$0.9B SMRT scandal?

[kukubird58]

how is it called "cost-sharing".......if it is with a company so that this company can make a higher profit, while the govt is making a loss?

cost-transfer would be the correct term..

hahaha...there are many ways to skin the cat and i will not go into what is the right term....
the principle is sound...the gahmen "subsidises" the commuters "indirectly" by cost sharing/cost transfer etc"....otherwise the fares will be even higher.
the devil is always in the details.

 

[Zombie]

hahaha...there are many ways to skin the cat and i will not go into what is the right term....
the principle is sound...the gahmen "subsidises" the commuters "indirectly" by cost sharing/cost transfer etc"....otherwise the fares will be even higher.
the devil is always in the details.

it is alright if you do not want to appreciate the difference between cost-sharing and cost-transfer..

cheers

 

[kukubird58]

it is alright if you do not want to appreciate the difference between cost-sharing and cost-transfer..

cheers

hahaha...pardon my kukuness...cheers to u also.

 

[Unrepented]

Got to clarify abit, the sgd480,000,000.00 govt grant was received afew years back and amortised over the years.

What the big hooha now All the while train run smooth smooth got grant one what Now because of breakdown just double only what, reasonable mah

http://www.smrt.com.sg/investors/documents/annual_reports/2010/pdf/SMRT_A_R_2010_Low_Res.pdf

Go to page 166

Grants

Financial year 2009.................................................................sgd480,000,000.00 (received by SMRT Trains Ltd from LTA to defray part of the purchase cost of the operating assets
of the MRT system)

Financial year 2010.................................................................sgd98,000.00 (received by the Company from a government agency for project sponsorship)



Total grant used as at end of financial year 2010.........................sgd389,644,000.00 (asset related grant and non asset related grants (expense in nature, assumption))

Also, in FY2009, grant used was sgd353,240,00 (non asset related, most probably off-set against current year's expense) + sgd18,597,000 (asset related amortised as per asset useful life) + sgd22,000.00 (used this grant to buy asset and dispose in the same year!!!)

Total comprehensive income for financial year 2009 ish sgd160,840,000.00. But if did not utilize grant of sdg353,240,000.00 to offset expenses? Then what is the result?

:pCaution: My analysis is guess guess one, may not be correct. You see the annual report and analyze for yourself:p

 

[Unrepented]

Given that there are many ways to skin a cat, but some ways leaves evidence of skinning the cat which is unsightly, while other ways leave traces unseen by the general public which is more palatable alternative. Tio bo

hahaha...there are many ways to skin the cat and i will not go into what is the right term....
the principle is sound...the gahmen "subsidises" the commuters "indirectly" by cost sharing/cost transfer etc"....otherwise the fares will be even higher.
the devil is always in the details.

 

[kukubird58]

Its main operational costs is also engineering related and it is also in the transport sector. .

hahaha....again trying to kay kiang....but obviously don't know what he is talking about......lol.

hahaha......such bullshit about knowing the transport business (example quotd is SIA) and super idols will plp to the sky.......lol.

 

[mojito]

hahaha......such bullshit about knowing the transport business (example quotd is SIA) and super idols will plp to the sky.......lol.

If you bother to post anything instructive or enlightening, I am sure you will also get to enjoy being the object of adulation.

Instead you post one-liners and come across as a sour old dud jealous of the popularity of some anonymous online persona. That's really sad.

 

[mojito]

The government could increase corporate taxes, levies and income tax for the highest earners. It doesn't always have to come from commuters.

Be creative.

Wah lau! I got zapped for this comment with two words, "could only".

No big deal disagreeing with me, but I want to respond and take this further because these are not the only solutions.

You can ALSO:
1) cut defense spending
2) cap civil service and political appointee stipends for the top earners
3) reinstate estate taxes
4) put an end to shadow subsidies given to private businesses, like what this $0.9 billion is suspected to be

Surely there are men of calibre here in this forum who can come up with even better ideas. Problem is it seems, nobody but the current administration has the necessary data to make an assessment.

 

[kukubird58]

If you bother to post anything instructive or enlightening, I am sure you will also get to enjoy being the object of adulation.

Instead you post one-liners and come across as a sour old dud jealous of the popularity of some anonymous online persona. That's really sad.

hahaha....super idol....thank you for your views.
They are valid......but i don't understand how bullshits qualify as anything instructive and enlightening.....lol.
Also i don't need any adulation....i am happy as a kukubird....but pse if your idol spout nonsense, i will take u all on any time.
hahaha..i thought u would know but just to enlighten u.....the main operational costs of sia are fuel and staff costs.....not engineering.

 

[mojito]

hahaha....super idol....thank you for your views.
They are valid......but i don't understand how bullshits qualify as anything instructive and enlightening.....lol.
Also i don't need any adulation....i am happy as a kukubird....but pse if your idol spout nonsense, i will take u all on any time.
hahaha..i thought u would know but just to enlighten u.....the main operational costs of sia are fuel and staff costs.....not engineering.

You could be right since I too have heard numerous instances about their hedges against fuel costs.

But that doesn't make the argument any less valid. Is the government passing off taxpayers' money to boost private profits?

 

[kukubird58]

You could be right since I too have heard numerous instances about their hedges against fuel costs.

hahaha...that fuel cost is the main operating cost of sia is not a matter of opinion......it is a well known fact.

 

[mojito]

hahaha...that fuel cost is the main operating cost of sia is not a matter of opinion......it is a well known fact.

Not disputing that bro. But I am saying you are missing the forest for the trees.

There are bigger fish to fry, like whether taxpayers are getting a raw deal for the subsidies we pay to the public transport operators, with taking into account terms of the risk/cost sharing arrangements.