• 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.

More social spending to assist the elderly. But taxes have to be higher

papisgreat

Alfrescian
Loyal
Another brilliant policy from PAP. Before spending, they need to increase taxes to be able to afford that.

Taxes must rise for social spending to increase: Ng Eng Hen

The money needed for increased social spending can only come from higher taxes, says Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen, reiterating a point made recently by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

Speaking on the sidelines of a forum on the prime minister’s National Day Rally speech on Thursday evening, Ng said Singapore’s ageing population necessitates higher social spending by the government.

He noted that by 2025, there will be roughly two to three working adults for every elderly person in Singapore. The Ministry for Community Development, Youth and Sports also estimates that by 2030, elderly people aged 65 and above will form almost one-quarter of Singapore's citizen population.

“Our society is ageing, we will have more aged people, and we want to take better care of the disadvantaged and disabled,” he told reporters. “Just by numbers alone, even if you spend the same amount, social spending has to increase.”

Responding to a question posed in the forum and addressing an audience of about 200, Ng said, “If you want more social spending, you have to find the money only from taxes.”

Lee had said in his speech on Sunday that taxes would have to be raised within the next two decades to fund higher social spending. He also explained that, though people have said the government could rely on reserves to finance the increase, it has already in a way been doing so through the use of returns from investing the reserves.

When asked by a forum participant about the possibility of using budget surpluses to fund the nation’s increments in social spending, Ng pointed out that the government does not have surpluses, noting that PM Lee had even mentioned in his rally that it took out S$8 billion from Singapore’s reserves in the last financial year.

“If our economy grows, if the size of the economy grows and revenues come in, then perhaps we don’t. But as you know, we have some limits of growth in terms of labour and our land, so our economy is projected to grow one to three per cent,” Ng added.

“But these are issues I think that are best dealt with when we need to, it’s just that we first have to determine the national conversation — how do we better take care of the disadvantaged groups... and then decide from there how much, what we need, what we can afford and how (we can) husband our resources to take better care of them. I think that’s a better conversation."
 

Jlokta

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
I'm sure they'll raise taxes.

To help the elderly or to cover TH ass that im not sure.
 

papisgreat

Alfrescian
Loyal
I hope that PAP will impose heavier taxing so that there are sufficient funds before spending. We have all seen how irresponsible policies in the UK have ruined their economy.
 

papisgreat

Alfrescian
Loyal
Everyone wants the government to spend more on social causes. Now they are doing it, and you folks are still complaining.
 

Jlokta

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Everyone wants the government to spend more on social causes. Now they are doing it, and you folks are still complaining.

1) They haven't done it yet.
2) Garmen is more than capable of supporting these social measures without additional taxes.

So until we these happening, it's still like most of their policies, chui gong lam par song.
 

Cruxx

Alfrescian
Loyal
That's the social contract in sinkieland: you die your own business. When was the last time you guys volunteered at the old folks home? How much have you donated to charitable causes? :rolleyes:
 

Kinana

Alfrescian
Loyal
That's the social contract in sinkieland: you die your own business. When was the last time you guys volunteered at the old folks home? How much have you donated to charitable causes? :rolleyes:

You are right. Helping the elderly can either come from charity or from the govt. Since people aren't giving enough to charity, it must come thru taxation.
 

batman1

Alfrescian
Loyal
Cut down the President of Singapore and PAP ministers salaries and bonuses by 75%.
Reintroduced the Estate Duty which was abolished in 2008
.
 

BuiKia

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
With the increased influx of FT still not enough tax? More people, more tax right?

Singapore GDP is highest, so should have more people kenna tax, then where the money go?
 

Jlokta

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
That's the social contract in sinkieland: you die your own business. When was the last time you guys volunteered at the old folks home? How much have you donated to charitable causes? :rolleyes:

I donate to ASD and SPCA.

At least i know the $$ are being put to good use instead of the installation of a gold tap.
 

TheDarkKnightRises

Alfrescian
Loyal
Everyone wants the government to spend more on social causes. Now they are doing it, and you folks are still complaining.


You are right. Helping the elderly can either come from charity or from the govt. Since people aren't giving enough to charity, it must come thru taxation.

do u think their is transparency/accountability in money collected from tax are allocated properly instead of lining their own pockets? a portion of it goes to hire ppl like u here i guess,

knn to u and yr clone
 

Kinana

Alfrescian
Loyal
Cut down the President of Singapore and PAP ministers salaries and bonuses by 75%.
Reintroduced the Estate Duty which was abolished in 2008
.

There are only so few of them it won't amount to much so thats silly.

Estate Duty is not a fair tax as it robs people who worked hard to build up their assets. Besides, a tax on estate is really a tax on savings, which is equivalent to investment actually reduces investments. It would also drive funds either underground or overseas which is self defeating.
A fairer tax would be consumption tax. It is always better to tax consumption, not income or savings.
 

papisgreat

Alfrescian
Loyal

There are only so few of them it won't amount to much so thats silly.

Estate Duty is not a fair tax as it robs people who worked hard to build up their assets. Besides, a tax on estate is really a tax on savings, which is equivalent to investment actually reduces investments. It would also drive funds either underground or overseas which is self defeating.
A fairer tax would be consumption tax. It is always better to tax consumption, not income or savings.

Another astute piece of analysis. It is indeed better to tax consumption.
 

johnny333

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
When the GST was increased, the reason given was that it was supposed to be used for the poor:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:


The PAP has run out of good excuses or maybe it's just that we have all heard it before:rolleyes:
If they can fund expensive bicycles, office chairs, super scalar salaries, mega defence spending etc... why can't they give more to the "lesser mortals":confused:
 

Bonsai

Alfrescian
Loyal
Looking after the elderly? This is truly lacking. More a selective cursory look on ad hoc mode as oppose to a blanket policy reflective of a responsible good government and not the usual media dressing good exercise
 

streetsmart73

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
do u think their is transparency/accountability in money collected from tax are allocated properly instead of lining their own pockets? a portion of it goes to hire ppl like u here i guess,

knn to u and yr clone



hi there


1. hahaha!
2. no doubt about that, man.
3. plus the entire herd of dafter sheep, running dogs & toy paper soldiers.
 

Kinana

Alfrescian
Loyal
When the GST was increased, the reason given was that it was supposed to be used for the poor:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:
Yes it is. The rebates given to the poor are more than what they paid in GST.
The revenues raised were spent of helping the poor.

The PAP has run out of good excuses or maybe it's just that we have all heard it before:rolleyes:
If they can fund expensive bicycles, office chairs, super scalar salaries, mega defence spending etc... why can't they give more to the "lesser mortals":confused:
Defence spending is necessary.
Why pick on extremes. Besides, I don't think our civil servants or ministers are overpaid at all for what they do.
 
Top