• 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.

Raise taxes on the Rich - in Singapore

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Fuck that. The poor are poor not because the rich are rich. Taxing the rich to handout to the poor is just punishing the productive and rewarding the unproductive.

That's pure hogwash. Why should the rich not give back to the society that enabled them to be rich? It is not like asking the rich to forgo 90 percent of their earnings. A US-type progressive rate will not impoverish the rich in Sinkapore.

Look at countries like Sweden, Norway and Denmark for example. Folks pay high tax rates but they don't live in financial insecurity ...if you lose a job, there's a safety net for you until you get back on sound footing; if you are sick, you don't worry about paying the medical bills; if you have kids, you don't worry about how to provide them with good childcare and education.
 

kongsimi

Alfrescian
Loyal
i mean if you are really rich!

you should give some small change back to society lah!

how many packets of mee goreng you can eat everyday?

giving away makes you feel free. and not tied to something which is dead.

if will be entrapped like a slave if you don't give out once in a while

it is against humanity when you are not sharing.
 
Last edited:

Kinana

Alfrescian
Loyal
That's pure hogwash. Why should the rich not give back to the society that enabled them to be rich? It is not like asking the rich to forgo 90 percent of their earnings. A US-type progressive rate will not impoverish the rich in Sinkapore.
They don't need to give back anything. They earned it.
Why don't you give back to the society what you took from it according to your logic?



Look at countries like Sweden, Norway and Denmark for example. Folks pay high tax rates but they don't live in financial insecurity ...if you lose a job, there's a safety net for you until you get back on sound footing; if you are sick, you don't worry about paying the medical bills; if you have kids, you don't worry about how to provide them with good childcare and education.

Why only these countries? Why not France, UK, US, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece as well?
 
Last edited:

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
They don't need to give back anything. They earned it.
Why don't you give back to the society what you took from it according to your logic?

I pay my fair share of taxes and am willing to pay more if the government bumps up the tax rates. I think those earning $120k and more annually can pay abit more on taxes.

Why only these countries? Why not France, UK, US, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece as well?

Because these countries got it right. There is no free lunch. Those benefits are paid for by the people, not loans taken out to be passed on to future generations to repay. The pooling of resources using a progressive tax system allows people in those countries to enjoy at least a true middle class lifestyle that most sinkees can't even dream about.
 
Last edited:

Dreamer1

Alfrescian
Loyal
Hello --

Working with the President, Democratic and Republican lawmakers this week came together to approve a bill that prevents a tax hike on the middle class that could have thrown the economy back into recession. President Obama will soon sign this agreement into law.

Here's what you need to know:

Graphic: Seven things you need to know about this tax deal

SHARE ON FACEBOOK | SHARE ON TWITTER

Right now, it’s critical that we spread the facts about this bipartisan agreement among our friends and in our communities.

Can you forward this message to three people who would benefit from learning more?

Thanks,

David

David Plouffe
Senior Advisor
The White House

P.S. -- President Obama discussed the agreement last night. Watch that video here.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013...191&utm_medium=text2&utm_campaign=middleclass
 

enterprise2

Alfrescian
Loyal
well, you said "the us has done it. nows our turn." not exactly what you said above. when challenged on facts, please retort accordingly and not twist and turn like a snake in a pit of slimy oil. before you use the us fiscal cliff avoidance as a sorry excuse, do some research first.

Hey this is a great debate. I did not 'twist and turn' but I did learn a lot from the bros here and this has changed my mind on a couple of things. It's not easy taxing the rich because no matter how u try to contain it, it affects the next layer down - the middle class and that's where the heat and fury is......just like what we r seeing in the US. So we r not that different after all!
 

eatshitndie

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Hey this is a great debate. I did not 'twist and turn' but I did learn a lot from the bros here and this has changed my mind on a couple of things. It's not easy taxing the rich because no matter how u try to contain it, it affects the next layer down - the middle class and that's where the heat and fury is......just like what we r seeing in the US. So we r not that different after all!

good. i will add to your points for stoking the debate. and use relevant comparisons to support arguments. most important is to learn from others' mistakes and not repeat it in sg.

in all fairness, i wish the fiscal cliff goes right thru' and is not "avoided" by the useless congress and clueless executive branch. in the long term, it's good for the country. so what if it rankles wall street and the stock market for the short term. all they're looking for is certainty. either way it swings, the market will eventually settle on certainty. it's uncertainty, indecisiveness and lack of agreement for a course of action to be taken by both parties that will rankle the market big time. what congress and the admin are actually doing with this stupid short term measure to avoid the cliff, which truly is only a scare tactic, is to kick the deficit can down the road. the cliff, if it goes thru', will do 2 critical things: (1) remove bush tax cuts, in effect reverting to pre-bush era taxes, which will increase gov revenue to combat the deficit, and (2) force drastic spending cuts on all gov entities, which will help reduce runaway gov expenses and create a budget surplus to address the growing deficit long term. the greatest burden on the future of america is creating this deficit monster that never seem to get smaller or at least stop growing. sooner or later, the growing deficit will destroy america inwardly. forget about having the most powerful armed forces in the world or in space when the gov with both parties involved cannot even cut spending. america is terminally sick with demagoguery.

the moment an elected gov starts pandering to the whimsical wishes of its voters to spend irresponsibly, demagogue style, on voters' welfare and goodwill, the country's future is kaput.
 

enterprise2

Alfrescian
Loyal
good. i will add to your points for stoking the debate. and use relevant comparisons to support arguments. most important is to learn from others' mistakes and not repeat it in sg.

in all fairness, i wish the fiscal cliff goes right thru' and is not "avoided" by the useless congress and clueless executive branch. in the long term, it's good for the country. so what if it rankles wall street and the stock market for the short term. all they're looking for is certainty. either way it swings, the market will eventually settle on certainty. it's uncertainty, indecisiveness and lack of agreement for a course of action to be taken by both parties that will rankle the market big time. what congress and the admin are actually doing with this stupid short term measure to avoid the cliff, which truly is only a scare tactic, is to kick the deficit can down the road. the cliff, if it goes thru', will do 2 critical things: (1) remove bush tax cuts, in effect reverting to pre-bush era taxes, which will increase gov revenue to combat the deficit, and (2) force drastic spending cuts on all gov entities, which will help reduce runaway gov expenses and create a budget surplus to address the growing deficit long term. the greatest burden on the future of america is creating this deficit monster that never seem to get smaller or at least stop growing. sooner or later, the growing deficit will destroy america inwardly. forget about having the most powerful armed forces in the world or in space when the gov with both parties involved cannot even cut spending. america is terminally sick with demagoguery.

the moment an elected gov starts pandering to the whimsical wishes of its voters to spend irresponsibly, demagogue style, on voters' welfare and goodwill, the country's future is kaput.

Thanks for the points. Sometimes in this situation, one wish for PaP style of management where they tell voters what they want or need, make decisions, execute decisions with impunity and tell voters that they are enjoying it....maybe US needs this kind of gahment to make things happen. No more endless politicking, no more gun lobbies...etc etc
 

drifter

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
1) Taxing the rich discourages investment and will cause tax revenues to fall.Higher tax rates discourage entrepreneurship and wealth creation and ultimately hurts the poor.

2) Taxing the rich discourages spending.Taxing the rich will reduce consumer spending, which is harmful to a recession recovery. The rich spend more than the poor on houses, consumers goods, etc. and thus stimulate business sales and employment.

3) If we taxed the rich at 100%, it would not reduce the deficit.
 

ionzu

Alfrescian
Loyal
1) Taxing the rich discourages investment and will cause tax revenues to fall.Higher tax rates discourage entrepreneurship and wealth creation and ultimately hurts the poor.

2) Taxing the rich discourages spending.Taxing the rich will reduce consumer spending, which is harmful to a recession recovery. The rich spend more than the poor on houses, consumers goods, etc. and thus stimulate business sales and employment.

3) If we taxed the rich at 100%, it would not reduce the deficit.

1) pure right wing hog wash. if you are right, Nokia would never have existed.
2) rising tides do not lift all boats. the rich alone cannot spend their way into an economic recovery. its a simple function of demand.
3) you are right there. what needs to be done is to increase workers' wages and decrease the share of profits that shareholders keep.
 

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Hey this is a great debate. I did not 'twist and turn' but I did learn a lot from the bros here and this has changed my mind on a couple of things. It's not easy taxing the rich because no matter how u try to contain it, it affects the next layer down - the middle class and that's where the heat and fury is......just like what we r seeing in the US. So we r not that different after all!

If you raise the taxes on the top earners and leave tax rate untouch for the others, how does the other latter get affected? Please enlighten us.
 

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
1) pure right wing hog wash. if you are right, Nokia would never have existed.
2) rising tides do not lift all boats. the rich alone cannot spend their way into an economic recovery. its a simple function of demand.
3) you are right there. what needs to be done is to increase workers' wages and decrease the share of profits that shareholders keep.


Thumbs up!
 

cass888

Alfrescian
Loyal
That is pure hogwash. Why SHOULD the rich give back to society?

That's pure hogwash. Why should the rich not give back to the society that enabled them to be rich? It is not like asking the rich to forgo 90 percent of their earnings. A US-type progressive rate will not impoverish the rich in Sinkapore.
 

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
1) Taxing the rich discourages investment and will cause tax revenues to fall.Higher tax rates discourage entrepreneurship and wealth creation and ultimately hurts the poor.

Right-wing bs. People, please think before you spit out these right-wing bs.

Greed has no limit. That's a fact and right-wingers are just greedy whatever. There's a tax equilibrium and a progressive tax rate up to 40 percent would not hurt investment. And it also depends on the limit. If the limit where the max rate hits is say, $2 million, the impact would be minimal.

If the personal tax rate is the key determinant of entrepreneurship, then sinkapore should have lots of successful entrepreneurs. Look around and tell me if that is the case? If there is money to be made, investment will pour in. It is demand that drives growth, not supply. Reaganomics (aka trickle-down economics) is pure fiction, no reflection of reality. Look at Ireland, it has the lowest corporate tax rate of 12 percent, yet it is in the 5th year of anemic growth, if not contraction. There is no demand in Europe or in Ireland for business to want to invest in that region!

Raising rates in sinkapore will definitely increase revenue. Those earning above $120k can afford to pay abit more. Even raising rates by 5 percent would lead to higher revenues.

The poor is being hurt right now because the government does NOT have a safety net for them. How will they be hurt even more with a tax increase on the rich?

2) Taxing the rich discourages spending.Taxing the rich will reduce consumer spending, which is harmful to a recession recovery. The rich spend more than the poor on houses, consumers goods, etc. and thus stimulate business sales and employment.

To the contrary, taxing the rich to spend more on the poor will boost consumption. Think. How much consumption will result from a million dollars in the hands of a household of 4 compared to the same amount of money dish out equally to 50 households? If you tell me the former consumes more than the latter, then I would suggest you read up on basic economics. The rich are hoarders. They invest in financial instruments that bring zero value to the economy.

3) If we taxed the rich at 100%, it would not reduce the deficit.

Only the stupid would think of raising the rate to 100 percent. And I don't think there is any economists in the world that would advocate that.
 

drifter

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
1) pure right wing hog wash. if you are right, Nokia would never have existed.
2) rising tides do not lift all boats. the rich alone cannot spend their way into an economic recovery. its a simple function of demand.
3) you are right there. what needs to be done is to increase workers' wages and decrease the share of profits that shareholders keep.


1) do u know why so many ppl from overseas come Singapore for investment ? It's because of low tax for biz owner . Just look at Austraila .. I wouldn't want to go there to set up Biz because of their tax .

2) without the rich who spend .. Company will close shop and ppl will lose their job . It does make an impact on the economy .
 

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Thanks for the points. Sometimes in this situation, one wish for PaP style of management where they tell voters what they want or need, make decisions, execute decisions with impunity and tell voters that they are enjoying it....maybe US needs this kind of gahment to make things happen. No more endless politicking, no more gun lobbies...etc etc

Then you will need to get rid of the constitution. Americans love to debate and voice their opinions loudly.
 

cass888

Alfrescian
Loyal
Communist bullshit.

Right-wing bs. People, please think before you spit out these right-wing bs.

Greed has no limit. That's a fact and right-wingers are just greedy whatever. There's a tax equilibrium and a progressive tax rate up to 40 percent would not hurt investment. And it also depends on the limit. If the limit where the max rate hits is say, $2 million, the impact would be minimal.
 

saratogas

Alfrescian
Loyal
When you start taxing the rich heavily... You will see them parking their $$$ outside SIN. Doing good should be from the heart... Forcing will only drive them away!
 

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
1) do u know why so many ppl from overseas come Singapore for investment ? It's because of low tax for biz owner . Just look at Austraila .. I wouldn't want to go there to set up Biz because of their tax .

If Sinkapore is so attractive for investment, why is the economy tanking? Look at Ireland ...lowest corporate tax rate of 12 percent. Why are investment not pouring in? Think Demand.
Sinkapore had been attractive because business can get cheap labour and the government boh chap. Take the cheap labour factor away and see what would happen.

2) without the rich who spend .. Company will close shop and ppl will lose their job . It does make an impact on the economy .

Simpletons!
 
Top