Hong Kong's budget is truly for the people, unlike..........
-
before i reply in details.Lets see how HK Financial Secretary's hands dunt follow his mouths!!He said:
http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200802/27/P200802270148.htm
51. Recently, there have been calls for the Government to make good use of the fiscal surplus and return wealth to the people. I share this view. This year, with our economy performing well, our tax revenue has increased. Revenues from stamp duty and land premium income, in particular, are far higher than expected. However, we must realise that a substantial surplus will not occur every year. Temporary improvements in our fiscal position, therefore, are not sufficient reasons for significant increases in recurrent expenditure or reductions in tax.
He knows this but still reduce and cut many tax!HK pple just forget the poor state in the past years,even before the SARS strike!!
see how HK property market trend affecting revenue.
http://www.centadata.com/cci/cci.htm
HK surplus and deficit in GDP %.
eg 01-02 refer to Financial year Mar 2001 to April 2002.
read Singapore Trails Hong Kong in Diversifying Economy
http://www.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/242569/posts/6162713/
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
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?
1.My apology.Land sales proceeds in HK shall be under Captial acct.But land sales and stamp duty,both are not reliable sources of income in HK,accounts for one third of total revenue.
65. For capital revenue, land premium for 2007-08 is estimated at $63.1 billion. We estimate that the revenues from land premium and stamp duties together will account for about one-third of total government revenue for 2007-08. This is the highest contribution that these relatively less stable revenue sources have made to total government income since 1997-98.
http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200802/27/P200802270150.htm
2.HK wil die if rely on lands sales .i assume $$ come from Capital Revenue ,in the past and in the fiture,mostly from lands sales.But it is no good if HK depends on selling forefathers other assets,like hk SOLD all commercial center and carparks to Linkvest REIL!!
3.Sadly,HK pple and forumers here dunt know or forget HK had to sell forefathers assets to support the expenditure.Pl note the sole purposes of HK to sell assets is to raise funds.
http://www.budget.gov.hk/2004/eng/budget27.htm
See what FS said in March 2004,just after SARS killed few hundred in HK and the actual deficit was some HK$150 b in the year April 2002/March 2004 !!.
Look at the chart i just posted in above reply.
Sale of Government Assets and Securitisation
92. The Government announced in last year's Budget that it would sell or securitise $112 billion in assets over the next five years. Initially, we planned to realise $21 billion in 2003-04 from the sale of assets or through securitisation of revenues. So far, we have sold a total of $15.5 billion worth of housing loans to the Hong Kong Mortgage Corporation. This Council has recently approved the securitisation of revenues from the government toll tunnels and bridges. We expect to realise up to $6 billion from this transaction in the next few months.
93. The Government is now consulting concerned parties on the overall arrangements for the privatisation of the Airport Authority. We hope that an initial consensus will be reached as soon as possible so that the legislative process can commence. We will shortly introduce into this Council an amendment bill to effect capital restructuring of the Airport Authority in the meantime. ....What else HK can sell to support expenditures?
-
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.
That has to be the most moronic post you've made to date.
1) Stop comparing military expenditures by country size, but by threats/neccesity. It's an infinitely more accurate measure. Next you'll demand to know why Canada doesn't spend as much on it's military.
2) In future before you quote data, please think about what you're quoting. I'm tired of having to point out in detail why the data you quote is irrelavent.
3) The Mas Selamat Kastari incident is an INTERNATIONAL affair. The escape was caused by HUMAN ERROR. Yes, human error occurs everyday. It has nothing to do with our ministers, and god knows it's got nothing to do with our army. It boils down to the fault of a handful of individuals, nothing more. The army is mobilised to look for him not only because he is a threat to our country, but also the world at large. You will notice, of course(since you apparently like FACTS so much) that the SAF is not the only military force conducting searches for him.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
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?
I take it back. THIS is your most stupid post to date.
Not only is it a fallacy( 10 billion is spent on the SAF, not 10 billion given to an already paid for SAF), you go as far as to assume that Mas Selamat Kastari is still in Singapore, thus proving the SAF's incompetence.
So what, if he's not in Singapore anymore, we can label you as incompetent as well?
Then you'll say that you already pointed out he must be in Singapore. In which case, you're just going around in circles, trying to compare your imaginary effort with a completely different scenario.
-
And for the love of god guys. Don't forget the fundamentals. We don't reduce costs to nil just to allow the poor to own cars.
CARS ARE A LUXURY ITEM.
Have we already lost sight of that fact? The current problem is simply a matter of too many people who cannot afford cars owning one because they overestimated their abilities.
The natural order is for them to lose their cars and learn from this mistake, not argue about how to make sure they continue to drive around, never understanding where they went wrong.
In other words, if you have financial trouble paying for parking or ERP charges, you have absolutely no business owning a car in the first place. If you are a delivery vehicle, economic theory dictates that your compensation will eventually adjust to the pre-tax level.
This whole ERP/petrol price issue is basically rooted in the poor having cars. It's not a tax issue. It's the car issue. It's like complaining that abalone is too expensive just because one year, it got so cheap everyone could afford it, and now the prices re-adjusted, the ones who can't are complaining they can't maintain the "status quo". Do we ask the government to subsidise abalone, or tell the poor to stfu and be happy that they got to afford abalone for one freak year? Yes, the correct solution may not sound nice, but it's the CORRECT one.
So sell your cars if you can't afford the petrol or ERP. You never could afford it. You made a mistake. Grow up. Learn from it. You commuted to work via public transport before you got the car. You can do it again.
-
Originally posted by deathbait:
And for the love of god guys. Don't forget the fundamentals. We don't reduce costs to nil just to allow the poor to own cars.
CARS ARE A LUXURY ITEM.
Have we already lost sight of that fact? The current problem is simply a matter of too many people who cannot afford cars owning one because they overestimated their abilities.
The natural order is for them to lose their cars and learn from this mistake, not argue about how to make sure they continue to drive around, never understanding where they went wrong.
In other words, if you have financial trouble paying for parking or ERP charges, you have absolutely no business owning a car in the first place. If you are a delivery vehicle, economic theory dictates that your compensation will eventually adjust to the pre-tax level.
This whole ERP/petrol price issue is basically rooted in the poor having cars. It's not a tax issue. It's the car issue. It's like complaining that abalone is too expensive just because one year, it got so cheap everyone could afford it, and now the prices re-adjusted, the ones who can't are complaining they can't maintain the "status quo". Do we ask the government to subsidise abalone, or tell the poor to stfu and be happy that they got to afford abalone for one freak year? Yes, the correct solution may not sound nice, but it's the CORRECT one.
So sell your cars if you can't afford the petrol or ERP. You never could afford it. You made a mistake. Grow up. Learn from it. You commuted to work via public transport before you got the car. You can do it again.
You mentioned that "If you are a delivery vehicle, economic theory dictates that your compensation will eventually adjust to the pre-tax level." (This economic theory is usually true for goods with inelastic demand, and these include the necessity goods).
So supposedly the cost is translated according to economic theory into higher prices for consumers. What will happen to the price of necessity goods that both the poor and rich will have to consume?
-
Originally posted by deathbait:
And for the love of god guys. Don't forget the fundamentals. We don't reduce costs to nil just to allow the poor to own cars.
CARS ARE A LUXURY ITEM.
Have we already lost sight of that fact? The current problem is simply a matter of too many people who cannot afford cars owning one because they overestimated their abilities.
The natural order is for them to lose their cars and learn from this mistake, not argue about how to make sure they continue to drive around, never understanding where they went wrong.
In other words, if you have financial trouble paying for parking or ERP charges, you have absolutely no business owning a car in the first place. If you are a delivery vehicle, economic theory dictates that your compensation will eventually adjust to the pre-tax level.
This whole ERP/petrol price issue is basically rooted in the poor having cars. It's not a tax issue. It's the car issue. It's like complaining that abalone is too expensive just because one year, it got so cheap everyone could afford it, and now the prices re-adjusted, the ones who can't are complaining they can't maintain the "status quo". Do we ask the government to subsidise abalone, or tell the poor to stfu and be happy that they got to afford abalone for one freak year? Yes, the correct solution may not sound nice, but it's the CORRECT one.
So sell your cars if you can't afford the petrol or ERP. You never could afford it. You made a mistake. Grow up. Learn from it. You commuted to work via public transport before you got the car. You can do it again.
i agree.
there is a fundamental error in making car prices `affordable' in singapore. unfortunately, not many singaporeans know how to calculate the total cost of ownership of cars in singapore. many incidentals are overlooked or omitted. when usage costs go up radically like what we are experiencing now, petrol and parking are 2 fundamental (big) increases, many found themselves wanting.
i think the government too play a role in this. if they have maintain a tighter rein in car population, it is more manageable now for the car owners in general. you see, there is an intangible factor here that is uniquely singapore (which you probably know already), if you switch from car to a motorbike or public transport, it is a loss of face. most will try to `pain it out' for as long as possible. this is wrong. our materialistic upbringing is proving to be the undoing of these marginal car owners who fall out of the circle of affordability. i have a good fren who is forced to downgrade from a BMW to a motorbike because he lost his job about 4 years back and the only job he can secure pays only a fraction of what he's paid previously. when we met, I do not once asked about his car, etc., but i could tell he's still reeling (badly) from it, not to mention a tinge of embarrassment. well, our friendship is not based on his previous wealth, but he somehow felt affected by all this.
actually, subsidizing abalone is not a bad idea. i buy it once a year as new year gift to my in laws and my wife always complain when we chomp it down during the reunion dinner, "why your abalone always so stiff one?" (confession: i never buy the most expensive one, nor the cheapest one. still, it is not good enough)
-
Originally posted by redDUST:
i agree.
there is a fundamental error in making car prices `affordable' in singapore. unfortunately, not many singaporeans know how to calculate the total cost of ownership of cars in singapore. many incidentals are overlooked or omitted. when usage costs go up radically like what we are experiencing now, petrol and parking are 2 fundamental (big) increases, many found themselves wanting.
i think the government too play a role in this. if they have maintain a tighter rein in car population, it is more manageable now for the car owners in general. you see, there is an intangible factor here that is uniquely singapore (which you probably know already), if you switch from car to a motorbike or public transport, it is a loss of face. most will try to `pain it out' for as long as possible. this is wrong. our materialistic upbringing is proving to be the undoing of these marginal car owners who fall out of the circle of affordability. i have a good fren who is forced to downgrade from a BMW to a motorbike because he lost his job about 4 years back and the only job he can secure pays only a fraction of what he's paid previously. when we met, I do not once asked about his car, etc., but i could tell he's still reeling (badly) from it, not to mention a tinge of embarrassment. well, our friendship is not based on his previous wealth, but he somehow felt affected by all this.
actually, subsidizing abalone is not a bad idea. i buy it once a year as new year gift to my in laws and my wife always complain when we chomp it down during the reunion dinner, "why your abalone always so stiff one?" (confession: i never buy the most expensive one, nor the cheapest one. still, it is not good enough)
well if anything, this car incident proves that singaporeans really need someone to hold their hands.
Govt reduced fixed costs and increased variable costs of vehicles, and Singaporeans predictably make basic financial mistakes when deciding to buy a car.
It's not that the govt wants to control everything. But simple things like these, the populance fuck up and seek accountability from the gov for not saving them from themselves.
Being down on your luck is no reason to blame the government. What, now the government has to make sure you get to keep your car when you get fired? That's ridiculous.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
You mentioned that "If you are a delivery vehicle, economic theory dictates that your compensation will eventually adjust to the pre-tax level." (This economic theory is usually true for goods with inelastic demand, and these include the necessity goods).
So supposedly the cost is translated according to economic theory into higher prices for consumers. What will happen to the price of necessity goods that both the poor and rich will have to consume?
welcome to your basic growth/inflation cycle.
Yes, the higher price has to be passed on to the consumers if the model does not support it. But remember when vehicles had higher fixed costs? Did the delivery model work? Yes it did.
Now work backwards as I do and realise that the savings of lower vehicle maintanance/purchase has to go somewhere. If not to the person doing the delivery(in which case, it should be no problem for them to revert back to the old model), then to the consumer themselves. Somewhere in the system, someone has been enjoying consumer surplus due to the temporary slump in investment needs.
Now that things are reverting back, you need only follow the money to realise how the model will work itself out. Yes, the prices may raise to be passed on to consumers, but let's not forget the price, if they do raise, would have similary fallen in the previous years.
-
Somehow, although economic theory do dictate that the price might rise or fall according to supply costs, prices are usually rather sticky downwards. My hunch is this is especially so for goods with inelastic demand.
Another problem is that in the short run, it is extremely hard for any change to occur.
In the end, it is the needy who suffers. :( No matter how much we talk also no use... One cannot expect much welfare from the government in this country, even if they are old or disabled...
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
1.My apology.Land sales proceeds in HK shall be under Captial acct.But land sales and stamp duty,both are not reliable sources of income in HK,accounts for one third of total revenue.
65. For capital revenue, land premium for 2007-08 is estimated at $63.1 billion. We estimate that the revenues from land premium and stamp duties together will account for about one-third of total government revenue for 2007-08. This is the highest contribution that these relatively less stable revenue sources have made to total government income since 1997-98.
http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200802/27/P200802270150.htm
2.HK wil die if rely on lands sales .i assume $$ come from Capital Revenue ,in the past and in the fiture,mostly from lands sales.But it is no good if HK depends on selling forefathers other assets,like hk SOLD all commercial center and carparks to Linkvest REIL!!
3.Sadly,HK pple and forumers here dunt know or forget HK had to sell forefathers assets to support the expenditure.Pl note the sole purposes of HK to sell assets is to raise funds.
http://www.budget.gov.hk/2004/eng/budget27.htm
See what FS said in March 2004,just after SARS killed few hundred in HK and the actual deficit was some HK$150 b in the year April 2002/March 2004 !!.
Look at the chart i just posted in above reply.
Sale of Government Assets and Securitisation
92. The Government announced in last year's Budget that it would sell or securitise $112 billion in assets over the next five years. Initially, we planned to realise $21 billion in 2003-04 from the sale of assets or through securitisation of revenues. So far, we have sold a total of $15.5 billion worth of housing loans to the Hong Kong Mortgage Corporation. This Council has recently approved the securitisation of revenues from the government toll tunnels and bridges. We expect to realise up to $6 billion from this transaction in the next few months.
93. The Government is now consulting concerned parties on the overall arrangements for the privatisation of the Airport Authority. We hope that an initial consensus will be reached as soon as possible so that the legislative process can commence. We will shortly introduce into this Council an amendment bill to effect capital restructuring of the Airport Authority in the meantime. ....What else HK can sell to support expenditures?
Selling land to distribute to the citizens of Hong Kong?I think you need to look at the whole balance sheet instead of selectively picking out items
highlighting them and interpreting them to your convenience.
Below is an account of how the Land Premium account is being used.
It is basically used for infrastructure improvements.
Land Premium being a capital revenue item was used to rejuvenate the
capital assets, therefore capital expenditure.
Do you know how to differentiate between a capital item and a revenue item?
Source: http://www.budget.gov.hk/2008/eng/pdf/cwrf-receipts.pdf
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
before i reply in details.Lets see how HK Financial Secretary's hands dunt follow his mouths!!He said:
http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200802/27/P200802270148.htm
He knows this but still reduce and cut many tax!HK pple just forget the poor state in the past years,even before the SARS strike!!
HK surplus and deficit in GDP %.
read Singapore Trails Hong Kong in Diversifying Economy
http://www.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/242569/posts/6162713/
Do you know what is the closing balance (reserves) of Hong Kong's balance sheet after the 2008/2009 budget?
It's $0.5 trillion.
I don't understand your mentality, when someone says another country is better than Singapore.
You get frustrated and argue at all odds to win, you seem to have this misconceived notion
that Singapore is best in everything.
You only agenda is to exalt Singapore and discredit other countries, god knows for whatever reasons.
On a nominal basis, based on the budget of both Singapore and Hong Kong, I would
have to say that the Hong Kong government cared and provided much to it's citizens
when compared to Singapore's government.
The figures in the budget said it all, all other things being secondary, we can argue about
the weather, land resource, free market, no GST and other issues later.
Based on the figures in Hong Kong's and Singapore's, Hong Kong's budget is generous
to her citizens.
Source: http://www.budget.gov.hk/2008/eng/pdf/consum_p_e.pdf
-
Originally posted by deathbait:
I take it back. THIS is your most stupid post to date.
Not only is it a fallacy( 10 billion is spent on the SAF, not 10 billion given to an already paid for SAF), you go as far as to assume that Mas Selamat Kastari is still in Singapore, thus proving the SAF's incompetence.
So what, if he's not in Singapore anymore, we can label you as incompetent as well?
Then you'll say that you already pointed out he must be in Singapore. In which case, you're just going around in circles, trying to compare your imaginary effort with a completely different scenario.
Huh? I think you have to follow the whole argument instead of selectively looking at my post just to counter it.
CM06 challenged me, saying that even if he paid me 10 billion dollars, he doubt I could catch him.
I replied him, if he paid me 10 billions, I guarantee I would catch him.
Do you have comprehension disability?
Now you look stupid don't you?
That's what you get when you don't follow all the arguments and selectively hit out at me.
CM06 originally posted:
let's set things straight, even if i pay YOU the 10 billion dollars, i doubt you can catch that twit in a month.
I don't have access to privy information like our government who uses cover up techniques to hide it's incompetence.Of course Mas Kastari must be in Singapore for me to catch him right, because SAF has no jurisdiction in other countries,
surely you don't expect me to deploy SAF units all over Indonesia, Malaysia and Philippines.
Please have some thought processes before blabbing nonsense.
"going around in circles, trying to compare your imaginary effort with a completely different scenario."
Maybe you can elaborate more on this statement.
-
Originally posted by deathbait:
And for the love of god guys. Don't forget the fundamentals. We don't reduce costs to nil just to allow the poor to own cars.
CARS ARE A LUXURY ITEM.
Have we already lost sight of that fact? The current problem is simply a matter of too many people who cannot afford cars owning one because they overestimated their abilities.
The natural order is for them to lose their cars and learn from this mistake, not argue about how to make sure they continue to drive around, never understanding where they went wrong.
In other words, if you have financial trouble paying for parking or ERP charges, you have absolutely no business owning a car in the first place. If you are a delivery vehicle, economic theory dictates that your compensation will eventually adjust to the pre-tax level.
This whole ERP/petrol price issue is basically rooted in the poor having cars. It's not a tax issue. It's the car issue. It's like complaining that abalone is too expensive just because one year, it got so cheap everyone could afford it, and now the prices re-adjusted, the ones who can't are complaining they can't maintain the "status quo". Do we ask the government to subsidise abalone, or tell the poor to stfu and be happy that they got to afford abalone for one freak year? Yes, the correct solution may not sound nice, but it's the CORRECT one.
So sell your cars if you can't afford the petrol or ERP. You never could afford it. You made a mistake. Grow up. Learn from it. You commuted to work via public transport before you got the car. You can do it again.
Cars are a luxury item?Which economist made that definition?
To some people TV might be a luxury item now, whereas it's a necessity for some.
Consider those doing sales job where it is impracticable for them to take taxis.
A car to them is considered a necessity, they rely on it for their income.
Cars in the luxury category would be those Ferrari, Porsche, Rolls Royce, Lambo, Bentley, etc.
If the government wants to target luxury car owners, then a better alternative would be to tax high end cars.
Instead of a non-discretionary tax of $0.44 per litre on petrol.
Non-discretionary taxes like the GST also affects the poor more than it affects the rich.
Other countries like UK have certain basic food items that are excluded from VAT, thereby
assuring her citizens an affordable basic standard of living. Whereas Singapore chooses
to do a non-discretionary tax on all items.
Originally posted by deathbait:
In other words, if you have financial trouble paying for parking or ERP charges, you have absolutely no business owning a car in the first place. If you are a delivery vehicle, economic theory dictates that your compensation will eventually adjust to the pre-tax level.
What form of compesation are you referring to here?
-
my dear boy
Cars are a luxury item. I don't think any economist will disagree with me on this. We're talking about singapore, not LA. Cars are not essential for survival.
I apologise about the 10 billion part, but my point stays the same. You cannot in the same breath blame SAF for not catching Mas when he's not guaranteed to be in Singapore, and then say you can only catch him if he's in singapore to prove SAF's incompetence. Your logic is unsound sir.
And if you don't even understand what i meant by compensation in that last paragraph, I don't think you should continue talking about economics.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
Somehow, although economic theory do dictate that the price might rise or fall according to supply costs, prices are usually rather sticky downwards. My hunch is this is especially so for goods with inelastic demand.
Another problem is that in the short run, it is extremely hard for any change to occur.
In the end, it is the needy who suffers. :( No matter how much we talk also no use... One cannot expect much welfare from the government in this country, even if they are old or disabled...
of course it's the needy who always end up suffering. They are, by defination, the needy and the poor.
What I'm seeing here is a forum full of people who expect utopia to be an entitlement. That's never going to happen. Shit will happen. Some people will be poor. For people to be better off, there is, by defination, going to be people who are worse off.
Our government doesn't give welfare, much. Ok. Now that it's out there, let's see how this is relevant. Is the situation of a part of our elderly being poor and needy unique to singapore? Is it even considered serious? Hell no. The homeless problem here is ridiculously small scale for the amount of hoo ha you forumites put into it.
I'm not even going to waste my time comparing to the nearby countries. Let's talk about welfare states like Australia and America, both countries of which I have spent extended time in.
Let's run a list of things more prevalent there than here.
[x] beggers
[x] homeless
[x] jobless
Whatever our government is doing, it's doing something right. It may be counter intuitive, but the fact of the matter is, our streets are not literally littered with the homeless and beggers.
-
Originally posted by deathbait:
my dear boy
Cars are a luxury item. I don't think any economist will disagree with me on this. We're talking about singapore, not LA. Cars are not essential for survival.
I apologise about the 10 billion part, but my point stays the same. You cannot in the same breath blame SAF for not catching Mas when he's not guaranteed to be in Singapore, and then say you can only catch him if he's in singapore to prove SAF's incompetence. Your logic is unsound sir.
And if you don't even understand what i meant by compensation in that last paragraph, I don't think you should continue talking about economics.
Cars are a necessity to some doing sales, because the other alternative is taxi, which is an even more expensive form of transportation.Whether a product or service is considered a luxury is based on the state of economic development.
TV in Ethiopia could be considered a luxury, whereas TV in Singapore is a necessity.
If you say that Mas is not in Singapore, are you trying to tell us how incompetent the P4P government is?
Afterall, it was the government who said that Mas was still in Singapore.
What's this?
Incompetence after incompetence, I think there is really a major problem with the P4P hierarchy.
I am saying that since the government assured us that Mas was still in Singapore, therefore the SAF is incompetent in catching him.
I do have to limit my own liability as such, I can't be making promises I can't keep, in the event that Mas is not in Singapore, it will not be possible for me to catch him.
But if the same set of circumstances accrue to me as to the SAF, I am very confident I can catch him.
If Mas is not in Singapore, SAF will not be able to catch him too, but I did not hold SAF accountable if he was not in Singapore.
The same set of standards I apply to SAF, I apply to myself.
You logic is dumbfounded.
If you can't explain your meaning of compensation, then obviously you are not fit to talk about economics too.
Quite obviously, you fear reprisals from me, therefore you don't dare to explain the term used in your context.
That's understandable.
-
Originally posted by deathbait:
of course it's the needy who always end up suffering. They are, by defination, the needy and the poor.
What I'm seeing here is a forum full of people who expect utopia to be an entitlement. That's never going to happen. Shit will happen. Some people will be poor. For people to be better off, there is, by defination, going to be people who are worse off.
Our government doesn't give welfare, much. Ok. Now that it's out there, let's see how this is relevant. Is the situation of a part of our elderly being poor and needy unique to singapore? Is it even considered serious? Hell no. The homeless problem here is ridiculously small scale for the amount of hoo ha you forumites put into it.
I'm not even going to waste my time comparing to the nearby countries. Let's talk about welfare states like Australia and America, both countries of which I have spent extended time in.
Let's run a list of things more prevalent there than here.
[x] beggers
[x] homeless
[x] jobless
Whatever our government is doing, it's doing something right. It may be counter intuitive, but the fact of the matter is, our streets are not literally littered with the homeless and beggers.
Like the P4P supporters always say:
Where is your proof?
Please show us your evidence instead of making baseless conjectures.
-
it is ridiculous that the onus is on me everytime you screw up.
You make a baseless claim and I have to clean up after you to explain why your data is wrong. You make logic errors and I have to write paragraphs to educate you. You prove yourself ignorant, and I'm supposed to educate you.
All while you're being extremely hostile to me.
But I'll do it again, if only so others may learn from your mistakes.
1)"a luxury good is a good for which demand increases more than proportionally as income rises, contrast to a "necessity good" for which demand increases less than proportionally as income rises." A car is a luxury item. End of story. So is TV by the way.
2) I'm not trying to say Mas is not in singapore. I'm saying you're not making sense.
3) For the last time, the government is not at fault for Mas's escape. Know what human error is? Is it your fault if your dog, despite all it's training one day decides to pee in your shoes?
4)SAF was not designed to catch criminals. That's the police's job. Saf's involvement is that of an assistant. To link Mas's escape to the defence budget is so far fetched I'm starting to wonder if your head is screwed on right.
5) Compensation - no one else seems to have found it hard to understand. Why are you struggling? In this context, it's obviously the pay he gets for delivering the goods. You are either making a pathetic attempt at mocking me, or are really THAT dumb. I'm not sure it's not both.
6) You want evidence? Go travel. Get out of that couch and turn off the TV you deem to be a neccessity. You rant on and on about the inaccuracies of the propoganda machine, but refuse to take personal observations over statistics drawn from similar propoganda mediums. You need only open your eyes to see the truth. But hey, then you'll be force to admit your gov is doing a decent job. That's forumite social suicide. We can't have that, can we?
7) learn the difference between making baseless conjectures and the sharing of personal experience. I'm guessing you've never been to these places outside the "tourist areas". Yeah, you don't see the homeless at the Night safari either.
-
Actually when I went Germany, I only saw some homeless in the tourist area (Hamburg) and none in the residential areas (Darmstadt)
-
Originally posted by deathbait:
of course it's the needy who always end up suffering. They are, by defination, the needy and the poor.
What I'm seeing here is a forum full of people who expect utopia to be an entitlement. That's never going to happen. Shit will happen. Some people will be poor. For people to be better off, there is, by defination, going to be people who are worse off.
Our government doesn't give welfare, much. Ok. Now that it's out there, let's see how this is relevant. Is the situation of a part of our elderly being poor and needy unique to singapore? Is it even considered serious? Hell no. The homeless problem here is ridiculously small scale for the amount of hoo ha you forumites put into it.
I'm not even going to waste my time comparing to the nearby countries. Let's talk about welfare states like Australia and America, both countries of which I have spent extended time in.
Let's run a list of things more prevalent there than here.
[x] beggers
[x] homeless
[x] jobless
Whatever our government is doing, it's doing something right. It may be counter intuitive, but the fact of the matter is, our streets are not literally littered with the homeless and beggers.
It's very hard to quantify about the homeless problem. For one, I have seen people (usually banglas though) sleeping at the main rubbish chute, where it is sheltered by many hedges. It was only when I took a shortcut that I saw it. There are also people who sleep behind staircase landings, places where you would not even dream of looking for people unless by chance. Even the newspaper carried news of a family who slept in some HDB power supply room last time. The thing is the 'homeless' in Singapore are probably also hidden from view; they have many places to get a shelter. I doubt for the first world countries, where residential districts are mostly bungalows/houses, the homeless will be able to find a shelter like under a HDB staircase landing.
I give an analogy. The government raises the GST. Then it did a survey and found that hawker prices did not rise. The problem? They focussed on the surface, the number, the statistic (the price), and not on the quantity of food that has probably been reduced. Similarly, by looking at the streets and deciding that there is no homeless is only looking at such things on the surface.
Let's bring the discussion back to the needy. Our dear SM once states that no Singaporeans will be left behind. No matter whether there is just 1 or 2 needy people, they still need help. There's no use comparing with other countries because they are in Singapore and still need to continue to survive in Singapore. Our agreement here is that not reducing the fuel tax in view of the rising oil prices will make the price of necessity goods increase. In addition, due to the increase in the oil prices, public transport and delivery fees will increase. This is coupled with the untimely increase in the GST and ERP. How are the lower income Singaporeans going to survive? Maybe they could, and all their money will be spent on the necessities.
However, this way, without being able to garner much savings, how are they ever going to break out of the poverty trap? Each time they managed to earn a bit more, they see prices of necessities increase. While they may
struggle to get a small increase in their monthly income, they see the government self-praise themselves raise their minister pay. Maybe one would say that "well, they are still surviving till now, aren't they?". I would say they are people who are resigned to working in a lifetime of misery, poverty and slavery. -
pl read amended in 10 March 2008 posting.
http://www.centadata.com/cci/cci.htm
HK revenues follow closely with HK property market.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
It's very hard to quantify about the homeless problem. For one, I have seen people (usually banglas though) sleeping at the main rubbish chute, where it is sheltered by many hedges. It was only when I took a shortcut that I saw it. There are also people who sleep behind staircase landings, places where you would not even dream of looking for people unless by chance. Even the newspaper carried news of a family who slept in some HDB power supply room last time. The thing is the 'homeless' in Singapore are probably also hidden from view; they have many places to get a shelter. I doubt for the first world countries, where residential districts are mostly bungalows/houses, the homeless will be able to find a shelter like under a HDB staircase landing.
I give an analogy. The government raises the GST. Then it did a survey and found that hawker prices did not rise. The problem? They focussed on the surface, the number, the statistic (the price), and not on the quantity of food that has probably been reduced. Similarly, by looking at the streets and deciding that there is no homeless is only looking at such things on the surface.
Let's bring the discussion back to the needy. Our dear SM once states that no Singaporeans will be left behind. No matter whether there is just 1 or 2 needy people, they still need help. There's no use comparing with other countries because they are in Singapore and still need to continue to survive in Singapore. Our agreement here is that not reducing the fuel tax in view of the rising oil prices will make the price of necessity goods increase. In addition, due to the increase in the oil prices, public transport and delivery fees will increase. This is coupled with the untimely increase in the GST and ERP. How are the lower income Singaporeans going to survive? Maybe they could, and all their money will be spent on the necessities.
However, this way, without being able to garner much savings, how are they ever going to break out of the poverty trap? Each time they managed to earn a bit more, they see prices of necessities increase. While they may
struggle to get a small increase in their monthly income, they see the government self-praise themselves raise their minister pay. Maybe one would say that "well, they are still surviving till now, aren't they?". I would say they are people who are resigned to working in a lifetime of misery, poverty and slavery.Residential areas, obviously you won't see any. Same as you won't see homeless in our private property areas. Go to the city, see the slums. There are people sleeping in the streets, under bridges.
If we're going to the extreme of focusing only on the homeless and needy, let's forget the fuel tax too. Chances are, they don't own a vehicle. Ditto for ERP.
So the only concerns you have for those in need are the increase in oil prices, gst and inflation as a whole. Allow me to break these down.
1) oil prices. There hasn't been an increase in tax. People all around the world has been reeling from the increase in oil prices. You're asking the government to subsidise oil. You should realise this is hardly a "helping the needy" move. In fact, it's transfering tax money back to savings for the rich.
2)gst. I am, and probably always will be against the GST. I do, however recognise that for the budget to balance, the gov will have to extract x amount of money from the populance in one way or the other. Do you want to pay more income tax? I certainly don't. Since we can't have the best of both worlds, I'm prefectly willing to tolerate the GST practice. If you don't want the GST level to continue rising, a more prudent step would be to give suggestions on how better to tax the populance, instead of sprouting rhetorics of how people are going to suffer. Make no mistake. The people will need to pay more as time goes by. Inflation hits everyone, even the government. You simply need to come up with better suggestions for the government on how to divide this pie of responsibility.
3)inflation. Yeah, there's going to be inflation. And thank goodness for that. Growth cannot occur without inflation. Unfortunately, imported inflation can often outrun domestic growth. There's nothing you can do about that, other than support your local manufacturers.
It's not really anyone's responsibility to ensure that people can break out of the poverty trap. We're having people in singapore who claim TVs are a neccessity. That guy is never going to break out of the trap if he ever finds himself in it. One funny thing about singaporeans, they never stop to access their own financial situation. I've seen idiots use installment payments like margin trading, buying tons of electronics beyond their actual ability. Then there was this childhood friend of mine, whom I couldn't talk out of buying himself a car as soon as he got a job.
I'm going to put one last word on this government pay raise increase issue. The complaining has got to stop. You don't want the ministers to keep giving themselves raises, take part in politics. What happens when your boss can't find anyone willing to take a certain post? He raises the pay to entice more people. This is exactly what is happening here in the government board. There are few actual qualified politicians. Any qualified individual in singapore heads for the safer grounds in the commercial sector.
So stop complaining about the minister pay raise. It's our own goddamn fault. How many of you even considered a career in politics, ever? See the US presidential race? The drive? This is the kind of attitude that the pay raise is meant to create. Ministers don't give themselves pay raises for no reason whatsoever. Only a complete ninny would assume so.
-
Originally posted by deathbait:
Residential areas, obviously you won't see any. Same as you won't see homeless in our private property areas. Go to the city, see the slums. There are people sleeping in the streets, under bridges.
If we're going to the extreme of focusing only on the homeless and needy, let's forget the fuel tax too. Chances are, they don't own a vehicle. Ditto for ERP.
So the only concerns you have for those in need are the increase in oil prices, gst and inflation as a whole. Allow me to break these down.
1) oil prices. There hasn't been an increase in tax. People all around the world has been reeling from the increase in oil prices. You're asking the government to subsidise oil. You should realise this is hardly a "helping the needy" move. In fact, it's transfering tax money back to savings for the rich.
2)gst. I am, and probably always will be against the GST. I do, however recognise that for the budget to balance, the gov will have to extract x amount of money from the populance in one way or the other. Do you want to pay more income tax? I certainly don't. Since we can't have the best of both worlds, I'm prefectly willing to tolerate the GST practice. If you don't want the GST level to continue rising, a more prudent step would be to give suggestions on how better to tax the populance, instead of sprouting rhetorics of how people are going to suffer. Make no mistake. The people will need to pay more as time goes by. Inflation hits everyone, even the government. You simply need to come up with better suggestions for the government on how to divide this pie of responsibility.
3)inflation. Yeah, there's going to be inflation. And thank goodness for that. Growth cannot occur without inflation. Unfortunately, imported inflation can often outrun domestic growth. There's nothing you can do about that, other than support your local manufacturers.
It's not really anyone's responsibility to ensure that people can break out of the poverty trap. We're having people in singapore who claim TVs are a neccessity. That guy is never going to break out of the trap if he ever finds himself in it. One funny thing about singaporeans, they never stop to access their own financial situation. I've seen idiots use installment payments like margin trading, buying tons of electronics beyond their actual ability. Then there was this childhood friend of mine, whom I couldn't talk out of buying himself a car as soon as he got a job.
I'm going to put one last word on this government pay raise increase issue. The complaining has got to stop. You don't want the ministers to keep giving themselves raises, take part in politics. What happens when your boss can't find anyone willing to take a certain post? He raises the pay to entice more people. This is exactly what is happening here in the government board. There are few actual qualified politicians. Any qualified individual in singapore heads for the safer grounds in the commercial sector.
So stop complaining about the minister pay raise. It's our own goddamn fault. How many of you even considered a career in politics, ever? See the US presidential race? The drive? This is the kind of attitude that the pay raise is meant to create. Ministers don't give themselves pay raises for no reason whatsoever. Only a complete ninny would assume so.
Let me point out some points
1) Fuel
We are not asking the government to give subsidy oil. Contrary to that, the Singapore government is actually taxing oil. We are merely asking for a reduction in the tax. And I have already pointed out that fuel prices do and will indirectly affect the needy. I would rather they raise COE for larger cars => this will affect the rich much more than the poor. Stamp duties on properties too. If the main reason is for more money. At $0.44 tax a litre, it is not a small amount.2) GST
I'm not against GST, but the rather, the recent 2% GST hike. As I have said, it is extremely untimely, given the rising oil prices and the fact that there's still 6 billion sgd extra budget.3) Inflation
No comments about imported inflation. But regarding the fact that oil prices are inflated from outside of Singapore, the least the government could do is to reduce the fuel tax to keep the economy running as it was. By reducing fuel tax, the inflationary pressures on goods and services in Singapore by the rising oil prices can be reduced.Now that you mention about not able to find anyone willing to take a certain post as the main reason to raise the minister pay. Yet our grounds is that as a minister, your motivation should be to serve the country, and not because of a raise in your pay check.
Why would most people not want to consider a career in politics? The current situation: You join the PAP and rise or you join the opposition, point out flaws in the government, and they will attempt to sue you bankrupt. Political apathy is not built up overnight. There was a time when Singapore just got independence from the British, and people were extremely involved and interested in politics. It seems that Singaporeans nowadays has lost much of that interest. Who are we to blame for that?
-
Originally posted by eagle:
Let me point out some points
1) Fuel
We are not asking the government to give subsidy oil. Contrary to that, the Singapore government is actually taxing oil. We are merely asking for a reduction in the tax. And I have already pointed out that fuel prices do and will indirectly affect the needy. I would rather they raise COE for larger cars => this will affect the rich much more than the poor. Stamp duties on properties too. If the main reason is for more money. At $0.44 tax a litre, it is not a small amount.2) GST
I'm not against GST, but the rather, the recent 2% GST hike. As I have said, it is extremely untimely, given the rising oil prices and the fact that there's still 6 billion sgd extra budget.3) Inflation
No comments about imported inflation. But regarding the fact that oil prices are inflated from outside of Singapore, the least the government could do is to reduce the fuel tax to keep the economy running as it was. By reducing fuel tax, the inflationary pressures on goods and services in Singapore by the rising oil prices can be reduced.Now that you mention about not able to find anyone willing to take a certain post as the main reason to raise the minister pay. Yet our grounds is that as a minister, your motivation should be to serve the country, and not because of a raise in your pay check.
Why would most people not want to consider a career in politics? The current situation: You join the PAP and rise or you join the opposition, point out flaws in the government, and they will attempt to sue you bankrupt. Political apathy is not built up overnight. There was a time when Singapore just got independence from the British, and people were extremely involved and interested in politics. It seems that Singaporeans nowadays has lost much of that interest. Who are we to blame for that?
a rebuttal if you will...
1)fuel.The tax has been constant. It has not risen. To decrease the tax is a subsidy.
2)GST. There's never a good time to raise taxes. Do you raise it when growth declines and the budget is in the red? Or do it when times are still relatively ok? Neither is a perfect solution. Trust me, you don't want a GST hike in the next economic crisis. And we both know the time is nigh.
3)inflation. Once again, I must point out that any reduction in existing taxes is considered a subsidy by the government. Do we subsidise rice and wheat too? Because those prices have inflated like crazy too. Where do we draw the line?
4)Minister raise. You miss the point. The raise is not an attempt to keep existing ministers happy. It is offered as an incentive to potential political candidates. Theoretically, you should be doing everything for free because you're just happy to do your part for the community. Like I've said before, that's the utopian dream and not feasible.
If I pay thee not in gold, I pay thee in silver. If we do not possess the incentives other countries have to draw in potential political candidates, we must offer new ones. This is what the pay raise is all about. It's not about shifting blame. Unlike you, the government is looking for solutions, not blame shifting. I don't know what utopian fantasy you've woven around your eyes when looking at how singapore should be. But I assure you, money matters. You would be doing something you hate(perhaps cleaning toilets?) if I offered to pay you a million a year. Trust me.