Singapore has been slowly moving from a direct tax system to a more indirect tax system since 1994, when GST was first introduced. Then throughout the 1990s, income tax and corporate taxes were progressively cut.
In 2003, GST went up to 4% and in 2004 5%. And now next year it will be likely to be 7%.
Although no clear indications have been given, PM Lee has hinted corporate tax is likely also to fall. Income tax, already at 20%, may fall if other countries are dropping their rates too.
All these points to an acceleration of the moving from the direct to the indirect tax system. It will not be a surprise if by 2010, GST is up to 10% or higher. Crazy? Not really.
As I said in the previous post, there are several pros to having an indirect tax system. The one big worry is that indirect taxes are highly regressive and they impact the poor more than the rich.
Many Singaporeans have rightly taken up their cudgels against what they percieve to be a government placing a heavier and heavier burden on the poor, even as they claim to be helping them.
I disagree. I think the fundemental philosophy underlying the movement from direct to indirect taxes is still there. But it is not the kind of argument one would accept in the face of the prospect of having one's pocket burnt. I think the PM tried to sell the policy by stating how the Government can help the poor with the increase in revenue from GST.
The economic argument also holds a lot less water given that Singapore seems to have taken a classical economic approach to managing their economy and yet Singaporeans are still struggling.
Jobs are up but people are still unemployed. Jobs in the bottom fifth are also paying less, and incomes have dropped for them while the top fifth have seen their incomes soar.
Economics, alas, like any theory works in theory because it assumes many many things. In the case of Singapore, there were several many variables that upset the balance of Singapore's economy.
1) Competition from India and China. The flood of 1 billion workers into the world economy is like a heavy metal ball slamming into a
In any case, the movement towards
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
GST 5- 7 percent - what's really at stake
VERY LONG POST> WARNING
Please turn back if you can't stand long economic, theoretical essays. Ciaos
On Monday, the Singapore PM dropped what many people saw as a bombshell. The goods and services tax, a consumption tax in Singapore, is moving up from 5% to 7%.
His reasoning: Globalisation has caused the income gap to grow. And with the expected increase spending as the population ages, there will be a need to find more money. He says the government wants to help these people, especially those at the bottom of the wage gap. For example, he wants to put, as a more regular feature, the Workfare bonus, a financial incentive to get people to work, by giving money to those who can hold unto a job.
But there needs to be additional sources of revenue, if the government is to avoid dipping into its reserves. So raise the GST from 5 to 7% so more money can be collected. Also, change the definition of the Net Investment Income, so that the government can take out more from the money earned from investing its reserves. (This is managed by the Singapore government's investment companies, Temasek and Government Investment Corporation)
Naturally, this created a huge uproar. His argument seems to be: We want to help the poor. Raise taxes so we can get more money. Redistribute this money so that the poor gets more help. Sorta like Robinhood.
Of course, this is entirely counter-intuitive. Shouldn't you lower taxes to help the poor?
First, consumption tax is regressive as compared to income tax, which is, in most cases, progressive.
A progressive tax system is one in which the richer pay a proportionally higher rate of taxes than the poorer. For example, in Singapore, the rich pay xx% of their wages, which is higher than xx% of someone who earns xx dollars.
In the case of regressive taxes, or in this case, the consumption tax, the poor guy pays a higher proportion of his salary to taxes than compared to the rich guy.
This is different from paying a larger absolute amount of tax, which the rich does in the case of the consumption tax.
For example, everyone needs to eat. The richer may eat a more expensive meal than the poor, but all will have to eat. In the case of Singapore, most Singaporean families buy rice for food to eat at home. So let's assume that there is only one type of rice in Singapore, and it costs $10.
If GST increases by 2% to 7%, then all families will have to pay that extra 20 cents more. For a poor family, if the household income is say $1,000, 20 cents is a higher proportion in the poorer familiy, than it would be in a household which earns $10,000.
But of course, we know that the rich people buy more expensive rice. There is of course the fragrant rice version, the organic version or the cheapest gunny sack version. The prices differ and depending on the income level, families would spend differently. But since rice is such a basic necessity for most families, we can assume, not without being too extreme, that there is not that much of a difference in price of rice. So even if the price of the most expensive rice is say, double that of the cheapest, the rich would still be paying a significantly less proportion of their salaries in buying rice.
In other words, the poor will almost always spend more of their money on consumption than the rich do because their salaries are just much smaller than the rich, even though the rich will probably end up paying more taxes by virtue of them spending more.
If this is the case, how can a rise in GST help the poor, many people complain. Will this not make the poor poorer and the rich poorer too?
On this question, there is significant debate at the intellectual level. But economic theory posits that indirect taxes (GST) is a better system than direct taxes (income tax).
Why? It is more efficient as it leaves the individual in charge of his own spending patterns.
A person would usually base his spending, saving and investing patterns on just how much he has in the bank, economic theory says.
So in the case of a direct tax, like income tax, the person will have a certain percentage of his money taxed and he can only decide what to do with the money after taxes has been deducted.
But if the system moves from a direct tax system to a more indirect tax system, there is more money for the person to play around with. So it gives him control of his own finances.
At the same time, a consumption tax would mean that it is more expensive to buy things. As such, the incentive to save and invest grows.
But that does not mean that consumption will go down, because a person's decision to cosume varies from person to person. It does mean that there will probably be more people attracted to saving and investment. In fact, you can avoid taxes by just deciding not to consume that much in the first place.
Another effect of lowering income taxes is that in a globalised world, people are mobile. So one major consideration for top talent and CEOs is how much of the money they earn actually goes into their pocket.
And in this knowledge economy, talent is the greatest contributor to value. So the country which can attract the most talent will most likely thrive. Those which cannot, will probably fall by the wayside.
Similarly, for companies, a major consideration for them when they consider where to invest in is how much a country taxes their profits. So they would invest in a certain country which has lower taxes than one which taxes them more.
Like individuals, companies which are taxed less on their profits has an option to invest the increased amounts of returns into capital or research and development.
Of course, this does not solve the problem of the regressive nature of consumption tax. But it does mean that the economy becomes more competitive.
This is then where it gets tricky, no pun intended.
If the economy gets bigger, as the saying goes, the pie grows larger as well, which means that everyone has more to eat.
If more investments and talent flood into a country, the economy booms and more jobs are created. Incomes at the top will increase exponentially.
This will create the trickle-down effect, so that the poorer people also get better paid jobs. This is what economists claim the market economy will do for the entire economy. Let the market decide and everyone will be better off than they were if the market was mangled with.
Well, I try to put this into persepective in my next post on Singapore's experience.
Please turn back if you can't stand long economic, theoretical essays. Ciaos
On Monday, the Singapore PM dropped what many people saw as a bombshell. The goods and services tax, a consumption tax in Singapore, is moving up from 5% to 7%.
His reasoning: Globalisation has caused the income gap to grow. And with the expected increase spending as the population ages, there will be a need to find more money. He says the government wants to help these people, especially those at the bottom of the wage gap. For example, he wants to put, as a more regular feature, the Workfare bonus, a financial incentive to get people to work, by giving money to those who can hold unto a job.
But there needs to be additional sources of revenue, if the government is to avoid dipping into its reserves. So raise the GST from 5 to 7% so more money can be collected. Also, change the definition of the Net Investment Income, so that the government can take out more from the money earned from investing its reserves. (This is managed by the Singapore government's investment companies, Temasek and Government Investment Corporation)
Naturally, this created a huge uproar. His argument seems to be: We want to help the poor. Raise taxes so we can get more money. Redistribute this money so that the poor gets more help. Sorta like Robinhood.
Of course, this is entirely counter-intuitive. Shouldn't you lower taxes to help the poor?
First, consumption tax is regressive as compared to income tax, which is, in most cases, progressive.
A progressive tax system is one in which the richer pay a proportionally higher rate of taxes than the poorer. For example, in Singapore, the rich pay xx% of their wages, which is higher than xx% of someone who earns xx dollars.
In the case of regressive taxes, or in this case, the consumption tax, the poor guy pays a higher proportion of his salary to taxes than compared to the rich guy.
This is different from paying a larger absolute amount of tax, which the rich does in the case of the consumption tax.
For example, everyone needs to eat. The richer may eat a more expensive meal than the poor, but all will have to eat. In the case of Singapore, most Singaporean families buy rice for food to eat at home. So let's assume that there is only one type of rice in Singapore, and it costs $10.
If GST increases by 2% to 7%, then all families will have to pay that extra 20 cents more. For a poor family, if the household income is say $1,000, 20 cents is a higher proportion in the poorer familiy, than it would be in a household which earns $10,000.
But of course, we know that the rich people buy more expensive rice. There is of course the fragrant rice version, the organic version or the cheapest gunny sack version. The prices differ and depending on the income level, families would spend differently. But since rice is such a basic necessity for most families, we can assume, not without being too extreme, that there is not that much of a difference in price of rice. So even if the price of the most expensive rice is say, double that of the cheapest, the rich would still be paying a significantly less proportion of their salaries in buying rice.
In other words, the poor will almost always spend more of their money on consumption than the rich do because their salaries are just much smaller than the rich, even though the rich will probably end up paying more taxes by virtue of them spending more.
If this is the case, how can a rise in GST help the poor, many people complain. Will this not make the poor poorer and the rich poorer too?
On this question, there is significant debate at the intellectual level. But economic theory posits that indirect taxes (GST) is a better system than direct taxes (income tax).
Why? It is more efficient as it leaves the individual in charge of his own spending patterns.
A person would usually base his spending, saving and investing patterns on just how much he has in the bank, economic theory says.
So in the case of a direct tax, like income tax, the person will have a certain percentage of his money taxed and he can only decide what to do with the money after taxes has been deducted.
But if the system moves from a direct tax system to a more indirect tax system, there is more money for the person to play around with. So it gives him control of his own finances.
At the same time, a consumption tax would mean that it is more expensive to buy things. As such, the incentive to save and invest grows.
But that does not mean that consumption will go down, because a person's decision to cosume varies from person to person. It does mean that there will probably be more people attracted to saving and investment. In fact, you can avoid taxes by just deciding not to consume that much in the first place.
Another effect of lowering income taxes is that in a globalised world, people are mobile. So one major consideration for top talent and CEOs is how much of the money they earn actually goes into their pocket.
And in this knowledge economy, talent is the greatest contributor to value. So the country which can attract the most talent will most likely thrive. Those which cannot, will probably fall by the wayside.
Similarly, for companies, a major consideration for them when they consider where to invest in is how much a country taxes their profits. So they would invest in a certain country which has lower taxes than one which taxes them more.
Like individuals, companies which are taxed less on their profits has an option to invest the increased amounts of returns into capital or research and development.
Of course, this does not solve the problem of the regressive nature of consumption tax. But it does mean that the economy becomes more competitive.
This is then where it gets tricky, no pun intended.
If the economy gets bigger, as the saying goes, the pie grows larger as well, which means that everyone has more to eat.
If more investments and talent flood into a country, the economy booms and more jobs are created. Incomes at the top will increase exponentially.
This will create the trickle-down effect, so that the poorer people also get better paid jobs. This is what economists claim the market economy will do for the entire economy. Let the market decide and everyone will be better off than they were if the market was mangled with.
Well, I try to put this into persepective in my next post on Singapore's experience.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
The Matrix
The Matrix rocks. Fullstop. Plus another fullstop. That's how good it is. No can say anything else about the movie except that it rocks. Or rOxoRs! Or Rox. Whatever; it is the best show of the last decade, maybe even in the last millenium.
Maybe I exaggerate but certainly it is undoubtedly a movie which appeals on so many levels and discusses so many things. It also helps that the heroes are cool dudes.
I totally am infatuated by Morpheus's sunnies. Freaking gravity defying shades. Awesome.
I am coolness personifed. My shades are coolio. Even the sofa is cool.
But the reaons for loving the movie goes way beyond the beautiful poetry in motion set up on the movie screen, what with the flowing fight sequences with the use of CGI. No it is the themes that the Wachowski brudders have delved into.
Lemme just rattle off a few themes of great signficance - existentialism, religion, humanism utilitarianism, relativism vs objectivism and metaphysics. Mind boggling isn't it? And this is just the first movie. (granted the other two never rose to the same dizzyingly powerful heights of the first installment)
But the one thing that has been bugging me ever since I read Mark Rowland's Everything I Know I Learned From TV, which is really a pop philp book, I keep going back to that one scene which has Cypher played by Joe Pantoliano eating steak with Agent Smith. The Judas-like character remarks as he chomps down the steak.
"You know, I know that this steak doesn't exist. I know when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, do you know what I've realised?"
"Ignorance is bliss."
Interesting isn't it? Would you be happier ignorant and just to feel happy or to actually be doing something even if it may not bring happiness?
Rowland pointed out in his book that for many of us moderns, happiness is a feeling. When for example, we buy the latest iPod, we are happy. We touch the metallic surface, gaze upon the shiny gleaming screen surface, listen to the pure quality of sound and we are happy.
Or we are happy if let's say we win the lottery. A million bloody bucks. We can use the money to buy stuff that we like or want. Fulfilling these cravings, we become happy. At least for a fleeting moment, until the next bad streak of luck hits us. Or we lose that iPod we just bought. Then feelings of anger, frustration and irritation build up and we lose our happiness.
Like Cypher, most of us want to feel happy. Ignorance, as he aptly puts it, is bliss. As long as we feel happy, we are happy. It matters little that it is all in the mind. In fact, that is the beauty of the whole Matrix project. The humans in there can feel happy. They can feel sad too but for Cypher's case, he will deal with the devil (Agent Smith) if he gets to be happy i.e a movie star. He hates the real existence of life. Dressed in crummy ugly clothes, he has to put up with Morpheus the captain of the ship, who he constantly wants to undermine. He is also unable to touch his heart's desire, Trinity, thereby adding to his frustration and feelings of unhapiness.
Of course the movie is slanted to persuade the audience to sympathise with Neo and his gang of freedom fighters. But ask yourself, would you rather be in a state of happiness all your life? What if there is a machine that can put your mind in a state of constant happiness? Or at least make it such that you always think everything goes the right way for you?
Or would you rather live the life of a normal man or woman who keeps having to face disappointments and suffering. Sure some people would say that it is the disappointments that make the moments of happiness much more sweeter. But come on, we all know that disappointments and happinesss somehow provoke much stronger feelings than happiness. And feelings of frustration linger much longer than joyous feeling.
Given the premise that happiness is a feeling, I think it would be difficult to argue against wanting to hook up to such a machine. After all, we all want happiness right?
Very few people would reject the machine and that is evident from the movie too. Most people are still enslaved by the machine and many reject the real world because they are happy slaves.
But yet we find a colony of humans who reject the notion of the happiness machine. They embrace the drudgery of real living. That I will attempt to answer in the next post.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Over the weekend, this group which I am voluteering in had a little election/leadership renewal thing going on. It was all very jolly and as with most volunteer groups I have been in, people were just unwilling to step up and assume the mantle and responsibility of leadership.
This time round was no different. Getting people to take over the previous batch of leaders was excruciatingly difficult. The new leaders, it seemed to me, did not seem too keen on taking up the leadership positions. And in their thank you speeches, alluded to being sabohed. Of course they said it with a smile but one can't but detect as sense of resentment and reluctance in taking up the post.
Not the best way to start your term in charge of a group, which I reckon to be doing some real good. Of course I would, otherwise why would I join it if not?
But is reluctance to lead necessarily a bad thing for the group?
Well, for one, it means that members in the group are not ready to take ownership of the group. I suppose if I do care about the group, I would want to make sure that it goes in the right direction, or at least my direction, which I deem to be good.
In the long run, this can't be a good thing. If the people in the group are not bothered about the group's direction and vision, and merely content to be spectators rather than spec-actors (heh) - active participants in the drama unfolding before their eyes - then the group is going to end up in the dumps. Nonchalance breeds apathy.
I doubt the group has reached that stage. People within the group still care a lot about what happens to it. But the thing is this group of people are not exactly erm young anymore. And this group needs to reach out to the youth, which is its primary objective. But there is the very real possibility that the older group of leaders will have to fade out of the scene very soon. Who is left? Young, nonchalant people who are too new to the group to ensure that the group continues.
Such is the importance of constant leadership renewal. And it needs to take place at regular intervals. If it does not, the group will surely wither and die.
On the other hand, reluctance to take up the leadership positions may also mean that those who take it up are the right people. These people rightly see the positions of leadership to be ones of great responsibility and importance, hence the need to treat such positions with great reverance. It is after all keeping together a group which does good work for society.
I happen to be one of those young nonchalant young person who was inducted into one of the leadership positions. It happened all quite suddenly. I was asked by one of the leaders to help out with a project for the group. Namely, setting up and maintaining a blog for the group.
But now I am to attend monthly meetings and group activities. I hardly think I am prepared for those at this point of time. See my work takes up chunks of my time. It's not that it takes up 20 hours a day, but it's irregular. Sometimes I spend 12 hours at work, sometimes 15, sometimes 8. So I cannot promise the group that I will be there all the time.
Still I said yes to that position because I think I care enough for this group, although I've only been in it and sporadically attending their activities for a year now.
In anycase, it was one of their teas that inspired this blog. Woopee. For me, Not that people actually read this anyway.
This time round was no different. Getting people to take over the previous batch of leaders was excruciatingly difficult. The new leaders, it seemed to me, did not seem too keen on taking up the leadership positions. And in their thank you speeches, alluded to being sabohed. Of course they said it with a smile but one can't but detect as sense of resentment and reluctance in taking up the post.
Not the best way to start your term in charge of a group, which I reckon to be doing some real good. Of course I would, otherwise why would I join it if not?
But is reluctance to lead necessarily a bad thing for the group?
Well, for one, it means that members in the group are not ready to take ownership of the group. I suppose if I do care about the group, I would want to make sure that it goes in the right direction, or at least my direction, which I deem to be good.
In the long run, this can't be a good thing. If the people in the group are not bothered about the group's direction and vision, and merely content to be spectators rather than spec-actors (heh) - active participants in the drama unfolding before their eyes - then the group is going to end up in the dumps. Nonchalance breeds apathy.
I doubt the group has reached that stage. People within the group still care a lot about what happens to it. But the thing is this group of people are not exactly erm young anymore. And this group needs to reach out to the youth, which is its primary objective. But there is the very real possibility that the older group of leaders will have to fade out of the scene very soon. Who is left? Young, nonchalant people who are too new to the group to ensure that the group continues.
Such is the importance of constant leadership renewal. And it needs to take place at regular intervals. If it does not, the group will surely wither and die.
On the other hand, reluctance to take up the leadership positions may also mean that those who take it up are the right people. These people rightly see the positions of leadership to be ones of great responsibility and importance, hence the need to treat such positions with great reverance. It is after all keeping together a group which does good work for society.
I happen to be one of those young nonchalant young person who was inducted into one of the leadership positions. It happened all quite suddenly. I was asked by one of the leaders to help out with a project for the group. Namely, setting up and maintaining a blog for the group.
But now I am to attend monthly meetings and group activities. I hardly think I am prepared for those at this point of time. See my work takes up chunks of my time. It's not that it takes up 20 hours a day, but it's irregular. Sometimes I spend 12 hours at work, sometimes 15, sometimes 8. So I cannot promise the group that I will be there all the time.
Still I said yes to that position because I think I care enough for this group, although I've only been in it and sporadically attending their activities for a year now.
In anycase, it was one of their teas that inspired this blog. Woopee. For me, Not that people actually read this anyway.
I love kueh salat. Especially the green part of the kueh. It's soft and, if made well, full of sweet coconutty juicyness. The white bit doesn't impress me as much. It's sorta sticky and salty at the same time. Ack
This blog was inspired last weekend, when I had kueh salat at a gathering of a group I am volunteering my time with. SInce this is my first post, I'll keep it short 'cos first and foremost, I want to see the layout of the page!
What the hell does kueh salat have to do with the starting of a blog? Well, check the next post for more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)