Significant Singapore News

[Arcachon]

Almost 10 years ago got a 50% pay cut until now.

[Kelonguni]

Almost 10 years ago got a 50% pay cut until now.

Eagerly looking forward to my day of pay cut someday.

[Arcachon]

Everyone should plan for a pay cut otherwise when the day come they will be in a lost.

[teddybear]

And do you know that the "median" is based on actual figure or just survey of companies (which means is just bullshit (because companies inflat their figures to look good))?

And you see this survey uses "median", next you see another survey uses "average", like eg here:
Average salary increase of 4.5% in Singapore seen for 2015

Why the National figure don't use "Median" (which should be a better gauge of what the person in the middle will get)?

That's why it's called median

Mine is probably 2-3%.

My wife though has a raise of close to 20%...

[teddybear]

Sorry to hear that, but what is the reason for you to get 50% pay cut?

Almost 10 years ago got a 50% pay cut until now.

[Kelonguni]

Sorry to hear that, but what is the reason for you to get 50% pay cut?

Happy problem.

[Kelonguni]

No matter median or average, there will be some who have salary increases of over 10% and those who either have no increase at all. New jobs, loss of jobs etc etc etc...

The key is to think of this: who tend to be the ones buying properties and cars, the ones with increases or the ones with little/no increases? Once that part is clear, everything will become clearer.

And do you know that the "median" is based on actual figure or just survey of companies (which means is just bullshit (because companies inflat their figures to look good))?

And you see this survey uses "median", next you see another survey uses "average", like eg here:
Average salary increase of 4.5% in Singapore seen for 2015

Why the National figure don't use "Median" (which should be a better gauge of what the person in the middle will get)?

[minority]

Median salary to rise 4.7% next year(?) - REALLY?!
This is when next year Singapore's economy is expected to grow at 1-3%?
When did you see REAL salary increase much more than Singapore's GDP?

I always hear people saying that newspaper reported salary increase by say e.g. 5% that year, but they ACTUALLY only get 2-3% increase only, so where does the extra reported % go to, who has eaten up those? Looks like other people's pie is bigger than theirs???

Again, better read news with your brain functioning.............


Median salary to rise next year

Photo: The Straits Times

The median base salary in Singapore is expected to rise 4.7 per cent in 2017, after factoring in disinflation, higher than the 3.7 per cent increase this year, said a report by Korn Ferry Hay Group yesterday.

This would be ahead of Asia's real wage growth of 4.3 per cent next year.

The higher-wage projection comes even as Singapore's economy is projected to be sluggish next year, with most companies expecting only modest growth, the study said, noting that the country still has a talent retention challenge.

..................................

Indeed, while the German bank's growth projection for next year stands within the government's 1 to 3 per cent forecast range - and is in fact above this year's official estimate of 1-1.5 per cent growth - it is far below the 5.3 per cent average growth in the preceding decade (2000-2009).

Any news is still better than the ANAL LOGY BULLSHIT FROM YOUR ASS FOR MOUTH CRAP.

[teddybear]

May be, because such news like this:
https://www.allsingaporestuff.com/article/sporeans-compete-foreigners-unlevel-playing-field
and this:
https://www.allsingaporestuff.com/ar...spitals-please

are obviously better than what I said???........

Any news is still better than the ANAL LOGY BULLSHIT FROM YOUR ASS FOR MOUTH CRAP.

[minority]

May be, because such news like this:
https://www.allsingaporestuff.com/article/sporeans-compete-foreigners-unlevel-playing-field
and this:
https://www.allsingaporestuff.com/ar...spitals-please

are obviously better than what I said???........

What to expect from ANAL? SHIT... AND SHIT ARE ATTRACTED TO SHIT SITES.

[teddybear]

minority,
Only confirmed LIAR like you sprout the most shits (and lots of evidences here to prove you are the BIGGEST LIAR here), that is what we can say (and majority here knows that), that you are the BIGGEST here...................

What to expect from ANAL? SHIT... AND SHIT ARE ATTRACTED TO SHIT SITES.

[minority]

minority,
Only confirmed LIAR like you sprout the most shits (and lots of evidences here to prove you are the BIGGEST LIAR here), that is what we can say (and majority here knows that), that you are the BIGGEST here...................

oh majority? BAse on who say? YOU??? ARE YOU SHITTING ME??? YOU?? YOU SAY?? AND WE MUST believe the SHIT YOU SAY?? YOUR ANAL LOGIC? WOW.... !!!

[teddybear]

Will DJIA break 20,000 convincingly this time???

[teddybear]

Ops, posted in wrong thread..........

Will DJIA break 20,000 convincingly this time???

[teddybear]

For people planning their retirement, just found this webpage
https://make-money-secrets.blogspot....bel/retirement

with an online calculator
https://make-money-secrets.blogspot....alculator.html

that my be of help to you.......

[Kelonguni]

For people planning their retirement, just found this webpage
https://make-money-secrets.blogspot....bel/retirement

with an online calculator
https://make-money-secrets.blogspot....alculator.html

that my be of help to you.......

I was playing with the calculator, and seems to have some error. The final calculations can change tenfold by changing a few hundred increase in the payout. Doesn't make sense...

[teddybear]

I had played with the calculator and didn't notice any error for my inputs.

You may want to email the person with your problem and see whether it can be fixed?

I was playing with the calculator, and seems to have some error. The final calculations can change tenfold by changing a few hundred increase in the payout. Doesn't make sense...

[teddybear]

Sometimes, you would wonder whether the journalist use their brain...........

When Singapore introduce carbon tax, who ultimately get hit?
CONSUMERS!

As usual, just like when petrol duties are hiked, COE of commercial vehicles are hiked, commercial rentals are hiked, ultimately all these costs will be passed down to CONSUMERS!

So, ultimately it is the consumers that BEAR ALL THE COST!

This is no different from Trump talking about taxing all imports into US! Ultimately, it is US residential consumers who will BEAR ALL THE COST!

All these are aka INDIRECT (transferable) TAXES ultimately to be imposed on the CONSUMERS!



Singapore carbon tax would hit refiners, help renewables
Reuters

Singapore's proposed plan to tax greenhouse gas emissions would likely hit oil refiners hard, ramping up costs in an industry that has been central to the city-state's rapid development over the last half-century.

Monday's announcement that a carbon tax on direct emitters is slated to be introduced from 2019 indicates that Singapore, Asia's main oil trading hub, could be moving towards a longer-term future dominated by cleaner technology and resources.

Advertisement
Countries around the world have been under increasing pressure to crack down on carbon emissions, with Singapore part of the historic Paris climate accord that came into force late last year.

In parts of Europe and countries like Australia, the introduction of carbon taxes or carbon trading schemes has often driven a decline in established refining industries and a parallel surge in investment in clean energy technology. "The proposed carbon tax on emitters would prove a significant drag on industry profit-margins," said Peter Lee, oil and gas analyst at BMI Research in Singapore.

The government said the carbon tax would probably cover 30 to 40 "large direct emitters" including power stations, petrochemical facilities and semiconductor makers.

But it is Singapore's three refineries, run by ExxonMobil , Royal Dutch Shell and Singapore Refining Company, that would likely need to brace for the hardest blow.

The tax proposal comes as those refineries, with a combined fuel generation capacity of around 1.38 million barrels per day (bpd), are grappling with rising competition from China, India and the Middle East.

............................

[teddybear]

Wow! I didn't realize that Singaporeans have been over-charged for water for 17 years!
so much so that they don't have to raise the price of water for 17 LONG YEARS (despite everything else having gone up by a lot due to inflation) and still being profitable!!!!!!!!

I remember the desalination plant has been bidded for like S$0.70 per cubic m by company in 2015 and the company still can make profits, but we were charged S$1.48 per cubic m * 45% tariff = S$2.146 per cubic m, so they will still be very profitable even before their planned raise of water price they charge!


Price of water to increase for the first time in 17 years
By Neo Chai Chin -
February 7

SINGAPORE — Water prices will go up after holding steady for 17 years, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Masagos Zulkifli said on Tuesday (Feb 7), less than a month after he said the Government would adjust water charges when necessary.

..........................
Mr Masagos cited the anticipated higher costs of producing water and the need to price water right in view of the less reliable weather as reasons behind the price adjustment.
........................................
Also adding costs to water operations are the fact that pipes have to be dug deeper due to urbanisation, and the renewal of old plants and pipes.

The use of desalination, the costliest and most energy-intensive of Singapore’s four “national taps”, is also set to increase to meet 30 per cent of the country’s water demand by 2026, from 25 per cent now. The other national taps are NEWater (treated used water) and water from local catchment areas.

Currently, water tariffs are tiered, depending on whether the water is for domestic, non-domestic or shipping use. For domestic users, there are two levels of tariffs (S$1.17 per cubic metre or S$1.40 per cubic metre), depending on consumption volume. Water conservation tax is set at 30 or 45 per cent of the tariff.

.....................................

[teddybear]

As I said before, we can only expect carbon tax (like GST, petrol duty taxes, commercial rentals, etc) to be passed on to CONSUMERS, what can we expect?!


Carbon tax likely to be passed on to end consumers
The Straits Times

A carbon tax would likely be passed on to end consumers in the form of higher electricity prices, power generation companies have warned.

This is especially because the power generation sector in Singapore has little room to further improve its energy efficiency, given that most electricity is already produced using efficient combined-cycle gas turbine technology and natural gas.

"The generating companies are using the most efficient technology in the market. They are using the cleanest fuel," said Lim Puay Kong, president and CEO of Tuas Power, which holds the largest share of the power generation market.

The tax will be a "severe financial burden", he told The Business Times.

"This is going to be passed through to the consumer, simply because the electricity we produce is to meet demand."

Concurring, Senoko Energy, which holds the second highest market share, said that the tax will likely add some "hundreds of millions of dollars" to the total cost of producing electricity in Singapore.

"Such a large burden cannot be borne by a sector which today is struggling to be profitable," said CEO Paul Maguire.

"As a result our expectation is that like other regulatory costs it will ultimately be passed through to the end consumer, just like the Goods and Services Tax (GST)."

..........................

[minority]

Wow! I didn't realize that Singaporeans have been over-charged for water for 17 years!
so much so that they don't have to raise the price of water for 17 LONG YEARS (despite everything else having gone up by a lot due to inflation) and still being profitable!!!!!!!!

I remember the desalination plant has been bidded for like S$0.70 per cubic m by company in 2015 and the company still can make profits, but we were charged S$1.48 per cubic m * 45% tariff = S$2.146 per cubic m, so they will still be very profitable even before their planned raise of water price they charge!


Price of water to increase for the first time in 17 years
By Neo Chai Chin -
February 7

SINGAPORE — Water prices will go up after holding steady for 17 years, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Masagos Zulkifli said on Tuesday (Feb 7), less than a month after he said the Government would adjust water charges when necessary.

..........................
Mr Masagos cited the anticipated higher costs of producing water and the need to price water right in view of the less reliable weather as reasons behind the price adjustment.
........................................
Also adding costs to water operations are the fact that pipes have to be dug deeper due to urbanisation, and the renewal of old plants and pipes.

The use of desalination, the costliest and most energy-intensive of Singapore’s four “national taps”, is also set to increase to meet 30 per cent of the country’s water demand by 2026, from 25 per cent now. The other national taps are NEWater (treated used water) and water from local catchment areas.

Currently, water tariffs are tiered, depending on whether the water is for domestic, non-domestic or shipping use. For domestic users, there are two levels of tariffs (S$1.17 per cubic metre or S$1.40 per cubic metre), depending on consumption volume. Water conservation tax is set at 30 or 45 per cent of the tariff.

.....................................

AND A BULLSHITTER SPEAKS!!!

DESALINATION PLANTS WILL FALL FROM THE SKY OR GROW ON THE GROUND BY ITSELF?

MAYBE YOU CAN PULL 5 OUT FROM YOUR ASS FOR NOTHING? AND COST NOTHING TO RUN IT?

[minority]

http://science.howstuffworks.com/env...arbon-tax1.htm

The Benefits of Carbon Tax

The primary purpose of carbon tax is to lower greenhouse-gas emissions. The tax charges a fee on fossil fuels based on how much carbon they emit when burned (more on that later). So in order to reduce the fees, utilities, business and individuals attempt to use less energy derived from fossil fuels. An individual might switch to public transportation and replace incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs). A business might increase energy efficiency by installing new appliances or updating heating and cooling systems. A utility company might use wet scrubbers, low NOx-burners or gasification to reduce their emissions (see What is Clean Coal Technology?). And since carbon tax sets a definite price on carbon, there is a guaranteed return on expensive efficiency investments.

Carbon tax also encourages alternative energy by making it cost-competitive with cheaper fuels. A tax on a plentiful and inexpensive fuel like coal raises its per British Thermal Unit (Btu) price to one comparable with cleaner forms of power. A Btu is a standard measure of heat energy used in industry. One Btu is the energy necessary to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit.

And don't forget about all the money raised by the tax. It can help subsidize environmental programs or be issued as a rebate. Many fans of carbon tax believe in progressive tax-shifting. This would mean that some of the tax burden would shift away from federal income tax and state sales tax.

Economists like carbon tax for its predictability. The price of carbon under cap-and-trade schemes can fluctuate with weather and changing economic conditions. This is because cap-and-trade schemes set a definite limit on emissions, not a definite price on carbon. Carbon tax is stable. Businesses and utilities would know the price of carbon and where it was headed. They could then invest in alternative energy and increased energy efficiency based on that knowledge. It's also easier for people to understand carbon tax.

[minority]

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...n-tax-kicks-in

Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions dropped 1.4% in the second full year of the carbon price – the largest recorded annual decrease in the past decade.

Data released by the Department of the Environment (pdf) showed that emissions in the June quarter rose 0.4%. However, annual emissions to June 2014 dropped 1.4%.

This period includes the second 12 months of the carbon pricing system, which was introduced by the previous federal government in 2012. The Coalition fulfilled an election pledge by abolishing carbon pricing in July.

Emissions reduction accelerated during the two-year span of carbon pricing, with emissions edging down by 0.8% in the first 12 months of the system.


The stories you need to read, in one handy email
Read more
The latest greenhouse gas inventory showed emissions from the electricity sector, the industry most affected by carbon pricing, fell 4% in the year to June.

[minority]

The shocking truth about B.C.’s carbon tax: It works

When Mark Twain wrote, “Never let the facts stand in the way of a good story,” he could have been describing Canada’s current climate policy debate. Prime Minister Stephen Harper repeatedly claims that a carbon tax would “destroy jobs and growth.” Yet the evidence from the province that actually passed such a tax – British Columbia – tells a different story.


EDITORIAL CARTOON
Editorial cartoons for July, 2014
The latest numbers from Statistics Canada show that B.C.’s policy has been a real environmental and economic success after six years. Far from a being a “job killer,” it is a world-leading example of how to tackle one of the greatest global challenges of our time: building an economy that will prosper in a carbon-constrained world.

B.C.’s tax, implemented in 2008, covers most types of fuel use and carbon emissions. It started out low ($10 per tonne of carbon dioxide), then rose gradually to the current $30 per tonne, which works out to about 7 cents per litre of gas. “Revenue-neutral” by law, the policy requires equivalent cuts to other taxes. In practice, the province has cut $760-million more in income and other taxes than needed to offset carbon tax revenue.


The result is that taxpayers are coming out ahead. B.C. now has the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada (with additional cuts benefiting low-income and rural residents) and one of the lowest corporate rates in North America. You shouldn’t need an economist and a mining entrepreneur to tell you that’s good for business and jobs.

At the same time, it’s been extraordinarily effective in tackling the root cause of carbon pollution: the burning of fossil fuels. Since the tax came in, fuel use in B.C. has dropped by 16 per cent; in the rest of Canada, it’s risen by 3 per cent (counting all fuels covered by the tax). To put that accomplishment in perspective, Canada’s Kyoto target was a 6-per-cent reduction in 20 years. And the evidence points to the carbon tax as the major driver of these B.C. gains.

Further, while some had predicted that the tax shift would hurt the province’s economy, in fact, B.C.’s GDP has slightly outperformed the rest of Canada’s since 2008.

With these impressive results, B.C.’s carbon tax has gained widespread global praise as a model for the world – from organizations such as the OECD, the World Bank and The Economist. But in the rest of Canada, it is less heralded, which is a shame. Because when you look beyond the political rhetoric and examine the facts, B.C.’s experience offers powerful, positive lessons for Canada.

In particular, it shows that Canada can be competitively ambitious in shaping a 21st century economy that internalizes the real costs of pollution. And that is important, because carbon and other emissions from burning fossil fuels impose heavy costs on us all – as B.C. knows well. The mountain pine beetle infestation, resulting from warming winters, has devastated the province’s interior forest industry, closing mills and costing thousands of jobs. Similarly, air pollution, caused mainly by burning fossil fuels, costs thousands of lives and more than $8-billion a year to Canada’s economy. These problems will only get worse if we don’t get serious about tackling the causes of carbon emissions.

B.C.’s example shows that we can do that, while also building a prosperous economy, if we use smart policies. And it’s not alone in doing so. Both Alberta and Quebec, for example, have also put a price on carbon emissions, using different policy approaches. All three provinces offer instructive, made-in-Canada lessons for spurring clean innovation, advancing energy efficiency, and preparing Canada’s economy to compete with other nations that are already making this shift.

Canada has a history of taking pragmatic, far-sighted policy action to meet global economic challenges, like free trade, deficit fighting or the financial crisis. The shift to a low-carbon economic future poses a similar challenge. With such strong evidence of how to meet it from within our own borders, it’s time to set aside the stories and act.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opini...ticle19512237/

[teddybear]

The shocking truth about GST: It works! - To reduce consumer consumption!

The shocking truth about B.C.’s carbon tax: It works

When Mark Twain wrote, “Never let the facts stand in the way of a good story,” he could have been describing Canada’s current climate policy debate. Prime Minister Stephen Harper repeatedly claims that a carbon tax would “destroy jobs and growth.” Yet the evidence from the province that actually passed such a tax – British Columbia – tells a different story.


EDITORIAL CARTOON
Editorial cartoons for July, 2014
The latest numbers from Statistics Canada show that B.C.’s policy has been a real environmental and economic success after six years. Far from a being a “job killer,” it is a world-leading example of how to tackle one of the greatest global challenges of our time: building an economy that will prosper in a carbon-constrained world.

B.C.’s tax, implemented in 2008, covers most types of fuel use and carbon emissions. It started out low ($10 per tonne of carbon dioxide), then rose gradually to the current $30 per tonne, which works out to about 7 cents per litre of gas. “Revenue-neutral” by law, the policy requires equivalent cuts to other taxes. In practice, the province has cut $760-million more in income and other taxes than needed to offset carbon tax revenue.


The result is that taxpayers are coming out ahead. B.C. now has the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada (with additional cuts benefiting low-income and rural residents) and one of the lowest corporate rates in North America. You shouldn’t need an economist and a mining entrepreneur to tell you that’s good for business and jobs.

At the same time, it’s been extraordinarily effective in tackling the root cause of carbon pollution: the burning of fossil fuels. Since the tax came in, fuel use in B.C. has dropped by 16 per cent; in the rest of Canada, it’s risen by 3 per cent (counting all fuels covered by the tax). To put that accomplishment in perspective, Canada’s Kyoto target was a 6-per-cent reduction in 20 years. And the evidence points to the carbon tax as the major driver of these B.C. gains.

Further, while some had predicted that the tax shift would hurt the province’s economy, in fact, B.C.’s GDP has slightly outperformed the rest of Canada’s since 2008.

With these impressive results, B.C.’s carbon tax has gained widespread global praise as a model for the world – from organizations such as the OECD, the World Bank and The Economist. But in the rest of Canada, it is less heralded, which is a shame. Because when you look beyond the political rhetoric and examine the facts, B.C.’s experience offers powerful, positive lessons for Canada.

In particular, it shows that Canada can be competitively ambitious in shaping a 21st century economy that internalizes the real costs of pollution. And that is important, because carbon and other emissions from burning fossil fuels impose heavy costs on us all – as B.C. knows well. The mountain pine beetle infestation, resulting from warming winters, has devastated the province’s interior forest industry, closing mills and costing thousands of jobs. Similarly, air pollution, caused mainly by burning fossil fuels, costs thousands of lives and more than $8-billion a year to Canada’s economy. These problems will only get worse if we don’t get serious about tackling the causes of carbon emissions.

B.C.’s example shows that we can do that, while also building a prosperous economy, if we use smart policies. And it’s not alone in doing so. Both Alberta and Quebec, for example, have also put a price on carbon emissions, using different policy approaches. All three provinces offer instructive, made-in-Canada lessons for spurring clean innovation, advancing energy efficiency, and preparing Canada’s economy to compete with other nations that are already making this shift.

Canada has a history of taking pragmatic, far-sighted policy action to meet global economic challenges, like free trade, deficit fighting or the financial crisis. The shift to a low-carbon economic future poses a similar challenge. With such strong evidence of how to meet it from within our own borders, it’s time to set aside the stories and act.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opini...ticle19512237/

[stl67]

As I said before, we can only expect carbon tax (like GST, petrol duty taxes, commercial rentals, etc) to be passed on to CONSUMERS, what can we expect?!


Carbon tax likely to be passed on to end consumers
The Straits Times

A carbon tax would likely be passed on to end consumers in the form of higher electricity prices, power generation companies have warned.

This is especially because the power generation sector in Singapore has little room to further improve its energy efficiency, given that most electricity is already produced using efficient combined-cycle gas turbine technology and natural gas.

"The generating companies are using the most efficient technology in the market. They are using the cleanest fuel," said Lim Puay Kong, president and CEO of Tuas Power, which holds the largest share of the power generation market.

The tax will be a "severe financial burden", he told The Business Times.

"This is going to be passed through to the consumer, simply because the electricity we produce is to meet demand."

Concurring, Senoko Energy, which holds the second highest market share, said that the tax will likely add some "hundreds of millions of dollars" to the total cost of producing electricity in Singapore.

"Such a large burden cannot be borne by a sector which today is struggling to be profitable," said CEO Paul Maguire.

"As a result our expectation is that like other regulatory costs it will ultimately be passed through to the end consumer, just like the Goods and Services Tax (GST)."

..........................

Sometime it might work out well. Some form of mild inflation may spell out good for the economy, assets

[august]

Sometime it might work out well. Some form of mild inflation may spell out good for the economy, assets

Only if inflation is from increased economic activity and output.

[Kelonguni]

Only if inflation is from increased economic activity and output.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...push-inflation

[teddybear]

Cost-push inflation?
And that is good for the economy without increased economic activity and output?

If really true, then I have a great idea:
The government can dictates that every employee must be given pay rise of at least 5% every year!
Voila! Singapore will have inflation (may be about 5% or more) every year and the economy will automatically improve (may be about 5% or more) every year and all Singaporeans will be like living in HEAVEN with automatic pay increase.............

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...push-inflation

Only if inflation is from increased economic activity and output.

Sometime it might work out well. Some form of mild inflation may spell out good for the economy, assets

[stl67]

No Lah, i dont mean that kind of inflation .. but a bit mild type is good especially for people like me who leverage heavily. It will be nice to see some slight asset appreciation. Admitedly, not so good for those who keep cash