapore hunts escaped terrorist
AFP, SINGAPORE
Friday, Feb 29, 2008, Page 5
Singapore, which prides itself on rigorous anti-terrorist measures, yesterday blamed a security lapse for the escape of an alleged leader of the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) militant network.
Singaporean army officers join the search yesterday for Mas Selamat Kastari, the alleged leader of the Jemaah Islamiyah militant network in Singapore, who escaped from custody on Wednesday.
PHOTO: EPAAuthorities mounted a massive manhunt as analysts said Mas Selamat bin Kastari, accused of planning to hijack a plane and crash it into Changi Airport, would try to flee to Indonesia.
"This should never have happened. I'm sorry that it has," Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng (é»ƒæ ¹æˆ�) told parliament.
Rohan Gunaratna, head of the International Center for Political Violence and Terrorism Research, said Kastari had escaped once when he was in Indonesia, but his flight from the Singapore facility was unexpected.
"I think that it has surprised the Singapore authorities and everyone because Singapore's security systems are world-class," he said.
The ministry said Kastari walks with a limp and was not known to be armed.
It said he escaped on Wednesday afternoon from the Whitley Road Detention Center, which holds prisoners detained by the Internal Security Department.
Wong said Kastari had been taken from his cell to the family visit room to await his family.
"He asked to go to the toilet, where he escaped," Wong said.
The minister was responding to a member of parliament who said the escape "raised concerns about our police force vigilance and security operating procedures."
News out there, open yr eyes and see
-
very off topics.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
The thing is, for most countries a budget of $6 billion is more than enough for defence expenditure.Did you show similar countries in size having a higher expenditure in defence?
I agree that defence is important for Singapore, but what is a appropriate amount.
We see countries like Malaysia and Indonesia without enlistment spending like $2 billion to $3 billion, whereas Singapore decides to spend $10.5 billion.
Burnei only has a defence expenditure of $291 million, isn't Brunei with it's oil rich resources more at risk of being annexed by other countries.
What is an appropriate amount for defence expenditure $10 billion, $20 billion, $40 billion, $80 billion?
Since you conclude that Sweden, Denmark and Switzerland can do with less expenditure on defence, I conclude that Singapore can also have less
expenditure on defence.
SAF has no business with Internal Security, then why are they being deployed to look for Mas Selamat Kastari?
The efficiency with which SAF captures Mas Selamat Kastari is a reflection of the effectiveness of the $10.5 billion in defence budget.
First of all, I didn't conclude that Sweden, Denmark and Switzerland can do with less expenditure on defence, don't put words into my mouth.
Secondly, even if I were to do it, I consider my opinion has some value because I have served NS, your opinion got no backing because you know nothing about defence. So you can't do it just because I do it. We don't spend more money on defence just because others do it, neither do we spend less because some other countries are spending less. We spend what we deem is necessary and what we can afford. Do you know why we need the Eagle, Leopard? you think for the zoo huhh.... Have a mind of your own lah, don't just copy, or cut and paste, aiyoo
Because you don't serve NS, you don't know what SAF is trained for, but, when the police need manpower, why can't they just ask the army to help, if there is a flood or something in singapore, SAF soldiers might also be asked to help. You think the SAF is trained for tsunami huh?? but they were great help in Indonesia. The more you talk, the more you show your ignorance, and stupidity.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
I err in saying official language, what I mean was the official language used in adminstration of Singapore.
Seriously, it would be time consuming and subjective asking the poster to translate his content, definitely it will not be a fair translation.
lionnoisy does not present facts and information in an unbias manner, he is subscribed to promoting the P4P propaganda.
I prefer to read and translate myself, words lose their meaning when being passed down the channels, especially if you have a bias person doing the translation.
I mean official language in Singapore is English right? Laws are all in English right?
For SAF, you are talking about capturing Singapore's No.1 Terrorist in your own house.
If a thief is in your house, I am sure you can manage to capture him if you are competent.
For US, you are talking about capturing USA's No.1 Terrorist in another person's house.
Chinese is an official language in Singapore, and it is used in the administration of Singapore. Laws are in English, yes, but all evidence pertaining to any legal cases are submissible to court in any of the FOUR official languages, do you know that? Are you a Singaporean?
Granted this is an english forum so we discuss in english, but if you want to discuss about HK, you think all the information are available in english? huei mun ne lou mou ge guai lou lah.
You never study Chinese in school meh? you chinese or not? you don't know the language and don't trust other people translate, and look at HK affairs with a guai lou's eyes, you think you are not biased huhh?? you very lou kui leh...better don't say you are singaporean.
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
Chinese is an official language in Singapore, and it is used in the administration of Singapore. Laws are in English, yes, but all evidence pertaining to any legal cases are submissible to court in any of the FOUR official languages, do you know that? Are you a Singaporean?
Granted this is an english forum so we discuss in english, but if you want to discuss about HK, you think all the information are available in english? huei mun ne lou mou ge guai lou lah.
You never study Chinese in school meh? you chinese or not? you don't know the language and don't trust other people translate, and look at HK affairs with a guai lou's eyes, you think you are not biased huhh?? you very lou kui leh...better don't say you are singaporean.
sgdiehard,
Hehehe....
I suppose you would entertain a debate conducted in Tamil since it is one of our official languages?As usual, you cannot win any debates and resort to insulting your opponents and your opponents' parents in a foreign language (cantonese).
That would reveal your level of intelligence and how much you respect your own parents.
I am here to argue and debate points with you, not here to insult your parents or let you insult my parents.
I don't see you countering my points like CM06, instead you prefer to insult your opponents and their parents.
If you really don't have good points to argue with me, then consult with your P4P lackeys and consolidate your points.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
sgdiehard,
Hehehe....
I suppose you would entertain a debate conducted in Tamil since it is one of our official languages?As usual, you cannot win any debates and resort to insulting your opponents and your opponents' parents in a foreign language (cantonese).
That would reveal your level of intelligence and how much you respect your own parents.
I am here to argue and debate points with you, not here to insult your parents or let you insult my parents.
I don't see you countering my points like CM06, instead you prefer to insult your opponents and their parents.
If you really don't have good points to argue with me, then consult with your P4P lackeys and consolidate your points.
If we are debating issues about India, and you have any evidence in tamil, bring it up in its original form would certainly help in your argument, well, even if it is in hindi, hehehe, I don't and I cannot discredit it just because it is in another language.
Glad you know some cantonese, I apologise for the cantonese insult.
My points are clear and simply, obviously you have no answer to the points. You have no idea about defence. Just don't try to argue on something you have no idea about.
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
If we are debating issues about India, and you have any evidence in tamil, bring it up in its original form would certainly help in your argument, well, even if it is in hindi, hehehe, I don't and I cannot discredit it just because it is in another language.
Glad you know some cantonese, I apologise for the cantonese insult.
My points are clear and simply, obviously you have no answer to the points. You have no idea about defence. Just don't try to argue on something you have no idea about.
So if an opponent brings up a Tamil article, giving you an explanation of what he thinks he said in the article, you will agree 100% with what he said?
Most of us don't even know what lionnoisy say in English and you trust him to decipher something in Chinese to English.
You are smart.
And you know about defence?I suppose serving NS makes one an expert on defence.
Another error in your analysis, "me not serving National Service".
I still have my full pack, SBO, No.4 and goretex boots.
With your expert knowledge, perhaps you could tell us what determines a nations expenditure on defence?
Glad you have abit of intelligence, insulting another's parents has no basis here, I can do likewise insulting your parents, but I choose not to,
else I would be no better off than you.
-
Originally posted by I-like-flings(m):
knn where the fcuk u dig those out... are u stalking mi? haha.. anyway.. what i say is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth... dun believe come try try lah.....everyone please remind mi not to resign if u see mi post anything in aunt agony ok?
Sorry about quoting your post.I had to get the truth from someone who is ACTUALLY living in Hong Kong instead of just pasting facts from the Hong Kong government.
-
Originally posted by CM06:
Rather than drift further from the topic that you have started,
let's set things straight, even if i pay YOU the 10 billion dollars, i doubt you can catch that twit in a month.
Next, SAF is an armed force against armed elements. They may have the manpower to deploy, they sure arent trained to plan how to catch crooks in HDB build up areas.
If you want to question, try looking at the SPF.
So rather than you skirt the hinting of how much SAF sucks and fails in this game of hide and seek with Kasturi, i rather you drop the issue.
I'm going to bed. Yeah i need my beauty sleep. I'm too dumb and ugly to fight with you.
P.S. If you had read that post of mine proper. You would have noticed - poor people cannot afford to own cars and drive them.
If you SUBSIDISE fuel, you will be subsidising the rich more than the pizza hut delivery man, the postman and the taxi driver will ever spend on diesel. Even if you dont tax fuel, you just make driving around in a limo cheaper for those can already are driving the limos mercs porsche and bmws.
The lack of tax so what? There's no guarantee that petrol prices will fall by the exact 0.44 cents per litre anyway. There's not even a clean breakdown on how much the companny earns per litre of fuel now. Even worst, oil hits 110 then prices go up by 50 cents...what are you going to do then.
Now, if you are talking subsidising public transport then that's something worth considering.
If you give me 10 billions with 100% authority over SAF, I guarantee 100% I will catch Mas Selamat Kastari if he is really still in Singapore, but the issue is,
do you have 10 billions to give me?
Is the SAF checking forested areas or HDB? From what I know from the news, seems that their search is limited to forested areas.
You have the police checking the built up areas and the SAF checking the forested areas, after 9 days, Mas Selamat Kastari the soon to be 50 year old
limping man escapes detection.
SAF not train to do search and destroy mission? Means if there is suspected enemy soldiers in a forest, they can't search and locate the enemy? Aren't you making a cuckoo of the army?
Only rich man drives car?
I suggest you take a visit to the multi-storey carparks of 3-Room HDB flats.
Then tell me what are those things stationary on the car parking lots.
From your analysis, there must be lots of "rich" man living in 3-Room HDB flats.
Some of these car owners (your so called rich man), does sales or otherwise, where the use of public transport will
not be economically viable or feasible.
These are the people disadvantaged by the higher cost of petrol, instead of richer man who drives a Ferrari, Porsche, Rolls Royce, etc.
If the government truly wants to penalise the rich from their use of cars, maybe a higher road tax on higher capacity cars, instead of an
all out tax on petrol which is used by the poor and the rich.
What a government derives from taxes, spends on social infrastructure to improve it, is a clear representation of how the government cherish it's citizens.
The excess taxes that is derived from the P4P government, is it spent on social infrastructure, or put back in it's already bludgeoning reserves.
Were there increases in marginal social benefits from the income derived from surpluses in the budget?
-
You win me over.
I go back to milnuts and save my breath.
-
Hong Kong going to scrape wine tax of 40% also. Yesterday's straits times' news
-
Do u like HK?If so,prepare stay in Tiny flats!!
35% of private flats below 40m2 or 450 sf.
86% of private flats below 69.9m2 or 752 sf.
about half of the population stay in private flats.
The sizes of public rental housing,which account for about half of housing in HK,are very small.
http://www.rvd.gov.hk/tc/doc/hkpr07/05.pdf
表
Table 3
STOCK BY CLASS( in number)
Private flats in HK in 2006
class
A.........B........C.........D....E....Total.
350 455... 519 498... 121 404.... 54 778 ..22 763... 1 068 898
.
Class A - saleable area less than 40 m
2
Class B - saleable area of 40 m
2 to 69.9 m2
Class C - saleable area of 70 m
2 to 99.9 m2
Class D - saleable area of 100 m2 to 159.9 m2
Class E - saleable area of 160 m
2 or above
-
Originally posted by CM06:
Rather than drift further from the topic that you have started,
let's set things straight, even if i pay YOU the 10 billion dollars, i doubt you can catch that twit in a month.
Next, SAF is an armed force against armed elements. They may have the manpower to deploy, they sure arent trained to plan how to catch crooks in HDB build up areas.
If you want to question, try looking at the SPF.
So rather than you skirt the hinting of how much SAF sucks and fails in this game of hide and seek with Kasturi, i rather you drop the issue.
I'm going to bed. Yeah i need my beauty sleep. I'm too dumb and ugly to fight with you.
P.S. If you had read that post of mine proper. You would have noticed - poor people cannot afford to own cars and drive them.
If you SUBSIDISE fuel, you will be subsidising the rich more than the pizza hut delivery man, the postman and the taxi driver will ever spend on diesel. Even if you dont tax fuel, you just make driving around in a limo cheaper for those can already are driving the limos mercs porsche and bmws.
The lack of tax so what? There's no guarantee that petrol prices will fall by the exact 0.44 cents per litre anyway. There's not even a clean breakdown on how much the companny earns per litre of fuel now. Even worst, oil hits 110 then prices go up by 50 cents...what are you going to do then.
Now, if you are talking subsidising public transport then that's something worth considering.
1) It is not subsidy. Just a reduction of petrol tax... you won't subsidize the rich at all because you are not even giving a subsidy.
2) There are many people who use their car for a living; it is a necessity for them. Yes, they may be middle class, but this middle class is still a large group in Singapore. Not only that, industries which require delivery of goods are all affected. This includes the delivery cost of the truck that delivers eggs everyday to your nearby supermarket. Cost price of many things will rise indirectly (including the necessity goods) and this will affect the poor. It is all linked.
3) Public transport companies are using rising fuel prices as the basis for raising their fares (recent example is the taxi companies). Reduction of the taxes on fuel will thus reduce the viability of this 'excuse'.
4) We are not even asking for a subsidy; but merely a reduction in the tax such that the increase in the fuel prices can be cushioned a little.
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Do u like HK?If so,prepare stay in Tiny flats!!
35% of private flats below 40m2 or 450 sf.
86% of private flats below 69.9m2 or 752 sf.
about half of the population stay in private flats.
The sizes of public rental housing,which account for about half of housing in HK,are very small.
http://www.rvd.gov.hk/tc/doc/hkpr07/05.pdf
表
Table 3
STOCK BY CLASS( in number)
Private flats in HK in 2006
class
A.........B........C.........D....E....Total.
350 455... 519 498... 121 404.... 54 778 ..22 763... 1 068 898
.
Class A - saleable area less than 40 m
2
Class B - saleable area of 40 m
2 to 69.9 m2
Class C - saleable area of 70 m
2 to 99.9 m2
Class D - saleable area of 100 m2 to 159.9 m2
Class E - saleable area of 160 m
2 or above
Hong Kong has usable land area very close to Singapore, maybe slightly more. And they have 7mil population. This explains their higher property prices; higher population density within that tiny land as compared to Singapore.
Yet when you are supporting a higher population (from 3.58 mil till 5.5m) in another thread, you are now supporting Singapore for the fact that it has lower property prices than Hong Kong. Contradictory, isn't it?
-
Hong Kong's land area suitable for urban redevelopment is much less than Singapore, it has lots of hills and mountains, so land is more scarce than Singapore.
Despite Hong Kong's reputation of being intensely urbanised, the territory has made much effort to promote a green environment.[11] Much of the territory remains undeveloped as the terrain is mostly hilly to mountainous with steep slopes.
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Do u like HK?If so,prepare stay in Tiny flats!!
35% of private flats below 40m2 or 450 sf.
86% of private flats below 69.9m2 or 752 sf.
about half of the population stay in private flats.
The sizes of public rental housing,which account for about half of housing in HK,are very small.
http://www.rvd.gov.hk/tc/doc/hkpr07/05.pdf
表
Table 3
STOCK BY CLASS( in number)
Private flats in HK in 2006
class
A.........B........C.........D....E....Total.
350 455... 519 498... 121 404.... 54 778 ..22 763... 1 068 898
.
Class A - saleable area less than 40 m
2
Class B - saleable area of 40 m
2 to 69.9 m2
Class C - saleable area of 70 m
2 to 99.9 m2
Class D - saleable area of 100 m2 to 159.9 m2
Class E - saleable area of 160 m
2 or above
Thanks for posting irrelevant data about Private Housing.Another point I would like to add, if the Hong Kong government didn't provide as much public housing and making heaps of profits, like our Singapore government.
Then despite the excess profits HDB made from it's sales of "public" housing, it is not distributing it's reserves to her citizens, instead it is amassing mountainous reserves.
Anyway, the topic is about Hong Kong's Budget, not about other issues.
If you would like to compare the Singapore's Budget and Hong Kong's Budget please continue.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
and mauzizio 13 : Hong Kong has usable land area very close to Singapore, maybe slightly more. And they have 7mil population. This explains their higher property prices; higher population density within that tiny land as compared to Singapore.
Yet when you are supporting a higher population (from 3.58 mil till 5.5m) in another thread, you are now supporting Singapore for the fact that it has lower property prices than Hong Kong. Contradictory, isn't it?
ai ya.pl dunt just do desk top research.
1.Yuen Long Plain in HK can priovide vast piece of land for development and the soon to be released land in restrcicted area next to boarder with Shenzhen.
HK gavaman lacks of $$ and political will to solve land problem.HK land owners,like pple all over the world,is greedy,who looks for sky high compensation when HK gavamna want to resume their land.
BTW,HK gavaman now depends much for high land price.high property prices and related income to surveive.HK pple just too short sight and dunt want property price drop.
Take a good look at Google Earth image before we talk again.
2..Yet when you are supporting a higher population (from 3.58 mil till 5.5m)...
Hey SG now get 4.59 million TOTAL POPULATION lah.Take note consisits of
spore citizens 3,130,000
PR (parents and their kids,or parents)abt 450,000
(above two amount to 3,580,000)
and foreigners 1,010,000(900,000 working)
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/themes/people/hist/popn.html
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
ai ya.pl dunt just do desk top research.
1.Yuen Long Plain in HK can priovide vast piece of land for development and the soon to be released land in restrcicted area next to boarder with Shenzhen.
HK gavaman lacks of $$ and political will to solve land problem.HK land owners,like pple all over the world,is greedy,who looks for sky high compensation when HK gavamna want to resume their land.
BTW,HK gavaman now depends much for high land price.high property prices and related income to surveive.HK pple just too short sight and dunt want property price drop.
Take a good look at Google Earth image before we talk again.
2Hey SG now get 4.59 million TOTAL POPULATION lah.Take note consisits of
spore citizens 3,130,000
PR (parents and their kids,or parents)abt 450,000
(above two amount to 3,580,000)
and foreigners 1,010,000(900,000 working)
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/themes/people/hist/popn.html
1) Usable land area is not by research. It was information gained from visiting Hong Kong and taking their information booklet quite a few years ago. And I don't think usable land area will change by a lot within a few years
2) okok, 4.58 mil. My typo mistake there.
3) I fail to see how money and political will can solve a land problem when land is a natural resource. The amount of land is fixed. Or you would support cases like when LTA was offering to pay a specific condo $1 for the carpark space?
4) BTW,HK gavaman now depends much for high land price.high property prices and related income to survive.
This is a strong statement. You need proof.
5) If the usable land area is same as singapore and population is higher by near to 2.4 million (52.8% more than Singapore's population), you would expect the demand for land to be much higher than Singapore's current demand. So by raising Singapore's population, you would definitely raise demand on land in Singapore, and land price will further increase. Remember land is not only used for residential purposes.
Suppose we don't count by usable land area, but by total land area, including land that cannot be built upon. Hong Kong has already higher population density than Singapore. If our population is to be raised to 5.5 million, our population density will then be 7812.5 per square kilometre, an increase of 1443.5 from the current population density. Land prices will only further increase. It is a simple case of demand and supply. Either that or you make every single person in Singapore stay in a smaller and more cramp HDB flat.
So, in conclusion of point 5, your support for increasing population in Singapore contradicts your post of supporting Singapore over Hong Kong because of lower residential and land prices.
-
noisy,This is Hong Kong's revenue estimates for 2008-2009.
I don't see any reference to sale of land in the revenue section.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Singaporeans have been fools for too long, some still persist in their stupidity.
these are happy slaves. -
Originally posted by maurizio13:noisy,
This is Hong Kong's revenue estimates for 2008-2009.
I don't see any reference to sale of land in the revenue section.
Under Other Revenue :HK $39.34 billion.Lands sale and stamp duties ,which come from property and stock transaction,make up 30 % of operating revenue.It looks not healthy.
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Under Other Revenue :HK $39.34 billion.Lands sale and stamp duties ,which come from property and stock transaction,make up 30 % of operating revenue.It looks not healthy.
You are one good stand up comedian!First you said
"BTW,HK gavaman now depends much for high land price.high property prices and related income to surveive.HK pple just too short sight and dunt want property price drop."
-
The revenue estimates I posted already shows taxes is 50% of the government's revenue.
The "other revenue" doesn't specifically state that it is land sales.
Quite amazing that you miraculously point out that land sales is in "other revenue", when land sales is an outright capital account item.
Maybe you can show me where you managed to extract the information that "other revenue" is land sales.
In case you don't understand, there is a difference between revenue accounts and capital accounts.
Singapore don't have stamp duties and exorbitant land sales prices?