Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: TODAY: One size does not fit all

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    495

    Default TODAY: One size does not fit all

    By Conrad Raj

    http://www.todayonline.com/Commentar...es-not-fit-all

    Like many other products, our property market caters to a variety of tastes and pockets.

    Even the Housing and Development Board, the Government-owned body which builds homes for the masses, provides for different segments of the market - from one-room flats to executive condominiums which have all the amenities of private housing like swimming pools and tennis courts.

    But recent measures to cool rising prices tend to have an impact on all sectors of the market. Shouldn't they be better calibrated to impact only those sectors where affordability is an issue?

    For instance, under new measures which came into force towards the end of last year, foreigners and corporate entities will have to pay an additional 10 per cent in stamp duty for their residential property purchases.

    Permanent residents owning one and buying the second and subsequent residential property will have to fork out an additional 3 per cent in stamp duties. Singapore citizens owning two and buying additional homes will also have to pay this extra.

    These levies are meant to dampen demand and bring residential property prices down. They, and other earlier measures introduced for the same purpose, appear so far to have had a very limited impact on prices.

    In fact in the last two months, according to data put out by some property agencies, prices of both private homes and housing board resale flats have shown an upward trend.

    Conversely, sales of property in the ultra luxurious sector of the market appear to have seen a significant slowdown.



    MIDDLE-CLASS UPGRADERS



    But should the Government be concerned with all segments of the residential market?

    The complaints about high home prices have come mainly from the middle class; in large part the gripes are from upgraders, for whom affordability is a real concern. So, the authorities should address their concerns and aim their cooling measures at that sector of the market - the S$2,000 psf or lower sector.

    But the measures are also imposed on all and sundry, including the ultra-luxury sector whose buyers have less regard for prices.

    While the Government may not want to appear to be favouring the ultra-rich by doing away with the additional buyer's stamp duty for purchases of properties - say, for apartments above S$3,000 psf or bungalows costing more than S$10 million - it does not appear to make sense to discourage these people altogether from investing here.

    For once, such people find Singapore no longer an attractive place to invest and it may take a very long time for us to lure them back. For the ultra-rich, the world is their market place and they go where they are welcomed and where they can find the best bargains.



    THE USEFUL RICH



    For the ultra rich, taxes matter more than high prices - a high price is a status symbol while high taxes are something to be avoided. Isn't that why we have a low personal income tax regime where the maximum tax is 20 per cent, whereas for many countries in Europe the top rate is around half of one's income?

    As Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong recently told a dinner gathering of the Economics Society: "For decades we have gradually reduced our income tax rates, and partially made up with indirect taxes like the GST, in order to stay competitive with other Asian economies like Hong Kong. This has helped to foster growth and increase the resources available to strengthen our social compact. Raising taxes will do the opposite, long before they reach Scandinavian levels."

    While the measures of last December to cool the property market differentiate between Singapore citizens, permanent residents and foreigners, do we want to treat all foreigners the same? Obviously not.

    There are some who are useful to us than others. This is the reality of life. In the case of the useful, especially those who happen to be very rich, do we want to drive them away with a multitude of taxes?

    Furthermore, such measures to drive away high-net worth individuals could have an impact on our wealth management industry, as property is one of the sectors targeted for investment.

    One size will not fit all. Measures should be targeted to impact those we desire less, and not all and sundry.



    Conrad Raj is TODAY's editor-at-large.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    911

    Default

    Hmmm. Wonder whats his agenda now... Keep commenting on housing issues. Maybe he is planning to run for next elections and to replace KBW.....

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    6,003

    Default

    Have Zuckerberg, Lee Li Jie or Gong Li invested in anything productive to improve the lives of locals or donate large sums to charities?

    If not, die die must tax them more.

  4. #4
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    Do those CEOs who only solution to cut costs is to retrench workers and make 1 person do 2 people's job doing anything productive to improve the lives of locals? If not, die die we should increase top level income tax of these people to 40% to be inline with the norm world-wide?

    Quote Originally Posted by hyenergix
    Have Zuckerberg, Lee Li Jie or Gong Li invested in anything productive to improve the lives of locals or donate large sums to charities?

    If not, die die must tax them more.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    4,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear
    Do those CEOs who only solution to cut costs is to retrench workers and make 1 person do 2 people's job doing anything productive to improve the lives of locals? If not, die die we should increase top level income tax of these people to 40% to be inline with the norm world-wide?
    no, if they are taxed more, they have less disposable income. they cannot pay higher rent or buy more properties.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    672

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear
    Do those CEOs who only solution to cut costs is to retrench workers and make 1 person do 2 people's job doing anything productive to improve the lives of locals? If not, die die we should increase top level income tax of these people to 40% to be inline with the norm world-wide?
    1 person do 2 people's job, is an understatement. If you only do 2 people's, you are lucky. If you don't make noise, it become 3, 4, 5 and so on ...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hopeful
    no, if they are taxed more, they have less disposable income. they cannot pay higher rent or buy more properties.
    Can tax them higher rate for own use vs rent out so that they will eventually forced to let theirs out to cover mortgage and then rent outside to stay at lower price kakaka. Like that all win.

  8. #8
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    If no ABSD, they more likely to buy properties where the money will remain in Singapore vs tax them less income tax and their money can leave Singapore easily? Which is better for Singapore?

    Quote Originally Posted by hopeful
    no, if they are taxed more, they have less disposable income. they cannot pay higher rent or buy more properties.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,368

    Default

    So is he suggesting only taxing the poor and middle class? Sibei lame article. The rich are more "useful" and therefore exempt from tax? This article can get published? If so rich, pay a bit of tax to help the poor also don't want, its really sad.

    Quote Originally Posted by anythingwhatever

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    -: 23-09-21, 19:39
  2. Size matters for properties
    By Arcachon in forum Singapore Private Condominium Property Discussion and News
    Replies: 0
    -: 20-05-21, 10:18
  3. Is HDB size shrinking?
    By Arcachon in forum HDB, EC, commercial and industrial property discussion
    Replies: 5
    -: 03-09-15, 14:05
  4. What is today's ideal size and quantum?
    By Ringo33 in forum Singapore Private Condominium Property Discussion and News
    Replies: 1
    -: 02-08-13, 13:13
  5. Size of the DPS behemoth
    By mr funny in forum Singapore Private Condominium Property Discussion and News
    Replies: 3
    -: 23-12-08, 12:05

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •