-
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.
Sylvia Lim has suggested 25% income tax for those earning above $1 million.
- Thread starter makapaaa
- Start date
yes, yes, good idea............................................
I'll tell you a little story.. .fact.. not fiction.
A group of people decided to do a management buy out and took over a company. I was invited to join the board if I invested some money.
I took up the offer and also took on operational responsibilities.
6 months later, I realised that the CEO was not very capable and he knew very little about the technologies involved in making our products. On the other hand, the Ops director was a very capable guy who knew the ropes and I wondered why he wasn't the CEO.
So I asked the team one day when the CEO wasn't around why on earth he had ended up as CEO when he didn't appear to be at all capable of running the business.
The answer was simple.... he was the CEO because he was the one who had seen the opportunity for a management buy out and he was also the one who had arranged the financing and put the whole deal together. None of the other managers had a vision of owning the company. When the former owners put the business on the market, all them started looking for other jobs instead. The CEO, on the other hand, decided he wanted to own and run the company and he made it happen.
The moral of the story is that you may not be the best at what you do but if you are the one that can see opportunities and turn them into reality, you can still be the top dog.
LKY's story is similar. The architects of modern Singapore were his henchmen but he was the one who had the ability to take charge and lead the team.
Many people talk too much about how good they are and how hopeless everyone else is but sadly that's as far as they go. As I always say, talk is cheap. Doing takes a bit more guts.
It's the same in the army, the officer and encik.
The former asks you to die first while the latter knows how to take care of you.
I posted this in another thread from another folder...................
"It's also a fact that the pap government have not always been like what they are now. In the early years, there was a core of gentlemen (the vast majority of whom have either died or retired) who despite their possible individual flaws as human beings, were collectively determined to create a better country for the ordinary citizens. Somehow, this got lost along the way. Perhaps that's what TCB sees."
Took charge and led, but then later got lost along the way........................
bro,
what happened along the way?
see the edited post above......................................
bro,
what happened along the way?
Nothing happened other than the fact that times and expectations change and what worked in one era won't necessarily work in another.
LKY's team had very tangible goals. Jobs, running water, flushing toilets, electricity, a concrete floor and roof, basic health care.
They delivered on their promises and success was easy to measure.
The world today is a lot more complicated.
Much too complicated for their individually and collectively pappy simple minds.
Steve Jobs is no brilliant engineer but he took Apple where no engineer can bring!
You expect the simpletons in the WP to do any better???
Singapore had one huge advantage over other Asian nations in the 1960s. We could communicate in good English. The MNCs loved us because of this. The money poured in because we could actually communicate with head office. I know this for a fact because the President of the corporation actually told me so.
Tell me what Singapore has in the 21st century that other countries cannot offer when it comes to fighting for investment $$$.
The brilliant engineer was Wozniak but nobody has approached him to take over the helm. That's because it takes a special person like Steve J to create greatness and it has nothing to do with technical skills.
You expect the simpletons in the WP to do any better???
Singapore had one huge advantage over other Asian nations in the 1960s. We could communicate in good English. The MNCs loved us because of this. The money poured in because we could actually communicate with head office. I know this for a fact because the President of the corporation actually told me so.
Tell me what Singapore has in the 21st century that other countries cannot offer when it comes to fighting for investment $$$.
I support WP not because they are damn smart but because the pap needs to be out for at least one term so that they will come back more empathetic and humble.
Singapore's advantage is not the above, but this which I posted in another thread started by zhihau:
"I used to believe that SG and Singaporeans had a competitive advantage because of the general tendency to be strait-laced, incorruptible, fair and just and able to exhibit strong individual and corporate governance which determines the way we deal with others, even if it means less material benefits for ourselves or our family members/relatives/friends or 同乡.
That competitive advantage in my view just isn't there anymore. This can be seen from the number and types of crimes being reported, the interaction we have with others including colleagues, business associates, relatives, acquaintances, service providers, the way people behave and react to situations in public, etc.
Somewhere along our country's short journey, that valuable "trait" got lost."
http://singsupplies.com/showthread.php?146636-random-musings
Your story is about a successful startup but this CEO could only be good in starting up the company and not necessarily in running the company once it has started. In Singapore where true entrepreneurship is found in the SME. The successful entrepreneur recognizes talent and brings the right people into the company he has started and it grows. In Singapore, entrepreneurship in SME was not well supported by government policies for a long time until very recently, particularly in the last budget, where there seems to be a change of heart. Maybe the government now feels that over-reliance on MNCs over which it has limited control is not a healthy situation and we are already left well behind countries like Japan and Korea which have very well developed local enterprises that have gained global recognition. We are now playing catching up. It is funny that even PAP MPs had spoken on this need 10 to 15 years ago and nothing of significance has been done.
But back to CEOs. The typical CEO in Singapore is someone working for an MNC or a large local conglomerate or a GLC. 50% of employees work for companies like these and there are of course also heads of department of government departments, stat boards and agencies.
These CEOs are typically parachuted in. They are not the entrepreneurs who started their businesses. More often than not, the system is already in place with all functions fielded by reasonably capable functional heads that nothing much will go wrong provided the CEO does not foul it up. The chances of he fouling it up is very real. In order to show that he is his own man, he has new ideas and can show some contributions, he starts changing things, like bringing in his own men, changing the organization or process, without an adequate understanding of the business he is taking over. Most seem to have preconceived ideas of how the company should operate before even stepping foot into the company. How many CEOs, even those who were very successful in an earlier assignment, are equally successful when given a second chance, if the nature of business is not exactly similar? Not many notable examples to think of.
In Singapore, they post in people from different industries, some not even from any industry but an "essential service", believing that there is such a thing as a CEO gene. It is a miracle that anyone can actually succeed well. But these people have good networking among their own kind and businesses are supported by incestuous transactions among themselves.
Last edited:
A world class laundromat service.
A progressive tax system can only lead to long term economic decline. Punishing people who make more money will drive away capitalists. Like electricity, capital always flow to the path of least resistance. Over the long term, money will move elsewhere.
What is needed is a system of flat tax with no loopholes for everybody, i.e., no tax credits, rebates, deductibles, etc. Everybody pays the same tax rate. Hong Kong is an example of a country with a flat tax rate for everybody and that's one reason it's doing so well. But Hong Kong also has minimum wage. Minimum wage is sometimes necessary to prevent unbridled capitalism leading to exploitation and to ensure social stability.
Better still is zero income tax. That is, replace income tax with a sales or consumption tax. This way, everybody has to pay tax. The rich will pay more tax because they usually spend more. The argument against consumption tax is that it will cause hardship to the poor already struggling to make ends mean. To address this, some basic necessity items like rice, milk, cooking oil, etc., can be exempt from consumption tax, or there can be welfare programs for the very poor. Welfare is sometimes necessary to ensure social stability. But welfare should be minimal. There is this true story in ancient China. Once there was a famine in some parts of China and refugees started arriving at a wealthy city. The city folks were very kind and gave the refugees a lot of good food to eat (instead of giving only porridge - the food traditionally given to refugees) to the extent that the refugees later refused to leave or work. When the Emperor heard of this, he passed a decree that refugees could only be fed porridge and only two meals a day. If they wanted more, they had to work for it.
What is needed is a system of flat tax with no loopholes for everybody, i.e., no tax credits, rebates, deductibles, etc. Everybody pays the same tax rate. Hong Kong is an example of a country with a flat tax rate for everybody and that's one reason it's doing so well. But Hong Kong also has minimum wage. Minimum wage is sometimes necessary to prevent unbridled capitalism leading to exploitation and to ensure social stability.
Better still is zero income tax. That is, replace income tax with a sales or consumption tax. This way, everybody has to pay tax. The rich will pay more tax because they usually spend more. The argument against consumption tax is that it will cause hardship to the poor already struggling to make ends mean. To address this, some basic necessity items like rice, milk, cooking oil, etc., can be exempt from consumption tax, or there can be welfare programs for the very poor. Welfare is sometimes necessary to ensure social stability. But welfare should be minimal. There is this true story in ancient China. Once there was a famine in some parts of China and refugees started arriving at a wealthy city. The city folks were very kind and gave the refugees a lot of good food to eat (instead of giving only porridge - the food traditionally given to refugees) to the extent that the refugees later refused to leave or work. When the Emperor heard of this, he passed a decree that refugees could only be fed porridge and only two meals a day. If they wanted more, they had to work for it.
HK also progressive tax rate structure, though lesser numbers of tax bracket.
Imagine all the pappy top dogs being taxed for their wealth it will never happen.
HK has a flat tax system. See the links below:
http://www.businessinsider.com/america-take-example-on-hong-kongs-simple-and-efficient-flat-tax-2010-7
http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/18/hong-kong-tax-system-law-business-opinions-books-michael-littlewood_3.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/america-take-example-on-hong-kongs-simple-and-efficient-flat-tax-2010-7
http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/18/hong-kong-tax-system-law-business-opinions-books-michael-littlewood_3.html
Last edited:
Not true.
In terms of middle class income tax, US is comparable to Canada.
And if you consider that Canada has better welfare benefits (e.g., universal healthcare), then US income tax is actually higher than Canada.
In terms of middle class income tax, US is comparable to Canada.
And if you consider that Canada has better welfare benefits (e.g., universal healthcare), then US income tax is actually higher than Canada.
Similar threads
