View Full Version : CM6 - My suggestion SURE WORK!!!!
Let me start....
The current scenario in property prices:
1. CCR lack of buyers, prices stagnant to mild decline
2. OCR Prices cheong like mad, all rush to buy
3. Gahmen wants to prevent bubble yet have to meet real demand.
My suggestions sure work yet no property crash
Buyers side:
1. Property below 1.5m 15% ABSD
2. Property 1.5m-1.99m 10% ABSD
3. Property above 2m 5% ABSD
Reasoning: The current overheated market is in OCR properties, do not throw the baby out together with the bath water. Dont make the property market crash, targeted measures to cool the RIGHT segment in the market.
Developers side:
1. Award the first right of refusal for the GLS site to the 2nd highest bidder for any GLS tender.
2. The 2nd highest bidder must pay the highest bidder price if the developer wants the GLS site.
3. If the 2nd highest bidder decline, the highest bidder gets the GLS site at the price that is bidded for.
Reasoning:
Developers will not dare to bid high high... they will bid at realistic pricing so as to be the 2nd highest... bids will all "bunch" up together around the market price.
Gahmen will still gain from only awarding the GLS site the highest bidder, but the inherent mechanism of giving the first right of refusal to the 2nd highest bidder will ensure that the market is not overly exuberant, and hence no SH kind of over the top pricing....
I am sure these two measures will moderate prices immediately without "killing" the market
A simple and direct way is to impose an additional tax on rental income (in addition to the personal income tax) or incremental tax level on 2nd, 3rd and subsequent properties rentals.
This will reduce the net rental income and to maintain the same rental yield in a normal market, the asset prices will have to moderate or decline.
This will not affect owners of only one-property who buys for self stay. My :2cents: .
Why you all spoil market... Let the Minister earn their 1M vitamin M la
regency321
23-04-12, 17:12
Imposing 15% ABSD on mass market condos and only 5% on CCR ones will be very difficult to explain. crushing the upgrading dreams of hdb dwellers will lose them quite a bit of votes. I thought this would really kill the market.
I prefer Ilikeu's suggestion.
Ilikeu's idea will only encourage flipping and penalise long term investors. :tongue3: Idon'tlikeu :mad:
Landlords are already paying lots of fees, maintenance, higher property tax etc.:(
well....i think the major CM is stop the flipping to happen in sg again..
other than that, it is all up to global market movement to soften the property price already..
Buyers side:
1. Property below 1.5m 15% ABSD
2. Property 1.5m-1.99m 10% ABSD
3. Property above 2m 5% ABSD
Reasoning: The current overheated market is in OCR properties, do not throw the baby out together with the bath water. Dont make the property market crash, targeted measures to cool the RIGHT segment in the market.
That will be the world's first. Higher tax for poor (buyer of cheaper properties), lower tax for rich. Isn't taxes supposed to be progressive, not regressive.... Will be Uniquely Singapore:scared-1:
New CM should be targeted at the huge price difference between new and resale (go after the valuers & banks that support the valuations) and no more progressive payment for 1st 40%.
I have no issue with the proliferation of MMs, think there is a real demand because of changing demographics, so the target should not be on the quantum. :2cents:
Ilikeu's idea will only encourage flipping and penalise long term investors. :tongue3: Idon'tlikeu :mad:
Landlords are already paying lots of fees, maintenance, higher property tax etc.:(
Encourage flipping? Maybe when they remove the earlier CMs (SSD, ABSD etc).
Penalise long term investor? Maybe the rental tax can be fine-tuned to a pre-determined no. of initial years for new buys.
Landlords are already paying lots of fees, maintenance, higher property tax etc? Likewise, buyers already paying stamp duties, so no need for SSD, ABSD?
Encourage flipping? Maybe when they remove the earlier CMs (SSD, ABSD etc).
Penalise long term investor? Maybe the rental tax can be fine-tuned to a pre-determined no. of initial years for new buys.
Landlords are already paying lots of fees, maintenance, higher property tax etc? Likewise, buyers already paying stamp duties, so no need for SSD, ABSD?
Not saying that landlords need special treatment, but they should not be penalised.
By imposing higher taxes on rental, you're telling property owner to forget about renting, just leave it empty until a buyer comes along, hence flipping. Rental properties are already paying higher property taxes, you are suggesting even higher property taxes. The signal you're giving is that you should only buy for own stay, don't buy for rental, but it's ok to buy and sell.:(
Fine tune taxes for initial years? So higher property tax for 1st year, lower for 2nd year, and so on, that might work. So super long term landlords are encouraged while short term ones are not?
So the options are. 1) quickly flip to avoid rental tax or 2) be long term landlord?:confused:
Allthepies
23-04-12, 19:35
A simple and direct way is to impose an additional tax on rental income (in addition to the personal income tax) or incremental tax level on 2nd, 3rd and subsequent properties rentals.
This will reduce the net rental income and to maintain the same rental yield in a normal market, the asset prices will have to moderate or decline.
This will not affect owners of only one-property who buys for self stay. My :2cents: .
The best but bitter way is to clammed down the HDB prices which formed very strong support for the higher tier houses. Make HDB into a non investment grade instrument will do the job. The government can impose much higher taxes for rental income from HDBs, or raise MOP for HDBs to 10 years? Those upgrading from HDB have to pay a punitive tax unless the seller sell off his HDB. :D
The best but bitter way is to clammed down the HDB prices which formed very strong support for the higher tier houses. Make HDB into a non investment grade instrument will do the job. The government can impose much higher taxes for rental income from HDBs, or raise MOP for HDBs to 10 years? Those upgrading from HDB have to pay a punitive tax unless the seller sell off his HDB. :D
Like like like!
In fact, better still, no private property for hdb owners. Public housing should be for people who cannot afford private housing. Like anywhere else in the world! If you have afford private property, you should let those who cannot afford it have your flat. Will also control the proliferation of MMs, because the HDB buyers of MMs will have to stay in them! Sure to "control" prices and no. of MMs
Now prepared to be flamed....:scared-3:
Will never happen because of politics....:(
rattydrama
23-04-12, 19:53
Like like like!
In fact, better still, no private property for hdb owners. Public housing should be for people who cannot afford private housing. Like anywhere else in the world! If you have afford private property, you should let those who cannot afford it have your flat. Will also control the proliferation of MMs, because the HDB buyers of MMs will have to stay in them! Sure to "control" prices and no. of MMs
Now prepared to be flamed....:scared-3:
Will never happen because of politics....:(
already is. its only those before Aug 2010 ruling still holding on to HDB and private.
yes agree private ppty owner should not own HDB .
already is. its only those before Aug 2010 ruling still holding on to HDB and private.
yes agree private ppty owner should not own HDB .
I'm referring to owners of HDB buying a private property after complying with the min occupying period. Singapore is the only place in the world where this is allowed to happen! HDB owners has to sell their unit within x months of buying a private property.
This will be the most effective CM! Will rid the market of MMs too!
Yes clamp down soaring HDB prices will cool OCR activity immediately.
I propose NO RENTING allowed for HDB. HDB is meant for Singaporean's home right? Bringing down HDB prices can even score political points, no need to explain so hard how 1k income can afford HDB.
Then low end workers rent where ? Simple, gov monopolize HDB rental. Gov buy over HDB flats from open market and operate rental market through a subsidiary. In fact I think this scheme existed 10yr ago.
I'm referring to owners of HDB buying a private property after complying with the min occupying period. Singapore is the only place in the world where this is allowed to happen! HDB owners has to sell their unit within x months of buying a private property.
This will be the most effective CM! Will rid the market of MMs too!
Yes this one sounds good too !
rattydrama
23-04-12, 20:21
need to tighten the current hdb rules. right now, we are asking the hdb upgraders to incur more debt.
we see the upgrader snatching up mm in ocr...:doh: need many years to break..
Let CCR market alone if its not biting you. Anyway not everybody can play in that field so numbers will be manageable.
Control the market from the bottom up approach beginning from HDB. Govt take less profit can liao, from BTO to land parcel sales. Try selling BTO 5 room flat for $200k and start building enough to more than meet demand then buyers no longer have to wait 4 years (cannot call BTO liao). Cheap quantum plus no wait time, you'll see the HDB resale market crash! Here, HDB prices will control the OCR market indirectly. There'll be a paradigm shift in property mindset. ;) :cheers3:
You think they will do that? They not so stupid. If they do so, they shoot themselves in their foot as they are relying on you people to provide rental housing to the foreigners (cheap ones at that sooner or later, since they are flooding the market now with so many new launches private properties & HDB flats (and they profit from selling the land & HDB flats)) & you shoulder the risks of owning the properties with their endless CMs (they acting just like the developers, successfully bidded the land must quickly launch to sell to transfer the risks to the buyers!). If they make it unfavorable to hold properties for rental, then they have to take over the jobs to provide properties (usually cheaply-built dormitories) for all these foreign workers (they develop and build and own these properties needed to house the foreign workers, and yet have to rent cheap cheap since these people can't afford high rental! Not so favorable compared to selling for upfront profit and transfer the risks of holding the properties to the buyers right?). Actually I prefer that they build and own these cheap housing to be provided to the foreigners so that when recession comes & foreign workers leave in mass, they are the ones holding the babies and the rest of the property owners are protected from the shocks during economic recession!
Not saying that landlords need special treatment, but they should not be penalised.
By imposing higher taxes on rental, you're telling property owner to forget about renting, just leave it empty until a buyer comes along, hence flipping. Rental properties are already paying higher property taxes, you are suggesting even higher property taxes. The signal you're giving is that you should only buy for own stay, don't buy for rental, but it's ok to buy and sell.:(
Fine tune taxes for initial years? So higher property tax for 1st year, lower for 2nd year, and so on, that might work. So super long term landlords are encouraged while short term ones are not?
So the options are. 1) quickly flip to avoid rental tax or 2) be long term landlord?:confused:
Allthepies
23-04-12, 22:32
All good suggestions here, now just need someone to lead KBW and team to this thread :D
hdb should also set a guide / revamp the hdb flat valuation
really cant believe those joker giving a 30yrs old flat original condition 600K:doh:
those hdb flats at sunset way....i lagi catch no ball:doh:
Why not ask govt to implement your suggestion on commercial properties? This way, only genuine businessman own their own shop space for business & not held hostage to REITs monopolizing the market as biggest landlords & causing high inflation in Singapore now. Now, we are hearing official inflation is >5%, but actual inflation in the ground is definitely much much higher! :p
A simple and direct way is to impose an additional tax on rental income (in addition to the personal income tax) or incremental tax level on 2nd, 3rd and subsequent properties rentals.
This will reduce the net rental income and to maintain the same rental yield in a normal market, the asset prices will have to moderate or decline.
This will not affect owners of only one-property who buys for self stay. My :2cents: .
Yes you are right. Massive building of HDB flats & making general layman hold them for rental Will crash the properties market in future during recession when foreigners left & these people can't afford instalment for both PC & HDB at same time because no rental incomes. They don't know or they want HDBers to do national service & bear the risks? Either reasons are just bad bad bad! The former is even worse as ignorant won't abhor them of responsibilities & in view of the type of the pay they are getting & they are ignorant? :doh:
Yes clamp down soaring HDB prices will cool OCR activity immediately.
I propose NO RENTING allowed for HDB. HDB is meant for Singaporean's home right? Bringing down HDB prices can even score political points, no need to explain so hard how 1k income can afford HDB.
Then low end workers rent where ? Simple, gov monopolize HDB rental. Gov buy over HDB flats from open market and operate rental market through a subsidiary. In fact I think this scheme existed 10yr ago.
Eldenfirefly
23-04-12, 23:21
The government will have a riot on their hands if they so obviously wack HDB market, especially by higher taxes on less expensive properties. That's like saying, if you are rich, government will tax you less... or put it in another way, only the rich are allowed to get richer, the poorer people aren't allowed to get rich. Can you imagine what would happen if they do that? :scared-5:
yes you are right. That is why I suggested increasing thee rich's taxes & abolish GST. :D
You want more revenue from the rich? Target properties are useless. You should ask govt to increase income tax & Corporate tax to 40% for income above $1m! To keep living costs low, abolish GST, & break up all the REITs from monopolizing commercial rental markets & flood market with massive number of the commercial properties instead to make commercial rents cheap! :2cents:
The government will have a riot on their hands if they so obviously wack HDB market, especially by higher taxes on less expensive properties. That's like saying, if you are rich, government will tax you less... or put it in another way, only the rich are allowed to get richer, the poorer people aren't allowed to get rich. Can you imagine what would happen if they do that? :scared-5:
Eldenfirefly
23-04-12, 23:31
But increasing the rich's income tax may not have that much immediate impact on housing prices...
why we need to correct property prices via cm? Let nature take its course.
Kbw is doing the right thing ensuring every 1st timer a bto flat.
FOR GOODNESS SAKE! HDB is the only 1 way ticket the poor have a way of generating some inflation hedged income when they are old and no one can take care of them, by allowing some rental income. THIS IS THE MOST VALUABLE ASSET the lower income group can own.
ALL those suggestion that proposed to crash the HDB price is damn selfish. 80% of singaporeans will crash n burn. How can anyone suggest an idea that will harm the most successful public scheme in the world if i may say. Come on, if one say its expensive for a public housing scheme, y dont travel around and see how well HDB is build and maintained. Ang Mo also come and stay.
What the Govt have to continue to do, is to help the new couples start with a house with appropriate grants. This can be funded by land sales to developers.
if the intend cold water is on OCR condo, then just adjust DP to 30% for 1st n 50% for 2nd prop. Straight will kill off many buyers. to top on that, put a limit on 1 bedder side , 2 bedder and 3 bedder size allowed for reasonable human living. This will ensure no developer will further strink size to meet the same quantum.
if still cannot, each successive CM just add 5% more DP until everyone gives up lor.
Err.. I don't think increasing ABSD % for different segments will work le because developers can still give cash back for new launch. Of course, they will add the cash back on the selling price for new launch. Then, the price of new launch will be higher and higher:eek:
Let me start....
The current scenario in property prices:
1. CCR lack of buyers, prices stagnant to mild decline
2. OCR Prices cheong like mad, all rush to buy
3. Gahmen wants to prevent bubble yet have to meet real demand.
My suggestions sure work yet no property crash
Buyers side:
1. Property below 1.5m 15% ABSD
2. Property 1.5m-1.99m 10% ABSD
3. Property above 2m 5% ABSD
Reasoning: The current overheated market is in OCR properties, do not throw the baby out together with the bath water. Dont make the property market crash, targeted measures to cool the RIGHT segment in the market.
Developers side:
1. Award the first right of refusal for the GLS site to the 2nd highest bidder for any GLS tender.
2. The 2nd highest bidder must pay the highest bidder price if the developer wants the GLS site.
3. If the 2nd highest bidder decline, the highest bidder gets the GLS site at the price that is bidded for.
Reasoning:
Developers will not dare to bid high high... they will bid at realistic pricing so as to be the 2nd highest... bids will all "bunch" up together around the market price.
Gahmen will still gain from only awarding the GLS site the highest bidder, but the inherent mechanism of giving the first right of refusal to the 2nd highest bidder will ensure that the market is not overly exuberant, and hence no SH kind of over the top pricing....
I am sure these two measures will moderate prices immediately without "killing" the market
yes you are right. That is why I suggested increasing thee rich's taxes & abolish GST. :D
bro teddybear, u r one of the most "experienced" in this forum. U should understand the effect of consumption tax vs income tax. consumption tax is effectively collecting more $$ from the rich and passing it to the poor if executed correctly.
u know how the rich become richer, its because the "somehow" always manage to pay lesser income tax, if u know what i mean......
end up the poorer middle class tio the worst.
Why are you talking about housing prices?
Frankly speaking, i believe private market should be left to market forces.
It is the HDB flats that need regulation, regardless of new or resale? Why? Very simple - it doesn't make sense that SLA is profiting hugely from land that they force-bought cheaply from the Singapore citizens in the early days in 1970s-1980s at <$1 psf of land & now selling at >$400 psf ppr (or easily >$600 psf of land if plot ratio is 1.5!). I say force-bought because they are acquired under a law called "land acquirement for national development" where you as land owners can't say "no I don't want to sell to you!" :banghead:
Since these land are obtained cheaply from citizens & a national service of citizens, they should only be used for the benefits of citizens, & not foreigners (including PRs). As such, if you consider the real costs of building a HDB flats, 99.9% of costs are on construction, negligible on based on original costs. As such, if say construction costs for bare HDB flat is $150 psf, then building costs of 5room flat of 1000 sqft is only $150k, but they are selling >$350k! X200,000 HDB flats they going to build means a profit of >$40,000,000k or $40 billion!
But increasing the rich's income tax may not have that much immediate impact on housing prices...
Err.. I don't think increasing ABSD % for different segments will work le because developers can still give cash back for new launch. Of course, they will add the cash back on the selling price for new launch. Then, the price of new launch will be higher and higher:eek:
I am assuming that we dont allow payback....
infrastructure, maintenance cost for eg. has to be taken into consideration. Direct construction cost only form part of the cost equation.
I am assuming that we dont allow payback....
nothing beats increasing LTV lah. EAch CM increase 5-10%. Cannot be developer help u DP right.
the effected will be directed and straight to the intented party.
I reckoned that consumption tax is hitting the poors more than richs. It is a poor man tax and has been proven (yes, they called them poor man tax aka VAT in UK) in UK. Most of the UK citizens go against this tax (laymen called it poor man tax aka PMT). Even you earn zero, you still have to pay tax for the poor. What is the consumption tax to the rich? negligible. Anyway, rich shopped luxury stuffs oversea (more incentive to buy oversea such as more choices and tax debate..also, don't need to pay the tax here!) most of the time and they are not subjected to this consumption tax anyway.
You think the RICH can eat and shit more than 100 times more than poor people here so that they get more tax here. the answer is obvious!:beats-me-man:
bro teddybear, u r one of the most "experienced" in this forum. U should understand the effect of consumption tax vs income tax. consumption tax is effectively collecting more $$ from the rich and passing it to the poor if executed correctly.
u know how the rich become richer, its because the "somehow" always manage to pay lesser income tax, if u know what i mean......
end up the poorer middle class tio the worst.
bro teddybear, u r one of the most "experienced" in this forum. U should understand the effect of consumption tax vs income tax. consumption tax is effectively collecting more $$ from the rich and passing it to the poor if executed correctly.
u know how the rich become richer, its because the "somehow" always manage to pay lesser income tax, if u know what i mean......
end up the poorer middle class tio the worst.
let me digress, i was reading a book (as usual).
imagine in the beginning, all family are equal and have same amount of land.
however families have different number of sons. and by the 2nd generation, inequality is already introduced as those people who has fewer brothers have more land as compared to those families who has many brothers.
lets say the trend continues, until at 1 point in time, the size of land is not big enough to sustain a family. what does that person do? either sell the land or borrow money.
according to the book i read, most farmers has no intention to sell the land, they borrow money, however it takes just 1 bad harvest for the farmer to sell the land and become indentured servants.
so rich get richer and poor get poorer.
to cut story short, don't have many children if want to become a rich landlord.
Similarly, govt should ban all Margin trading of shares, forex & futures to avoid future financial crisis because too much leverage over there!
nothing beats increasing LTV lah. EAch CM increase 5-10%. Cannot be developer help u DP right.
the effected will be directed and straight to the intented party.
bro teddybear, u r one of the most "experienced" in this forum. U should understand the effect of consumption tax vs income tax. consumption tax is effectively collecting more $$ from the rich and passing it to the poor if executed correctly.
u know how the rich become richer, its because the "somehow" always manage to pay lesser income tax, if u know what i mean......
end up the poorer middle class tio the worst.
Teddy does have a point... for e.g, Hong Kong has one of the lowest tax in the world and yet they don't have GST.
I think the way GST is implemented needs to be relooked. IMHO, like in many countires, basic utilities, healthcare, education... etc are exmpted from GST. Or like in New York where clothing and footwear below USD$110 is exempted from NY sales tax of 4.5% (equivalent to GST)
Not saying that landlords need special treatment, but they should not be penalised.
By imposing higher taxes on rental, you're telling property owner to forget about renting, just leave it empty until a buyer comes along, hence flipping. Rental properties are already paying higher property taxes, you are suggesting even higher property taxes. The signal you're giving is that you should only buy for own stay, don't buy for rental, but it's ok to buy and sell.:(
Fine tune taxes for initial years? So higher property tax for 1st year, lower for 2nd year, and so on, that might work. So super long term landlords are encouraged while short term ones are not?
So the options are. 1) quickly flip to avoid rental tax or 2) be long term landlord?:confused:
I am referring to new purchases. ABSD is similar to rental tax, it just reduces the yield. Similar to capital gain tax. Not sure why u get confused. I didnt say tax until no rental income. Shortterm investors are already penalised by SSD which is effective to weed out speculators who wants to flip. Now people still buying because the rental yield is attractive enough and their rental cash flow allows the ppty to self-sustain.
Would you still buy if your cash flow is negative ( or reduce) due to higher rental tax for the initial years. Maybe. But it will serve similar purpose to curb demand, this time from people looking for ppty rental yield.
Set up Your UIRR and LIRR models. Yield is correlated to asset price.
Teddy does have a point... for e.g, Hong Kong has one of the lowest tax in the world and yet they don't have GST.
I think the way GST is implemented needs to be relooked. IMHO, like in many countires, basic utilities, healthcare, education... etc are exmpted from GST. Or like in New York where clothing and footwear below USD$110 is exempted from NY sales tax of 4.5% (equivalent to GST)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084971/Hong-Kongs-cage-homes-Tens-thousands-living-6ft-2ft-rabbit-hutches.html
so okay if singapore poor live like this?
Teddy does have a point... for e.g, Hong Kong has one of the lowest tax in the world and yet they don't have GST.
I think the way GST is implemented needs to be relooked. IMHO, like in many countires, basic utilities, healthcare, education... etc are exmpted from GST. Or like in New York where clothing and footwear below USD$110 is exempted from NY sales tax of 4.5% (equivalent to GST)
err HK can afford not to have gst cos they dont have to spend a single penny on defence
I think we have coe that can helpmcover the cost of defence?
Allthepies
24-04-12, 07:55
FOR GOODNESS SAKE! HDB is the only 1 way ticket the poor have a way of generating some inflation hedged income when they are old and no one can take care of them, by allowing some rental income. THIS IS THE MOST VALUABLE ASSET the lower income group can own.
ALL those suggestion that proposed to crash the HDB price is damn selfish. 80% of singaporeans will crash n burn. How can anyone suggest an idea that will harm the most successful public scheme in the world if i may say. Come on, if one say its expensive for a public housing scheme, y dont travel around and see how well HDB is build and maintained. Ang Mo also come and stay.
What the Govt have to continue to do, is to help the new couples start with a house with appropriate grants. This can be funded by land sales to developers.
precisely as u said. but im just echoing the loud cries of the HDB wannabe buyers who r actually demanding the government to crash hdb to let them buy cheap. never did these hdb wannabes realise what they r demanding.indeed very selfish.
Before they own it, they want it to crash and burn. After they own one, they probabky want it to cheong high high. They need to learn there's no free lunch in this world.
bro teddybear, u r one of the most "experienced" in this forum. U should understand the effect of consumption tax vs income tax. consumption tax is effectively collecting more $$ from the rich and passing it to the poor if executed correctly.
u know how the rich become richer, its because the "somehow" always manage to pay lesser income tax, if u know what i mean......
end up the poorer middle class tio the worst.
i suppose u believe that thing about 'raising gst is to help the poor' hahaha :D :doh:
No... not okay at all for anybody anywhere to live like this.
But this has nothing to do with the tax policy.
In fact, implementation of consumption tax burdens the poor more than it does the rich. This is because the low income pay little or no tax to begin with... so the only form of tax they effectively pay is for consumption in the form of GST.
The poor people in the article you posted are actually lucky there is no GST in Hong Kong. At their income level they probably pay no tax, imagine if they have to pay tax on their daily necessities.
I am not saying do away with GST. I am saying that it can be refined. Healthcare, medicine for example, should not be charged GST...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084971/Hong-Kongs-cage-homes-Tens-thousands-living-6ft-2ft-rabbit-hutches.html
so okay if singapore poor live like this?
blackjack21trader
24-04-12, 09:45
Before they own it, they want it to crash and burn. After they own one, they probabky want it to cheong high high. They need to learn there's no free lunch in this world.
that is why in my the other thread, i told u guys i know what will happen next. these OCR buyers upon completion of the project will want to sell at a huge profits and probably look for the next upgrade which will be RCR condos. but b4 there, they will sure complain RCR & CCR too high liao hor. these young moroons have friends in banks and investment houses, and they sure use them to their major advantage. Dun believe just watch lor.... what will happen in this 4 years.WOAHAHAHAHAH
blackjack21trader
24-04-12, 09:54
5 years ago before I return to Singapore, I always complain the young people of Singapore got no presentation skills and not vocal enough.
Man, was I dead wrong 5 years down the road now I am surrounded by a totally new generation of gift of the gappers: darn bloody vocal, intelligent and everyday can bombard me to sway my decision making process.
Tell you what, these are the same group- 20- late 20 years old I saw in the showrooms recently and they have parents who bought HDBs but kept huge piles of cash.
Another too successful education policy implemented ? Maybe we should all revert back to the old spoon feeding system in school shor.
err HK can afford not to have gst cos they dont have to spend a single penny on defence
This is like saying Singapore couldn't afford defence before GST was implemented.
Btw, Hong Kong can afford not to have GST even if they have to spend on defence.
And Singapore too can afford not to have GST and still continue to fund our defence.
It's all a matter of adjusting the country's tax structure. If GST is removed, other taxes must be raised in order to recover the loss in tax revenue. It's borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. Either way, the government will still get the money they need.
Again, I would like to emphasise that I am not suggesting a complete removal of GST but a review and refinement.
A simple and direct way is to impose an additional tax on rental income (in addition to the personal income tax) or incremental tax level on 2nd, 3rd and subsequent properties rentals.
This will reduce the net rental income and to maintain the same rental yield in a normal market, the asset prices will have to moderate or decline.
This will not affect owners of only one-property who buys for self stay. My :2cents: .
Then land lord will just increase price n factor the cost of tax in rental
This is like saying Singapore couldn't afford defence before GST was implemented.
Btw, Hong Kong can afford not to have GST even if they have to spend on defence.
And Singapore too can afford not to have GST and still continue to fund our defence.
It's all a matter of adjusting the country's tax structure. If GST is removed, other taxes must be raised in order to recover the loss in tax revenue. It's borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. Either way, the government will still get the money they need.
Again, I would like to emphasise that I am not suggesting a complete removal of GST but a review and refinement.
how can you say that?!? our dear DPM stated that the poor gets $5 dollar worth of rebates for every dollar of tax they contribute (via GST)
p.s: please read this with sarcasm
This is like saying Singapore couldn't afford defence before GST was implemented.
Btw, Hong Kong can afford not to have GST even if they have to spend on defence.
And Singapore too can afford not to have GST and still continue to fund our defence.
It's all a matter of adjusting the country's tax structure. If GST is removed, other taxes must be raised in order to recover the loss in tax revenue. It's borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. Either way, the government will still get the money they need.
Again, I would like to emphasise that I am not suggesting a complete removal of GST but a review and refinement.
GST was raised bcos they cut corporate tax ~ ;)
how can you say that?!? our dear DPM stated that the poor gets $5 dollar worth of rebates for every dollar of tax they contribute (via GST)
p.s: please read this with sarcasm
Haha... I know lah....
Just for discussion...while this is technically true, tax rebates only work if you even pay tax at all. Most low income groups hardly pay any tax.
A person can have a $20,000 tax credit but can't use it to pay for milk powder or insulin.
Then land lord will just increase price n factor the cost of tax in rental
Then they (as new landlords) will not be as competitive as compared to existing landlords. As simple as that... would they still buy ppty to get rental yield? Maybe. or they will go invest in something else.
Dont need to make life so complicated. Want to cool property? Up interest rate to 3%.
Haha... I know lah....
Just for discussion...while this is technically true, tax rebates only work if you even pay tax at all. Most low income groups hardly pay any tax.
A person can have a $20,000 tax credit but can't use it to pay for milk powder or insulin.
they must, somehow, spend money on daily neccessities eh? that's where tax is being paid, in the form of GST
Dont need to make life so complicated. Want to cool property? Up interest rate to 3%.
Similar effect as imposing a rental tax. rental tax goes to govt coffers.
but higher interest rate goes to banks coffers and benefits the shareholders...no no.
Then they (as new landlords) will not be as competitive as compared to existing landlords. As simple as that... would they still buy ppty to get rental yield? Maybe. or they will go invest in something else.
Rental properties are already overtaxed. In addition to addition as "other income" in income tax, there is also no owner occupied rebate in property taxes of 16%. It may not be justifiable to impose more taxes.
Dont need to make life so complicated. Want to cool property? Up interest rate to 3%.
can't implement this singularly. this will certainly dampen mood of property investors. however, the adverse will be hot money flowing in to take advantage of the interest hike, more govt bond purchasers, etc. all of these will impact the strength of the currency, financial liquidity, cpf rate, etc. it's not a simple, linear solution, bank borrowing costs, etc.
if the motivation to dampen property mood is to curb inflation, then interest rate hikes can do the opposite
can't implement this singularly. this will certainly dampen mood of property investors. however, the adverse will be hot money flowing in to take advantage of the interest hike, more govt bond purchasers, etc. all of these will impact the strength of the currency, financial liquidity, cpf rate, etc. it's not a simple, linear solution, bank borrowing costs, etc.
i agree. Interest rate policy impact is very wide-ranging... all govt should use it with care.
I reckoned that consumption tax is hitting the poors more than richs. It is a poor man tax and has been proven (yes, they called them poor man tax aka VAT in UK) in UK. Most of the UK citizens go against this tax (laymen called it poor man tax aka PMT). Even you earn zero, you still have to pay tax for the poor. What is the consumption tax to the rich? negligible. Anyway, rich shopped luxury stuffs oversea (more incentive to buy oversea such as more choices and tax debate..also, don't need to pay the tax here!) most of the time and they are not subjected to this consumption tax anyway.
You think the RICH can eat and shit more than 100 times more than poor people here so that they get more tax here. the answer is obvious!:beats-me-man:
so i ask, how many of your rich friends pay tax more than the employed middle class whom are salaried? Those i know are just using companies to escape paying high taxes based on expenses incurred in running their business. So if they are not pay income tax cos of "loop holes" in the tax law and neither can they be tax based on consumption, then how?
however clever resident here are, can they 100% escape consumption tax? but i m quiet sure most of them managed to escape high income tax.
Singapore is quite unique. The government's hands are tied when it comes to interest rate. They can manipulate SGD exchnage rate to tame inflation but it's not working as its FW, housing and transport policy is pushing the core inflation higher and higher. Basically MAS, MND, MOM, LTA are working against each other.:doh:
SG is not unique. HK also has no independent interest rate what. HK peg to USD wholesale, and its rates too ! Why we do not see such "call for CMs" in HK ?
As a matter of fact, when the upcoming Leung mentioned a notion of "building house only HKers can buy" i.e. no foreigner eligible, it was IMMEDIATELY shot down by all media, academics and even man on the street!
Why ? Because HK is truly an open and free economy. And people are used to the market up/downs and prepared to be responsible for your own wealth.
Here every little thing Gov will go and intervene. And ppl get used to it too, and become expecting Gov to act.
can't implement this singularly. this will certainly dampen mood of property investors. however, the adverse will be hot money flowing in to take advantage of the interest hike, more govt bond purchasers, etc. all of these will impact the strength of the currency, financial liquidity, cpf rate, etc. it's not a simple, linear solution, bank borrowing costs, etc.
if the motivation to dampen property mood is to curb inflation, then interest rate hikes can do the opposite
A stronger SGD will actually help make imported goods cheaper, but this might not be good for exporter.
A stronger SGD will actually help make imported goods cheaper, but this might not be good for exporter.
singapore is a net exporter, fyi.
SG is not unique. HK also has no independent interest rate what. HK peg to USD wholesale, and its rates too ! Why we do not see such "call for CMs" in HK ?
As a matter of fact, when the upcoming Leung mentioned a notion of "building house only HKers can buy" i.e. no foreigner eligible, it was IMMEDIATELY shot down by all media, academics and even man on the street!
Why ? Because HK is truly an open and free economy. And people are used to the market up/downs and prepared to be responsible for your own wealth.
Er actually the HK Monetary Authority does conduct its monetary policy by raising or lowering the base rate in conjunction with a currency peg. MAS don't even have such interest mechanism in place.
Like Singapore some of HK property CMs are very draconian also. Not as free and open as you thought lah.:)
Er actually the HK Monetary Authority does conduct its monetary policy by raising or lowering the base rate in conjunction with a currency peg.
in name only, practically it almost always follows Feds. When Fed Target is 0.25, you can be assured HK base rate is 0.5. Like now, and their inflation is as bad as ours.
singapore is a net exporter, fyi.
Almost everything that we consumed and raw material that goes into production here in Singapore are imported.
Almost everything that we consumed and raw material that goes into production here in Singapore are imported.
taking account into all imports, singapore is a net exporter country. it's a fact, no need to debate
Almost everything that we consumed and raw material that goes into production here in Singapore are imported.
taking account into all imports, singapore is a net exporter country. it's a fact, no need to debate
taking account into all imports, singapore is a net exporter country. it's a fact, no need to debate
It is a fact that a stronger SGD will help ease inflation as it will make imported goods which we consume cheaper. There is really no need to dispute about this regardless if we are nett importer or exporter.
Perhaps you should get your economic 101 right first before even trying to response to this.
It is a fact that a stronger SGD will help ease inflation as it will make imported goods which we consume cheaper. There is really no need to dispute about this regardless if we are nett importer or exporter.
Perhaps you should get your economic 101 right first before even trying to response to this.
conceptually, i would have thought that is the case. but i find it strange that the stuff that are suppose to get cheaper getting more expensive? Is it the result of higher rental?
Ok, in terms of absolute figures, as long as tax rates are high, they pay higher tax. They can reduce through expenses through companies but they still need to pay. Honestly, they can't really run away through illegal means if IRAS do the check since all these expenses must be backed up by receipts. If IRAS is not going to check, then there is nothing we can do. But because IRAS doesn't want to check and instead decide that it is easier to introduce GST to get more tax back, does it make sense then? As we know, GST was introduced when corporate tax and personal income tax at the top end was reduced! So we reduce the rich people's taxes and imposes new taxes on the poor? :banghead:
But then that is beside the point. The most important point about consumption tax that doesn't make sense is this:
1) A poor person got no income, and need food to eat, yet he needs to pay tax?!
2) A poor person give birth to a baby, the baby is a cost immediately, and yet the poor person needs to pay tax for the baby?!
Is it any wonder that after GST has been introduced, birth rates go down even more? :doh:
3) Consumption tax assumes rich people will surely get tax more? Is this true? Not likely. There are many rich who are very stingy, their household expenses is not much higher than the average familes less the luxury things. And yet they can buy many of these luxury things tax-free overseas (e.g. Hermes bags overseas, can claim back tax!). So, unless you are saying that the rich eat 1000x more and shit 1000x more, or they have 100x more children to feed and you can tax them so much more on basic necessities, consumption tax makes no sense at all! Consumption tax with income tax & corporate tax reduction basically allow the rich to pocket more money and get tax less. Very simple way to see this:
1) A person earns $1m. If tax is 40%, he gets taxed $400k. Assume GST is 0 and GST = $0. So total tax = $400,000.
2) A person earns $1m, if tax is 18%, he gets taxed $180k. Now, you impose 7% GST. His household expenses probably is $10k pm or $120k per year. So his GST tax is $8400. So total tax = $188,400.
So now, with GST and reduced income tax, he pays less tax by = $211,600.
Now we look at the poor man:
1) He earns less then $50k per year, so pay no income tax after all deductions.
2) Now give him 7% GST, and his household expense is like $3k pm, he ends up paying more taxes by = $3210 !!! :doh:
so i ask, how many of your rich friends pay tax more than the employed middle class whom are salaried? Those i know are just using companies to escape paying high taxes based on expenses incurred in running their business. So if they are not pay income tax cos of "loop holes" in the tax law and neither can they be tax based on consumption, then how?
however clever resident here are, can they 100% escape consumption tax? but i m quiet sure most of them managed to escape high income tax.
It is because of higher commercial properties' rental! We see govt so active in cooling private residential properties and also release so much land for new launch sales, yet they doesn't seem to be interest to release as much land for commercial properties and not even interested to take a harder hand on the escalating rental of commercial properties (compared to what they did for private residential!) :doh:
Since private residential cooling measures so effective, they should transport to commercial properties as well with:
1) 4-years SSD
2) lower LTV
3) 10% ABSD if foreigners buying! If it is company buying, as long as got 1 non-singapore citizen, they are considered "foreigner" and subjected to 10% ABSD!
4) Any REITs or parent companies (including all subsidiaries) even if owned by not a single foreigner & PR, is they (any of the shareholders) own more than 2 properties, have to pay 3% ABSD! If they own more than 5 properties, have to pay 10% ABSD!
Above sure cool commercial property prices & hence rentals! :p
conceptually, i would have thought that is the case. but i find it strange that the stuff that are suppose to get cheaper getting more expensive? Is it the result of higher rental?
It is a fact that a stronger SGD will help ease inflation as it will make imported goods which we consume cheaper. There is really no need to dispute about this regardless if we are nett importer or exporter.
Perhaps you should get your economic 101 right first before even trying to response to this.
:doh: u don't need to have a PHD in rocket science to know that a stronger currency gives u better purchasing power. moreover, we are not debating about whether a stronger currency buys more you more stuff.
a net exporter country with a strong currency would be detrimental to its competitiveness. Think (which i doubt you can) about China with RMB that is 5 times its current value.
A strong currency benefits a net importer, not the other way round. this is economics 101
Ok, in terms of absolute figures, as long as tax rates are high, they pay higher tax. They can reduce through expenses through companies but they still need to pay. Honestly, they can't really run away through illegal means if IRAS do the check since all these expenses must be backed up by receipts. If IRAS is not going to check, then there is nothing we can do. But because IRAS doesn't want to check and instead decide that it is easier to introduce GST to get more tax back, does it make sense then? As we know, GST was introduced when corporate tax and personal income tax at the top end was reduced! So we reduce the rich people's taxes and imposes new taxes on the poor? :banghead:
But then that is beside the point. The most important point about consumption tax that doesn't make sense is this:
1) A poor person got no income, and need food to eat, yet he needs to pay tax?!
2) A poor person give birth to a baby, the baby is a cost immediately, and yet the poor person needs to pay tax for the baby?!
Is it any wonder that after GST has been introduced, birth rates go down even more? :doh:
3) Consumption tax assumes rich people will surely get tax more? Is this true? Not likely. There are many rich who are very stingy, their household expenses is not much higher than the average familes less the luxury things. And yet they can buy many of these luxury things tax-free overseas (e.g. Hermes bags overseas, can claim back tax!). So, unless you are saying that the rich eat 1000x more and shit 1000x more, or they have 100x more children to feed and you can tax them so much more on basic necessities, consumption tax makes no sense at all! Consumption tax with income tax & corporate tax reduction basically allow the rich to pocket more money and get tax less. Very simple way to see this:
1) A person earns $1m. If tax is 40%, he gets taxed $400k. Assume GST is 0 and GST = $0. So total tax = $400,000.
2) A person earns $1m, if tax is 18%, he gets taxed $180k. Now, you impose 7% GST. His household expenses probably is $10k pm or $120k per year. So his GST tax is $8400. So total tax = $188,400.
So now, with GST and reduced income tax, he pays less tax by = $211,600.
Now we look at the poor man:
1) He earns less then $50k per year, so pay no income tax after all deductions.
2) Now give him 7% GST, and his household expense is like $3k pm, he ends up paying more taxes by = $3210 !!! :doh:
can u run for politics? u surely have my vote for the MoF post
a net exporter country with a strong currency would be detrimental to its competitiveness.
A strong currency benefits a net importer, not the other way round. this is economics 101
Absolutely !
In SG case, net export is probably like 15-20% of our GDP.
Why do we watch NODX figures so closely every quarter ?
:doh: u don't need to have a PHD in rocket science to know that a stronger currency gives u better purchasing power. moreover, we are not debating about whether a stronger currency buys more you more stuff.
a net exporter country with a strong currency would be detrimental to its competitiveness. Think (which i doubt you can) about China with RMB that is 5 times its current value.
A strong currency benefits a net importer, not the other way round. this is economics 101
The primary focus of our discussion was about cooling the property sector / inflation and raising interest rate is one of the tested and proven tools which government around the world are using for this purpose.
Strengthening of SGD by MAS to contain inflation is nothing new to this country's exporters.
What you highlighted about the effect of strong SGD affecting exporter is something is I have already highlighted in my earlier post, so I am not sure why do you need to repeat what I have already said.
I think the biggest worry about raising interest rate is actually the impact on borrowing cost for businesses.
A stronger SGD will actually help make imported goods cheaper, but this might not be good for exporter
Absolutely !
In SG case, net export is probably like 15-20% of our GDP.
Why do we watch NODX figures so closely every quarter ?
the correct word for that is call trade surplus.
15-20% of our GDP? sources please.
the correct word for that is call trade surplus.
15-20% of our GDP? sources please.
-----------------------------------------------
Why erase the one " Ringo333 = Regulators"?
-----------------------------------------------
the correct word for that is call trade surplus.
15-20% of our GDP? sources please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_exports
Ah Eng, you are very good! Went ahead to find this info and spoon fed him. Teach him better for what? Will he appreciate you? He already asked you to get your economic 101 right as though he is an economic expert. Strange thing is he does not even know the Singapore GDP as an expert! Still have to count on you to find info for him :rolleyes: he is now eating his own shit .
Hahaha hah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_exports
Allthepies
26-04-12, 07:49
gst is a consumption tax, no doubt about it. it is meant to discourage citizens and want them to be prudent in spending and encourage saving which is good. the poor receive upfront gst credit to help them offset the gst effect. a more beneficial effect of gst is to tax tourists and foreigners and pr who consume here. isnt it great?
Ah Eng, you are very good! Went ahead to find this info and spoon fed him. Teach him better for what? Will he appreciate you? He already asked you to get your economic 101 right as though he is an economic expert. Strange thing is he does not even know the Singapore GDP as an expert! Still have to count on you to find info for him :rolleyes: he is now eating his own shit .
Hahaha hah
eh teddy, chill lah. let's have a healthy, open debate rather than going for personal attacks like vikram nair
Encourage people to save? Need mah? Those people who need laws to do that might as well ask govt to safe-keep their money and give them monthly stipends. For majority I believe don't need such encouragement through GST. :p
Tax tourists? How much can you tax when they can claim tax rebate before they leave Singapore? :doh:
The poor receive GST credit every year? How about those poor but not so poor ones, after deducting all expenses left a few hundreds ones after GST imposed all gone? As it is, GST hits the middle income the hardest, and that is >70% of the population in Singapore! (and that is why it is useful because lots and lots of tax additional tax revenue!).
And by the way, 7% GST doesn't means the price goes up 7%, because after a few hands of additional value-added (say 3 hands), compounded it becomes 22.5% !!! Yes, companies are said to be able to claim GST rebate, but many don't and those who do pocket them instead! So 7% GST becomes 22.5% tax on the end user! :banghead:
gst is a consumption tax, no doubt about it. it is meant to discourage citizens and want them to be prudent in spending and encourage saving which is good. the poor receive upfront gst credit to help them offset the gst effect. a more beneficial effect of gst is to tax tourists and foreigners and pr who consume here. isnt it great?
Encourage people to save? Need mah? Those people who need laws to do that might as well ask govt to safe-keep their money and give them monthly stipends. For majority I believe don't need such encouragement through GST. :p
Tax tourists? How much can you tax when they can claim tax rebate before they leave Singapore? :doh:
The poor receive GST credit every year? How about those poor but not so poor ones, after deducting all expenses left a few hundreds ones after GST imposed all gone? As it is, GST hits the middle income the hardest, and that is >70% of the population in Singapore! (and that is why it is useful because lots and lots of tax additional tax revenue!).
And by the way, 7% GST doesn't means the price goes up 7%, because after a few hands of additional value-added (say 3 hands), compounded it becomes 22.5% !!! Yes, companies are said to be able to claim GST rebate, but many don't and those who do pocket them instead! So 7% GST becomes 22.5% tax on the end user! :banghead:
GASP!!! How can you claim GST is a regressive tax?!! :scared-1:
Our honored and respected DPM has already claimed that the poor gets back $5 for every dollar of tax they contribute (assumingly through GST)
p.s.: please take note of the sarcasm
What about medical costs?...... it is something nobody wants to willingly consume but forced to consume.
Should somebody be taxed GST if he got into an accident and needs medical attention? What about a chronic sufferer of asthma?
and as Teddy mentioned tourists get tax rebates.
gst is a consumption tax, no doubt about it. it is meant to discourage citizens and want them to be prudent in spending and encourage saving which is good. the poor receive upfront gst credit to help them offset the gst effect. a more beneficial effect of gst is to tax tourists and foreigners and pr who consume here. isnt it great?
What about medical costs?...... it is something nobody wants to willingly consume but forced to consume.
Should somebody be taxed GST if he got into an accident and needs medical attention? What about a chronic sufferer of asthma?
and as Teddy mentioned tourists get tax rebates.
if you think GST is bad, wait till you look at the kind of rent the public hospitals are being billed for by SLA - market rate.
it's the same like HDB where the value of the land presumably jacks up the entire construction costs
I know...... :o
Some people said the fact that they didn't increase GST means they have decided not to help the poor anymore despite inflation >5% for few years? :p
GASP!!! How can you claim GST is a regressive tax?!! :scared-1:
Our honored and respected DPM has already claimed that the poor gets back $5 for every dollar of tax they contribute (assumingly through GST)
p.s.: please take note of the sarcasm
I think GST is not all bad... but I feel it can be improved.
Other than medical costs, I think basic food items should be exempt as well... like rice. People are not going to consume more rice just because GST is lifted, it is a basic staple in an Asian diet. This very different from buying a 60inch LED Smart TV or a Rolex watch.
if you think GST is bad, wait till you look at the kind of rent the public hospitals are being billed for by SLA - market rate.
it's the same like HDB where the value of the land presumably jacks up the entire construction costs
Yes agreed. They can say western countries also got equivalent of GST and much higher still! But they conveniently forgot to tell you that for example UK's VAT (GST equivalent) are exempted for:
1) basic food items & all basic necessities
2) young kids items
3) medical items
I think GST is not all bad... but I feel it can be improved.
Other than medical costs, I think basic food items should be exempt as well... like rice. People are not going to consume more rice just because GST is lifted, it is a basic staple in an Asian diet. This very different from buying a 60inch LED Smart TV or a Rolex watch.
Yes agreed. They can say western countries also got equivalent of GST and much higher still! But they conveniently forgot to tell you that for example UK's VAT (GST equivalent) are exempted for:
1) basic food items & all basic necessities
2) young kids items
3) medical items
Gasp!!! How can you say that?!?!
All our learned MPs cautioned us about the state of economy these welfare states are in. Singaporeans must not develop a crutch mentality, be resilient, build strong backbones and stand up straight!
p.s.: please read this again with a tone of sarcasm
i dont think there will be a CM6...govt quite happy collecting stamp duty...:cheers1:
Yes agreed. They can say western countries also got equivalent of GST and much higher still! But they conveniently forgot to tell you that for example UK's VAT (GST equivalent) are exempted for:
1) basic food items & all basic necessities
2) young kids items
3) medical items
singapore only if u eat grass no need GST...:doh:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.