PAP is government, but votes is not something they are absolutely entitled to

[theDoors]

Title : S'poreans think govt is "not poor", expect more from govt: PM Lee
By :
Date : 30 September 2012 2118 hrs (SST)
URL : S'poreans think govt is "not poor", expect more from govt: PM Lee - Channel NewsAsia


SINGAPORE: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said Singaporeans think their government is "not poor" and as such, expect the government to do more for them.

He said this in a wide-ranging interview with "The Australian" newspaper, ahead of his second official visit to Australia next week.

Mr Lee was asked if there were any lessons Singapore could learn from the Western world, which is suffering from a crisis of entitlement spending.

Mr Lee said Singaporeans are not poor, but feel less well-off relative to others in society and that there is a relative sense that they should get an entitlement.

Mr Lee said from giving very minimal welfare, Singapore has gone on the basis of growth, high employment and low unemployment.

He said Singaporeans will get help, but the help is not something they are absolutely entitled to.

Using Europe as an example, Mr Lee said besides entitlement spending, the idea of state welfare is also entrenched among the Europeans.

He said Singapore needs to adjust accordingly "without going overboard".

- CNA/ck

 

[hairylee]

Pinky is humming as always.
How many of MIWs and cronies are living on welfare?

 

[bullfrog]

Singapore will soon be very poor, with his wife and Daddy-O throwing away our moneys.

 

[Cruxx]

Western world in a crisis of entitlement spending? Which country is it that has a public debt of 100.79% of GDP? (Clue: it's not France, Canada, Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, Finland, Denmark, Sweden etc.)

 

[wwabbit]

The 100.79% thing is a bit misleading because a large chunk of it is from the government borrowing from CPF to build HDB, then providing HDB loans to citizens. This debt is easily serviceable from HDB loan repayments, which is why Singapore retains an AAA rating despite the large debt.

In any case, welfare spending isn't really related to public debt. If you want to increase welfare spending, you will need to balance the budget by doing one of:

1. Increase taxes
2. Decrease spending in other areas
3. Draw from the reserves

The PAP is pretty much against doing any of the above, which is why they are unwilling to increase welfare spending. Except maybe by increasing GST... In an ideal world, we would increase the tax on the rich and the profitable corporations, and reduce the pay of the top civil servants, but we are probably unlikely to see that with the PAP in power.

 

[Cruxx]

The 100.79% thing is a bit misleading because a large chunk of it is from the government borrowing from CPF to build HDB, then providing HDB loans to citizens. This debt is easily serviceable from HDB loan repayments, which is why Singapore retains an AAA rating despite the large debt.

The sustainability of the debt is irrelevant. What I was trying to point out is the myth of Sinkie exceptionalism - that the Sinkie govt is somehow above extensive borrowing by virtue of its "enlightened" anti-welfare policies. Pray tell, why doesn't the Swedish government need to borrow from pension funds to build social housing and trap the Swedish populace in a long-term state of indebtedness? Sweden is supposed to be the archetype of the welfare state, the poster child of entitlement spending, and yet their public debt as a % of GDP is 1/3rd that of Sinkieland.

In any case, welfare spending isn't really related to public debt. If you want to increase welfare spending, you will need to balance the budget by doing one of:

1. Increase taxes
2. Decrease spending in other areas
3. Draw from the reserves

Failing which you would need to issue bonds to finance welfare spending. Welfare spending, in certain countries, is related to public debt.

 

[theDoors]

$1.1 billion to buy buses for private transport companies and $1 billion to build garden? Need more taxes for social spending?

 

[Cruxx]

$1.1 billion to buy buses for private transport companies and $1 billion to build garden? Need more taxes for social spending?

Some welfare spending is more equal than others. Highest paid ministers in the world and yet all they can do is preach self-reliance. Who says that there are no entitlements in Singapore?

 

[wwabbit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP
Look at where Sweden is (as well as all the other welfare states) compared to Singapore.

In welfare states, taxes are high to pay for welfare spending. You can't really issue government bonds to pay for welfare - government bonds become debt that need to be repaid. When HDB borrows from CPF to build flats and provide HDB loans, they can easily repay CPF from the loan premiums. Money spent on welfare, however, is money down the drain which you cannot get back to repay, if you borrow money to provide welfare.

Public debt is completely irrelevant to whether social welfare can be provided. By bringing it up you just show that you don't really understand the issue at hand.

 

[melzp]

All along, it had been like this:

Sgp Govt think citizens are RICH, therefore they not entiiled to welfare.

 

[greedy and cunning]

$1.1 billion to buy buses for private transport companies and $1 billion to build garden? Need more taxes for social spending?

not only that , the defence budget is very high.

they are unwilling to implement a more generous welfare.
while at the same time they had been keeping wages low and
allowing prices of everything to increase. hdb at redhill cost 700K ?? what the fuck.
the lower income groups are hit most severely by this kind of policy.

chiam ah tong provided free lift upgrading using tc surplus , and they passed a rule to prohibit it.
electricity generators mainly run on gas , yet when oil price increased shameless they increase
your electricity charges.
clinic claimed to sell you medicine at a subsidized price when in fact it made more profit from it.

you think this kind of people has a heart ? they are concern about your livelihood ?
this kind of people are good people ?

 

[Cruxx]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP
Look at where Sweden is (as well as all the other welfare states) compared to Singapore.

In welfare states, taxes are high to pay for welfare spending. You can't really issue government bonds to pay for welfare - government bonds become debt that need to be repaid.

Bizarre. Do tax revenue targets not need to be met then? You mean governments can just tax and spend, safe in the knowledge that the people will always fulfill their tax obligations?

When HDB borrows from CPF to build flats and provide HDB loans, they can easily repay CPF from the loan premiums. Money spent on welfare, however, is money down the drain which you cannot get back to repay, if you borrow money to provide welfare.

Typical sinkie whose only understanding of welfare is that of paying the unemployed to remain unemployed. What is welfare? Welfare is the state's obligation to ensure that each and every member of society enjoys a certain standard of living at the very least. That includes subsidies for education, health care, housing and, yes, benefits to the unemployed to prevent them from falling through the cracks. Is free education "money down the drain which you cannot get back to repay"? There's no guarantee that every educated citizen will be able to contribute to the economy. Are HDB subsidies "money down the drain which you cannot get back to repay"? There's no guarantee that homeowners will not default on their loans. What about unemployment benefits then? Imagine yourself as an employer. Would you hire some homeless guy who comes into your office looking all dishevelled, distressed and in desperate need of a job or someone who's spent some time upgrading himself, looking fresh and ready for new employment? Whether the unemployed is taking more than they contribute is irrelevant. If you wanna live in a civilised society, you'll have to secure the human rights of everyone, including that of the lazy and the criminal. You don't torture murderers in jail, so why should you be so callous towards those who are unwilling to take up low-paying, stressful jobs? What is the raison d'etre of fiscal prudence if not to maintain the well-being of the people?

 

[scroobal]

Well said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP
Look at where Sweden is (as well as all the other welfare states) compared to Singapore.

In welfare states, taxes are high to pay for welfare spending. You can't really issue government bonds to pay for welfare - government bonds become debt that need to be repaid. When HDB borrows from CPF to build flats and provide HDB loans, they can easily repay CPF from the loan premiums. Money spent on welfare, however, is money down the drain which you cannot get back to repay, if you borrow money to provide welfare.

Public debt is completely irrelevant to whether social welfare can be provided. By bringing it up you just show that you don't really understand the issue at hand.

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP
Look at where Sweden is (as well as all the other welfare states) compared to Singapore.

In welfare states, taxes are high to pay for welfare spending. You can't really issue government bonds to pay for welfare - government bonds become debt that need to be repaid. When HDB borrows from CPF to build flats and provide HDB loans, they can easily repay CPF from the loan premiums. Money spent on welfare, however, is money down the drain which you cannot get back to repay, if you borrow money to provide welfare.

Public debt is completely irrelevant to whether social welfare can be provided. By bringing it up you just show that you don't really understand the issue at hand.

Low and middle income Singaporeans pay a much higher effective tax rate than commonly accepted. When HDB homes are priced many times over the costs of building then the government makes a huge revenue advancement. When CPF are not paid back then there is another tax incidence at play. When you add these two figures, as well as other hidden taxes such as COE and paying monopolistic prices for necessary goods and services then you get a truer picture of how much taxes low and middle income Singaporeans pay throughout their lives.

We are not talking small money here. Someone earning $2000 a month pays about $450 to CPF and another $300 for HDB mortgage. If we take one third of the HDB mortgage as genuine costs of building and the balance as government revenue due to profiteering then we get an effective income tax rate of about 32.5%. Unlike so called welfare states, this 32.5% tax rate brings nothing to Singaporeans other than a small monthly allowance should they reach retirement age. All this while, low and middle income Singaporeans pay other direct and indirect taxes and monopolistic prices. It is quite easy to see that the effective tax rate for low and middle income Singaporeans is close to 40% which is what so called welfare states receive. Their citizens receive free education up to university, unemployment benefits, a healthy adjusted for inflation pension, effective and truly affordable healthcare and a transparent government.

To add insult to injury, low and middle income Singaporeans are accused of not paying income taxes and are actually heavily subsidized throughout their lifetime.

 

[Cruxx]

Well said.

Good. Another "moderate" sinkie. Pray tell, how well said was that? Care to elucidate? This joker argued that "public debt is completely irrelevant to whether social welfare can be provided" at a time when governments around Europe are predicating their cuts in welfare provision on the unsustainability of public debt and here you are agreeing with such a patently ignorant claim?

 

[wwabbit]

Good to see you are finally on the right track and agreeing with me.

Notice that you said earlier that "The sustainability of the debt is irrelevant."
But now you are saying that the "unsustainability of public debt" is causing (parts of) Europe to cut their Welfare spending.

At least you now understand that it is not the SIZE of the public debt that matters, but the SUSTAINABILITY.

Also,
1. You cannot provide Welfare by increasing public debt - it is simply unsustainable.
2. If your public debt is unsustainable, cutting back on welfare spending is one way to get it back on track


This article pretty much explains in great detail my thoughts on this topic. http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2...versation-some-kinds-of-talk-dont-come-cheap/

TLDR: Yes, we really need to look into increasing welfare spending. However the only realistic way to fund that is to increase taxes.

No chance of PAP doing that though, since increasing taxes will discourage foreign investment and talents. And why bother when current revenues are enough such that you can time a small insignificant welfare handout once every 5 years....

 

[Cruxx]

Good to see you are finally on the right track and agreeing with me.

Notice that you said earlier that "The sustainability of the debt is irrelevant."
But now you are saying that the "unsustainability of public debt" is causing (parts of) Europe to cut their Welfare spending.

At least you now understand that it is not the SIZE of the public debt that matters, but the SUSTAINABILITY.

Over my dead body would I agree with such arrant nonsense as "public debt is completely irrelevant to whether social welfare can be provided." What I said was that the sustainability of debt is irrelevant to my argument that Singapore is hardly debt-free despite the lack of entitlement spending. The reality is that anti-welfare Singapore is in debt, never mind whether the debt is serviceable or not. Never did I claim that the sustainability of debt is irrelevant to social welfare. I challenge you to point out the very words that I used to express such a fallacy.

Also,
1. You cannot provide Welfare by increasing public debt - it is simply unsustainable.
2. If your public debt is unsustainable, cutting back on welfare spending is one way to get it back on track

Once again, sustainability is not what I argued about. Try to keep up. You're arguing in normative terms about how governments ought not to borrow to spend on welfare whereas I merely described the reality that governments around the world do rely on debt to finance welfare expenditure. When did I make any judgement on whether government borrowing is sustainable or not? I was merely correcting you for saying that "welfare spending isn't really related to public debt" which would be news to those governments agitating for austerity in Europe. Public pensions, social security and health care form the bulk of the British government's spending. Are you seriously telling me all the debt they incurred does not go towards these welfare provisions? That welfare spending isn't really related to public debt? Oh dear.

 

[wwabbit]

Strawman fail. Welfare spending isn't related to the size of public debt, and only indirectly related to the sustainability of public debt.

The money for welfare spending comes from government revenues, not from public debt. Public debt is used to fund projects for which returns are expected, e.g. public housing

Only in the case where government spending exceeds government revenues, the government will have to resort to public debt to pay their creditors, however this can only be a temporary solution because it is unsustainable. The government will either have to increase government revenue or to cut spending.

 

[Cruxx]

The money for welfare spending comes from government revenues, not from public debt. Public debt is used to fund projects for which returns are expected, e.g. public housing.

Public housing is a form of welfare. Oh dear. It's going downhill. I won't be replying to any of you blue PAPzi astroturfers any longer. Enjoy your time here.

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

Strawman fail. Welfare spending isn't related to the size of public debt, and only indirectly related to the sustainability of public debt.

The money for welfare spending comes from government revenues, not from public debt. Public debt is used to fund projects for which returns are expected, e.g. public housing

Only in the case where government spending exceeds government revenues, the government will have to resort to public debt to pay their creditors, however this can only be a temporary solution because it is unsustainable. The government will either have to increase government revenue or to cut spending.

You have made ridiculous assertions over and over again without any sense of propriety. You are deliberately a PAPzi dog. Perhaps I and others have lacked decisiveness, so firstly, please define "welfare" as you have used it in your posts.

Welfare spending isn't related to the size of public debt, and only indirectly related to the sustainability of public debt.

Based on what and where have you made this largely false assertion?

The money for welfare spending comes from government revenues, not from public debt. Public debt is used to fund projects for which returns are expected, e.g. public housing.

Based on what and where have you made this largely false assertion? Have you worked with every government in existence since taxation and the concept of public debt came about?

Only in the case where government spending exceeds government revenues, the government will have to resort to public debt to pay their creditors, however this can only be a temporary solution because it is unsustainable. The government will either have to increase government revenue or to cut spending.

You are laughable and totally have a screwed on head. You remind of pukimati Yindians that have landed here and profusely sprout your idiotic, rude, and false sense of the truth. Please allow yourself some time for digestion. Perhaps the thought and feeling that you have eased your inner intrusions publicly makes you feel proud of your, otherwise, known insecurities but do take notice that everythin you have posted is based on gutless lies and baseless morals. You are an Yindian and I know you very well! :oIo: