-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
A new pile of rubbish
- Thread starter chuachinsengjason
- Start date
Re: "A Good Horse will never return to gaze on grass that it has already passed by."
Well, that I have to wait and see.
Wait Boss Sam zap you then you know!
Well, that I have to wait and see.
Re: Caption chance lai liao
LHL : Oh.. this NDR blowjob really got me to a new high.
LHL : But... what should do with all this cum in my mouth?
LHL : Swallow it or Spit it?
keck sai bin
LHL : Oh.. this NDR blowjob really got me to a new high.
LHL : But... what should do with all this cum in my mouth?
LHL : Swallow it or Spit it?
Re: Why higher consumption tax (GST/VAT) is the right way
Conservatives who advocate a national consumption tax, typically in the form of the FairTax, or a “flat tax,” often do so under the impression that it will benefit the economy by incentivizing savings. Rather than penalize income, as the current tax regime does, it is better to tax consumption instead, or so they believe. Dave Ramsey is one such proponent, as is Mike Huckabee, among many others.
This however is wrong, as Murray Rothbard explains in Man, Economy, and State. A consumption tax not only distorts the savings-consumption ratio by coercively altering individual time preferences, but it actually harms both consumption and savings. It does this by taxing original production factors (land and labor), and thereby income.
The sales tax is commonly supposed to penalize consumption, rather than income or capital. Yet we find that the sales tax reduces, not just consumption, but the incomes of original factors. The general sales tax is therefore an income tax….
In a later section Rothbard exhorts defenders of laissez-faire to oppose both methods of intervention, writing:
The economist who shows more concern for free-market savings than he does for free-market consumption is implicitly advocating statist interference
and a coerced distortion of resource allocation in favor of greater investment and lower consumption. The free-market advocate should oppose with equal fervor coerced distortion of the ratio of consumption to investment in either direction.
Basically, you don’t get free market cred by suggesting the government start messing with other aspects of the market not currently being manipulated.
Conservatives who advocate a national consumption tax, typically in the form of the FairTax, or a “flat tax,” often do so under the impression that it will benefit the economy by incentivizing savings. Rather than penalize income, as the current tax regime does, it is better to tax consumption instead, or so they believe. Dave Ramsey is one such proponent, as is Mike Huckabee, among many others.
This however is wrong, as Murray Rothbard explains in Man, Economy, and State. A consumption tax not only distorts the savings-consumption ratio by coercively altering individual time preferences, but it actually harms both consumption and savings. It does this by taxing original production factors (land and labor), and thereby income.
The sales tax is commonly supposed to penalize consumption, rather than income or capital. Yet we find that the sales tax reduces, not just consumption, but the incomes of original factors. The general sales tax is therefore an income tax….
In a later section Rothbard exhorts defenders of laissez-faire to oppose both methods of intervention, writing:
The economist who shows more concern for free-market savings than he does for free-market consumption is implicitly advocating statist interference
and a coerced distortion of resource allocation in favor of greater investment and lower consumption. The free-market advocate should oppose with equal fervor coerced distortion of the ratio of consumption to investment in either direction.
Basically, you don’t get free market cred by suggesting the government start messing with other aspects of the market not currently being manipulated.
Re: Why higher consumption tax (GST/VAT) is the right way
I think it’s safe to say that nobody is happy with our current tax code. It burdens people who want to succeed in business, it favors the largest businesses who can afford to lobby for carve-outs; the enormity of the tax code creates a substantial compliance burden for smaller businesses; and- as already known to those of us on the small-government side of the aisle- 47% of the public pay no income tax at all, while recieving benefits funded by the other 53% who pay.
In our fervor to change the tax code, however, some people have been seduced by the idea of scrapping the tax code entirely: Eliminate income taxation and convert to a national tax on consumption. Whatever problems we currently have, I contend that this conversion would make our tax situation far worse.
Let’s start with defining “consumption”, because even this term creates problems. “Consumption” means the purchase of any good or service.
In a “pure”, or “flat”, consumption tax system, all transactions are taxed. Stated another way, every bill you recieve- your phone bill, your car insurance bill, your cable bill, your garbage removal bill, etc.- would include a consumption tax. Your grocery, fuel, medication, and clothing purchases would include a consumption tax. When you make a major purchase- such as a home or a car- the purchase price would include a consumption tax. If your washing machine or central air conditioning breaks down, the cost of parts and the bill for labor from the appliance repair service would include a consumption tax. If you hire a home health aide, consult an attorney, or visit a doctor, the bill for their services would include a consumption tax. If you own a business, all of the purchases made for your business- “business expenses”- would be subject to consumption tax. Making a deposit at the bank would include consumption tax, since the banking institution is offering a service by accepting your money.
Financial services- such as credit cards or bank loans to purchase a home or a car- would be taxed twice: Consumption tax on the goods purchased, and consumption tax on the service of financing.
Such a “pure” consumption tax would be wholly offensive to the public. Because of this, the major consumption tax schemes seen around the world today are designed to mitigate the impact of taxation on certain purchases. European-style value added tax, or VAT, is a system designed minimize the impact on businesses by allowing companies to recoup taxes paid on supplies. Most state sales taxes in the United States exempt some (but never all) purchases of food and medications. Variable rates are used in some countries to change the tax burden on various products: For example, levying a lower rate on medical devices than on clothing purchases. Certain transactions are exempted from taxation.
This illustrates the fallacy of a basic assumption about consumption taxes: That a consumption tax code would be simpler than an income tax code. As you can see above, there is just as much incentive to over-complicate a consumption tax code as with an income tax code. Most carve-outs found in the federal income tax code are also intended to mitigate the effects of taxing incomes.
It also illustrates a basic problem with consumption tax systems: They are regressive, in that the lower a person’s income, the greater the share of their income is spent on consumption. A tax code can’t predict whether a loaf of bread will be purchased by a well-to-do person, or a homeless person who has panhandled all day to buy it. Fair Tax proponents propose a “poverty grant”, or “prebate”, to alleviate this problem. I will discuss that in Part Two.
This brings us to the “47%”- the 47% of the public who currently pay no federal income tax. It’s easy to think of this 47% as “freeloaders”- and while some of them are, others are clearly not. Many of this group are people whose incomes are currently tax-privileged for good reason: They are Social Security recipients, combat veterans, disabled people, and others whom society has determined should not be burdened with taxation. Also in this group are people who live on already-accumulated (and already-taxed) wealth: Persons living on accumulated retirement savings, for example. They have already paid their “fair share”, and imposing consumption tax on would amount to double-taxing them.
As for the “freeloaders”- this group are problematic because they are net recipients of tax money. They pay less in taxes than they recieve in taxpayer-funded public assistance.
Imposing consumption tax on the “47%” would target precisely the wrong people: It would impose taxation on people we don’t want to burden- such as retirees, veterans, and the disabled- while welfare recipients would continue to be net recipients of tax money. In other words, a consumption tax wouldn’t fix the problem, it would simply add another problem. I will address the problems with our welfare system, and the overlooked solution to most of them, in Part Four.
High consumption taxes also have an effect on behavior: They provide incentive to develop a black market for untaxed goods. Consider a similar black market which already exists here in the United States: the market on tax-free cigarettes sold through Native American reservations, and one can readily see how a tax-free market on other goods could emerge and prosper quickly. And by the way: If the thought of ”black market food” doesn’t immediately make you think of a communist country, then I hereby revoke your “Small Government Conservative” card.
Consumptions taxes disproportionately burden businesses, too.
As stated above, in a “flat” consumption tax model, all purchases of goods and services are taxed, including purchases made by businesses; and as already known, any tax on business purchases constitutes the mother-of-all-barriers to growing a business.
With an income tax, it’s relatively easy (though time-consuming) to deduct revenues spent on business expenses from taxation. With a consumption tax, this is decidedly more difficult, since tax is paid at the point-of-sale.
In countries with a VAT, for instance, businesses may recoup, from the government, the amount of taxes paid on expenses at the end of each year; however, the records-keeping burden of doing so is enormous, even more so than the records-keeping burden of our income tax system, because the purchasing business’ records must match perfectly with the selling business’ records.
This system also creates additional work- and additional expense- for government tax agencies: Every business in the country submits a request for reimbursement of taxes paid, every year, which means governments must compare the tax forms submitted by ‘Business A’ against the tax forms of every other business ‘Business A’ has purchased from that year.
It’s no surprise, then, that some countries- Costa Rica, for example- choose to only allow certain expenses to be deducted, in order to minimize this burden of examination. In choosing to limit the types of expenses eligible for deduction, the government makes a conscious decision to tax certain business expenses- which brings us full-circle to the mother-of-all-barriers to business growth mentioned above.
The net effect of this: large businesses are favored, while small businesses remain small. The larger a business, the more easily said business may cope with the intense regulatory burden of records-keeping, or absorb the cost of taxes paid on business purchases. In fact, consumption taxes disproportionately favor vertically-integrated businesses- those companies large enough to own their suppliers- since greater integration means all records-keeping (or all business purchasing) is internal.
Stated another way: Consumption tax schemes are the cronyists’ best friend, since consumption taxes favor already-large businesses and stifle potential competitors by preventing them from growing. (Note: I refuse to dignify the term “crony capitalism”, since it isn’t capitalism at all.)
This being the case, wealth remains generational, and the American dream of working hard, taking risks, and succeeding- and accumulating wealth in the process- becomes impossible. Consider this point: The class warfare rhetoric of socialists- “rich people stay rich, poor people stay poor”- becomes fact when a widespread consumption tax is instituted. This goes part-way to explaining how European nations (early adopters of consumption tax) accepted and embraced socialism at a faster pace than it was accepted here in the United States.
In sum: Consumption taxes as a major source of government revenue keep poor people poor, inhibit growth of small businesses, favor large businesses and ensure that wealth remains generational. Consumption tax schemes cause economies to become stagnant by stifling competition, and promote conditions which breed socialist sympathy and criminality.
If you, the reader, would like to refute these assertions, all you need to do is show me an example of a country which has had a major (i.e., a rate substantially greater than state sales taxes here) consumption tax for more than ten years, where none of these events have taken place. I can confidently issue this challenge, because I know there isn’t such a place.
I think it’s safe to say that nobody is happy with our current tax code. It burdens people who want to succeed in business, it favors the largest businesses who can afford to lobby for carve-outs; the enormity of the tax code creates a substantial compliance burden for smaller businesses; and- as already known to those of us on the small-government side of the aisle- 47% of the public pay no income tax at all, while recieving benefits funded by the other 53% who pay.
In our fervor to change the tax code, however, some people have been seduced by the idea of scrapping the tax code entirely: Eliminate income taxation and convert to a national tax on consumption. Whatever problems we currently have, I contend that this conversion would make our tax situation far worse.
Let’s start with defining “consumption”, because even this term creates problems. “Consumption” means the purchase of any good or service.
In a “pure”, or “flat”, consumption tax system, all transactions are taxed. Stated another way, every bill you recieve- your phone bill, your car insurance bill, your cable bill, your garbage removal bill, etc.- would include a consumption tax. Your grocery, fuel, medication, and clothing purchases would include a consumption tax. When you make a major purchase- such as a home or a car- the purchase price would include a consumption tax. If your washing machine or central air conditioning breaks down, the cost of parts and the bill for labor from the appliance repair service would include a consumption tax. If you hire a home health aide, consult an attorney, or visit a doctor, the bill for their services would include a consumption tax. If you own a business, all of the purchases made for your business- “business expenses”- would be subject to consumption tax. Making a deposit at the bank would include consumption tax, since the banking institution is offering a service by accepting your money.
Financial services- such as credit cards or bank loans to purchase a home or a car- would be taxed twice: Consumption tax on the goods purchased, and consumption tax on the service of financing.
Such a “pure” consumption tax would be wholly offensive to the public. Because of this, the major consumption tax schemes seen around the world today are designed to mitigate the impact of taxation on certain purchases. European-style value added tax, or VAT, is a system designed minimize the impact on businesses by allowing companies to recoup taxes paid on supplies. Most state sales taxes in the United States exempt some (but never all) purchases of food and medications. Variable rates are used in some countries to change the tax burden on various products: For example, levying a lower rate on medical devices than on clothing purchases. Certain transactions are exempted from taxation.
This illustrates the fallacy of a basic assumption about consumption taxes: That a consumption tax code would be simpler than an income tax code. As you can see above, there is just as much incentive to over-complicate a consumption tax code as with an income tax code. Most carve-outs found in the federal income tax code are also intended to mitigate the effects of taxing incomes.
It also illustrates a basic problem with consumption tax systems: They are regressive, in that the lower a person’s income, the greater the share of their income is spent on consumption. A tax code can’t predict whether a loaf of bread will be purchased by a well-to-do person, or a homeless person who has panhandled all day to buy it. Fair Tax proponents propose a “poverty grant”, or “prebate”, to alleviate this problem. I will discuss that in Part Two.
This brings us to the “47%”- the 47% of the public who currently pay no federal income tax. It’s easy to think of this 47% as “freeloaders”- and while some of them are, others are clearly not. Many of this group are people whose incomes are currently tax-privileged for good reason: They are Social Security recipients, combat veterans, disabled people, and others whom society has determined should not be burdened with taxation. Also in this group are people who live on already-accumulated (and already-taxed) wealth: Persons living on accumulated retirement savings, for example. They have already paid their “fair share”, and imposing consumption tax on would amount to double-taxing them.
As for the “freeloaders”- this group are problematic because they are net recipients of tax money. They pay less in taxes than they recieve in taxpayer-funded public assistance.
Imposing consumption tax on the “47%” would target precisely the wrong people: It would impose taxation on people we don’t want to burden- such as retirees, veterans, and the disabled- while welfare recipients would continue to be net recipients of tax money. In other words, a consumption tax wouldn’t fix the problem, it would simply add another problem. I will address the problems with our welfare system, and the overlooked solution to most of them, in Part Four.
High consumption taxes also have an effect on behavior: They provide incentive to develop a black market for untaxed goods. Consider a similar black market which already exists here in the United States: the market on tax-free cigarettes sold through Native American reservations, and one can readily see how a tax-free market on other goods could emerge and prosper quickly. And by the way: If the thought of ”black market food” doesn’t immediately make you think of a communist country, then I hereby revoke your “Small Government Conservative” card.
Consumptions taxes disproportionately burden businesses, too.
As stated above, in a “flat” consumption tax model, all purchases of goods and services are taxed, including purchases made by businesses; and as already known, any tax on business purchases constitutes the mother-of-all-barriers to growing a business.
With an income tax, it’s relatively easy (though time-consuming) to deduct revenues spent on business expenses from taxation. With a consumption tax, this is decidedly more difficult, since tax is paid at the point-of-sale.
In countries with a VAT, for instance, businesses may recoup, from the government, the amount of taxes paid on expenses at the end of each year; however, the records-keeping burden of doing so is enormous, even more so than the records-keeping burden of our income tax system, because the purchasing business’ records must match perfectly with the selling business’ records.
This system also creates additional work- and additional expense- for government tax agencies: Every business in the country submits a request for reimbursement of taxes paid, every year, which means governments must compare the tax forms submitted by ‘Business A’ against the tax forms of every other business ‘Business A’ has purchased from that year.
It’s no surprise, then, that some countries- Costa Rica, for example- choose to only allow certain expenses to be deducted, in order to minimize this burden of examination. In choosing to limit the types of expenses eligible for deduction, the government makes a conscious decision to tax certain business expenses- which brings us full-circle to the mother-of-all-barriers to business growth mentioned above.
The net effect of this: large businesses are favored, while small businesses remain small. The larger a business, the more easily said business may cope with the intense regulatory burden of records-keeping, or absorb the cost of taxes paid on business purchases. In fact, consumption taxes disproportionately favor vertically-integrated businesses- those companies large enough to own their suppliers- since greater integration means all records-keeping (or all business purchasing) is internal.
Stated another way: Consumption tax schemes are the cronyists’ best friend, since consumption taxes favor already-large businesses and stifle potential competitors by preventing them from growing. (Note: I refuse to dignify the term “crony capitalism”, since it isn’t capitalism at all.)
This being the case, wealth remains generational, and the American dream of working hard, taking risks, and succeeding- and accumulating wealth in the process- becomes impossible. Consider this point: The class warfare rhetoric of socialists- “rich people stay rich, poor people stay poor”- becomes fact when a widespread consumption tax is instituted. This goes part-way to explaining how European nations (early adopters of consumption tax) accepted and embraced socialism at a faster pace than it was accepted here in the United States.
In sum: Consumption taxes as a major source of government revenue keep poor people poor, inhibit growth of small businesses, favor large businesses and ensure that wealth remains generational. Consumption tax schemes cause economies to become stagnant by stifling competition, and promote conditions which breed socialist sympathy and criminality.
If you, the reader, would like to refute these assertions, all you need to do is show me an example of a country which has had a major (i.e., a rate substantially greater than state sales taxes here) consumption tax for more than ten years, where none of these events have taken place. I can confidently issue this challenge, because I know there isn’t such a place.
Re: Why higher consumption tax (GST/VAT) is the right way
If you can't take the heat in a forum discussion then don't start a Topic.
Silencing forumer by zapping them into moderation do not make you look any better
then the PAP.
If you can't take the heat in a forum discussion then don't start a Topic.
Silencing forumer by zapping them into moderation do not make you look any better
then the PAP.
Re: Zeroo Exposed
IQ:107 = just average joe
Sammyboys IQ are way above 107
Average IQ here at least :128
http://profileengine.com/people/103426315/davis.koh.han.rong#/people/103426315/davis.koh.han.rong
IQ:107 = just average joe
Sammyboys IQ are way above 107
Average IQ here at least :128
http://profileengine.com/people/103426315/davis.koh.han.rong#/people/103426315/davis.koh.han.rong
Re: $1700 Cleaning Fees Per Hawker Stall! NTUC Foodfare The Betterest!!
Finally implemented by-force of course.
http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?159030-NEA-Hawkers-must-Pay-And-Pay-more-to-Lee-s-Cronies-for-centralised-dishwashing
Finally implemented by-force of course.
http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?159030-NEA-Hawkers-must-Pay-And-Pay-more-to-Lee-s-Cronies-for-centralised-dishwashing
Re: Stop Calling Us Apu Neh Neh, You Farking Chinks!
[video=youtube;FxEsVcbqwvU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxEsVcbqwvU[/video]
So yesterday, my brother and I were referred to as "apu neh neh" by a little Chinese girl, maybe around 5 or 6 years old. Why? Because she was pissed off that we took a seat on a bench that she was standing near that she apparently really wanted to be on. Nevermind that there was also another empty bench nearby which was closer to her mum. So with the conversation happening in mandarin, her mum probably assumed we didn't understand what she just said and didn't bother correcting her. So what's the takeaway here?
1) The kid is going to grow up into a self-entitled little cunt, just like a lot of Singaporeans today
2) There's a road show happening in Punggol right now with a road closed and a huge banner calling it a racial and religious harmony show or something like that. Please stop it, spend the money elsewhere like maybe build a new casino or something.
3) She's 5 or 6, I wonder where she learnt the word apu neh neh from. But it's okay. Not the first, not the last.
4) I'm glad I took Mandarin lessons.
#GoF*ckYourself #SG50 #TheFarceIsStrong
Sivaraj Pragasm
A.S.S. Reader
- More at AllSingaporeStuff.com http://www.allsingaporestuff.com/article/spoilt-little-girl-calls-local-indian-brothers-apu-neh-nehs
FB: http://fb.com/allsgstuff
[video=youtube;FxEsVcbqwvU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxEsVcbqwvU[/video]
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: TingRu Fan Club
Hi Froggy,
Please don't forget your detailed "Field Report" when you're back here!
Audio and Video would be a bonus.
Enjoy your trip, be safe.
Give my regards to your TinnnnRuuuuu! LOL
Hi Froggy,
Please don't forget your detailed "Field Report" when you're back here!
Audio and Video would be a bonus.
Enjoy your trip, be safe.
Give my regards to your TinnnnRuuuuu! LOL
Re: TingRu Fan Club
Dear Froggy,
Not the sammyboyforum type of fl report.
I meant your usual stuff like audio, video and pix of Makan places, food, wine, dine and landscape and all.
I think you got abit carried away, too much porn... tsk .. tsk ..tsk LOL
Dear Froggy,
Not the sammyboyforum type of fl report.
I meant your usual stuff like audio, video and pix of Makan places, food, wine, dine and landscape and all.
I think you got abit carried away, too much porn... tsk .. tsk ..tsk LOL
Re: There are still many unanswered questions on Benjamin Lim case
It's true I hate bullies too.
Im with you on this.
Did you offend anybody here? Why they bully you?
It's true I hate bullies too.
Im with you on this.
Did you offend anybody here? Why they bully you?
Last edited:
Re: The pimp, the eunuch and the whore - A Sammyboy Alfresco Thriller
Im with you on this, I hate bullies.
Why are they bullying you?
Im with you on this, I hate bullies.
Why are they bullying you?
Last edited:
Re: There are still many unanswered questions on Benjamin Lim case
Don't worri my comrades will fix them.
However, I got some big shot cadres complaining abt ur services.
ginfreely as a pro u shld perform better.
Don't worri my comrades will fix them.
However, I got some big shot cadres complaining abt ur services.
ginfreely as a pro u shld perform better.
Re: There are still many unanswered questions on Benjamin Lim case
Come on ginfreely, we had an agreement and u agreed to provide the services.
U said u were pro and talented
But my cadres complain that ur blow job like sucking ice-cream very painful
They want a refund
I hav no choice but to lower the fees from now on
This is the new ads for ur services
http://www.singsupplies.com/showthr...d-Shots-FJ-BJ-BBBJ-CIM-FIRST-TIME-FIRST-TOUCH
please let me know if you want any changes to it
Im sending u to my tranny friend to upgrade ur blow job skills
u can use the $500 SkillsFund to offset the training fee.
Come on ginfreely, we had an agreement and u agreed to provide the services.
U said u were pro and talented
But my cadres complain that ur blow job like sucking ice-cream very painful
They want a refund
I hav no choice but to lower the fees from now on
This is the new ads for ur services
http://www.singsupplies.com/showthr...d-Shots-FJ-BJ-BBBJ-CIM-FIRST-TIME-FIRST-TOUCH
please let me know if you want any changes to it
Im sending u to my tranny friend to upgrade ur blow job skills
u can use the $500 SkillsFund to offset the training fee.
Re: There are still many unanswered questions on Benjamin Lim case
Small time OKT onli la.
Hey, if u got indian friends interested can pm me ok.
I give discount.
Small time OKT onli la.
Hey, if u got indian friends interested can pm me ok.
I give discount.
Re: Ginfreely S$10/160mins/Unlimited Shots FJ/BJ/BBBJ CIM FIRST TIME FIRST TOUCH
Just PM me. OK?
Just PM me. OK?
Re: The pimp, the eunuch and the whore - A Sammyboy Alfresco Thriller
Yo, ginfreely, got customer waiting. Hurry!
http://www.singsupplies.com/showthr...d-Shots-FJ-BJ-BBBJ-CIM-FIRST-TIME-FIRST-TOUCH
Yo, ginfreely, got customer waiting. Hurry!
http://www.singsupplies.com/showthr...d-Shots-FJ-BJ-BBBJ-CIM-FIRST-TIME-FIRST-TOUCH
Re: The pimp, the eunuch and the whore - A Sammyboy Alfresco Thriller
My fullname u dun noe meh? Jason chua chin seng ur OKT.
Dun let the customer wait.
Quic go to this thread now http://www.singsupplies.com/showthr...d-Shots-FJ-BJ-BBBJ-CIM-FIRST-TIME-FIRST-TOUCH
I meet u there
U can chat wif the customers oso.
Come quic
My fullname u dun noe meh? Jason chua chin seng ur OKT.
Dun let the customer wait.
Quic go to this thread now http://www.singsupplies.com/showthr...d-Shots-FJ-BJ-BBBJ-CIM-FIRST-TIME-FIRST-TOUCH
I meet u there
U can chat wif the customers oso.
Come quic
Similar threads
