Looks like its getting really serious....
-
I do not support Dr Chee, but I am also against the CURRENT PAP politiciansOriginally posted by deathbait:I'm not saying you can't support him. Just don't confuse support with blind following.
Also, I'm wrote that last post in a relatively calm manner in the hopes of getting you guys to understand how it works.
To Andrew :
This is a bigger thing than our squabble. You need to look at it objectively. The money is NOT yours. You'll never get it back. EVER. People put themselves in debt. Governments don't do that.
And if you're going to tell me that the system put in place to provide HDBs to people in exchange for a low interest rate loan is better than the alternative, massive homeless population, i am going to go down there right now to slap you silly.
You sitting in the comfort of your home can complain about it. How many people would be homeless if not for the HDB scheme? Do you know of poverty? Of people who would otherwise be definitely homeless?
It's not hard to see that people put themselves in debt. In fact, the government is pretty obviously trying to re-organise the system to increase variable tax over a blanket one.
COE : the really poor don't have to worry about this one.
ERP : ditto
income tax : poor, low tax, hello?
GST : hits the poor more than the rich, but that's a standard tax applied all over the world. The time to complain about it was a decade ago, not now.
What you are talking about (the HDB scheme) is an achievement of the past. Taking out old achievements to brag repeatedly doesn't conceal the fact that this PAP batch isn't achieving what they are being paid for (and they are paid many times more than the old leaders that came up with good schemes for Singapore)
COE, ERP, etc, do not help the citizens, and only generate more problems to the citizens. Those are not achievements to me.
The refusal to implement a staggered GST (0% tax for necessities) due to the excuse of the system being too complex, is unacceptable to me. Try telling that to your boss next time when he asks you to complete a task. You probably will end up with a bad performance grading. You are PAID to come up with solutions, not coming up with excuses.
Lately, you heard about all the talk about rising costs of living. They said they help in a different way. They do not believe in controlling prices of necessities, but will instead dole out cash subsidies from time to time to help the people.
The fact is, The former solution results probably in increased RECURRENT costs for the Govt, whereas the latter solution goes in line with their "Low Pay, High bonus" policy for the people, where the subsidy (bonus) is never guaranteed, therefore they can always kill off the subsidy (bonus) whenever they want.
And the way they work reminds me of petrol companies. Increase price, give discounts, but the price increase remains a fact.
I am neutral to Andrew, coz he is too extreme. Nevertheless, I am waiting for him to answer Gazelle's questions. Its interesting to see how a person who writes a book will answer or avoid Gazelle, since his questions make sense. -
No objections with your explanation... Its quite factual that government monies are consolidated for re-distribution in accordance with the annual budget, with proper revenue forecasts and estimates of budget surpluses or deficits properly announced.Originally posted by deathbait:erm, no it doesn't?
But it's easy to think so, which is why i'm going to politely explain it to you now.
When we pay our taxes(COE/ERP/GST/etc), we do so with the understanding that this money goes to the government in exchange for their commitment to keep the society running and the country well, basically healthy.
Compare this to any service provider if you will. What they do with the money has nothing to do with you, as long as they fulfill their commitment to provide you with the service.
Same thing goes for the government's finances. As long as you have no real thing to complain about the country, it's doing it's job. Are many Singaporeans homeless? Are the roads and streets clean/kept in usable condition? Are your children getting an education? The government has fulfilled it's commitment to the public. How the money is used is not your problem, unless they start failing to hold their end of the promise.
So what are your complaints about the investments temasek made that are losing money? Is it that you're losing money too? That's not true. It does not affect you at all, unless you find the government cutting corners, like closing down schools, or cleaning the streets twice a year.
I know the taxes have been increased lately. That has nothing to do with the government losing money in investments. So please, don't even think of drawing a correlation between the two.
Budget speeches are, undoubtedly, one of the most important, albeit boring, sessions of parliamentary sessions.
However, although it is fair and factually correct to say that the government's duty is to properly disburse public monies, it is not exactly good PR to suggest that the public has no right to question how a govt spends public money.
Certain aspects of public spending is indeed questionable and wasteful. One needs only to read the Auditor-General's reports to know some of the more notable instances of waste and irregularities.
My point is that it is perfectly legitimate for a citizen to raise questions about the government's expenditures.
It is not the point that we should not complain just because the roads are working and the streets are clean. These things could perhaps be done at a disproportionate financial cost that may reflect poor tender practices, poor choice of service providers, misdirected resources, etc etc etc.
What's wrong with being more accountable to the public and whats wrong with the public wanting to know more? -
I am actually sympathetic to their explanationOriginally posted by soul_rage:The refusal to implement a staggered GST (0% tax for necessities) due to the excuse of the system being too complex, is unacceptable to me. Try telling that to your boss next time when he asks you to complete a task. You probably will end up with a bad performance grading. You are PAID to come up with solutions, not coming up with excuses.
It is a potential chimera and it is really complicated because it will be almost impossible to properly categorize a "necessity".
There are also other implications: what about import GST? Are we going to allow 0% import GST for a "necessity" like say... rice flour?
And what about service GST on value add to "necessities" imported? Like, for example, if I import rice flour and make it into rice noodles and sell it to a supermarket? The "value-add" would have been taxable, even if the cost of the flour was not. Should it be waived?
And then, will the supermarket be allowed retail it for 0% GST?
The compliance costs for a company to track all these requirements will be onerous and they will quite simply pass on this cost to the consumers, GST or not.
Here's another crap example just for fun: what if i made the rice flour into udong, or ramen, or spaghetti? are they are same as rice noodle? should they be duty free too?
The list goes on... So really... the "its too complicated" rationale is not an "excuse"... its an oversimplification of a tragically complicated issue.
From IRAS's perspective, it will be impossible to regulate such a tax regime. They will probably have to hire more leeches... errm... sorry, "tax officers" to monitor the regime... that's gonna drive up costs even more.
Then, u'll find that the govt will need to spend more money to make sure that they collect less money and u don't have to pay more GST... its an impossible situation.
I quite agree that the GST is a regressive tax... But I don't find the exemption of so called "necessities" equitable as well.
It might be more equitable to waive GST for goods on importation, but to apply it fairly across the board for all other transactions and services performed in the economy, post-importation.
This may even stimulate foreign trade on top of slightly reducing the tax burden across the board. -
see this? at half time the Dow is up....
The point is, don't look at short term charts, definitely not 5 days charts, to get clues about the direction of the economy. Day to day, is very volatile and misleading.... -
see? look at minutes charts useless de...
-
hahaha I never noticed until now...... yahoo charts, updates automatically even when you link it to forums... (see the time of postings...)
...when I made the first post above, it was 28 November 2007 · 02:23 AM (1:23 pm according to the time shown on the charts US Time) and I made the second post at 28 November 2007 · 03:41 AM (2:43 pm according to the time shown on the charts US Time) ... by the time I made the second post, the first chart is exactly the same as the second chart...
... that means the charts automatically updates....! hahaha three months later, looking at the chart and the comments will be very funny...
-
Andrew there is no point telling us you are smart by reporting DowJones and yesterday news because my notebook and internet connection is already capable for feeding me more accurate and timely information.
If you want to show us how smart an investor you are, let me ask you.
a) Suppose if your running a investment company that manage $100m worth of fund. Am I right to say that since July 2007 (as you claim is the time have predicted the market will crash)you would have already exit the stock market?
b) Suppose if Yes. What will you be doing with the $100m worth of funds?
c) Suppose your answer is NO, will you be able to tell us which are the stock which you will continue to hold starting from today (reason I asking starting from today is because I know you will dig out the best performing stocks from the last 3 months and say thats your prediction)
Over to you Andrew!! -
As things stands, I have been right since July...Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:... yesterday you had a big laugh telling everyone that I was wrong... meaning? You are laughing at my analytical skills... meaning? ... when I am right, it is due to my superior analytical skills... PWNED! -
You still don't get it, I was playing nice to you when you showed your 5 days chart, refer back to that page and see how nice I was to you... so as to set you up for...Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:... yesterday you had a big laugh telling everyone that I was wrong... meaning? You are laughing at my analytical skills... meaning? ... when I am right, it is due to my superior analytical skills... PWNED!
-
now you want me to answer your questions?.... you can go an sniff panties...Originally posted by gigabyte14:
-
Well, my stance is different from yours. As you have seen, there are other countries that implemented staggered GST, and they have been successful. As such, if our leaders are paid 3 to 4x more than other leaders, then they should be expected to think of this 'chimera' and turn it into a 'mouse'. Impossible? Can't be, since our leaders are paid more to think, and other countries have implemented this successfully.Originally posted by CX:I am actually sympathetic to their explanation It is a potential chimera and it is really complicated because it will be almost impossible to properly categorize a "necessity".
There are also other implications: what about import GST? Are we going to allow 0% import GST for a "necessity" like say... rice flour?
And what about service GST on value add to "necessities" imported? Like, for example, if I import rice flour and make it into rice noodles and sell it to a supermarket? The "value-add" would have been taxable, even if the cost of the flour was not. Should it be waived?
And then, will the supermarket be allowed retail it for 0% GST?
The compliance costs for a company to track all these requirements will be onerous and they will quite simply pass on this cost to the consumers, GST or not.
Here's another crap example just for fun: what if i made the rice flour into udong, or ramen, or spaghetti? are they are same as rice noodle? should they be duty free too?
The list goes on... So really... the "its too complicated" rationale is not an "excuse"... its an oversimplification of a tragically complicated issue.
From IRAS's perspective, it will be impossible to regulate such a tax regime. They will probably have to hire more leeches... errm... sorry, "tax officers" to monitor the regime... that's gonna drive up costs even more.
Then, u'll find that the govt will need to spend more money to make sure that they collect less money and u don't have to pay more GST... its an impossible situation.
I quite agree that the GST is a regressive tax... But I don't find the exemption of so called "necessities" equitable as well.
It might be more equitable to waive GST for goods on importation, but to apply it fairly across the board for all other transactions and services performed in the economy, post-importation.
This may even stimulate foreign trade on top of slightly reducing the tax burden across the board.
Besides, their target of 10% GST is really a tad unreasonable to be implemented across the board. The impact to the poor will be really huge.
Either way, if there is a willingness to implement a staggered GST, there are ways to circumvent those excuses they came up with to convince us that staggered system is impossible. For eg, use the simplest solution by just categorizing all rice types to 0% GST, regardless. After all, you gain much more from other types of goods, so what's the problem about letting some types of rice that are more 'luxurious' get thru the loophole?
Hawkers have been utilizing the loophole in our income taxes for years and years. So what's the complaint about certain goods getting thru the loophole?
Anyway, the importation idea you have is worth considering. -
I agree with what you said. It's a little unreasonable to say "We know better, you don't question", when the Govt wants us to be less dependent on them.Originally posted by CX:No objections with your explanation... Its quite factual that government monies are consolidated for re-distribution in accordance with the annual budget, with proper revenue forecasts and estimates of budget surpluses or deficits properly announced.
Budget speeches are, undoubtedly, one of the most important, albeit boring, sessions of parliamentary sessions.
However, although it is fair and factually correct to say that the government's duty is to properly disburse public monies, it is not exactly good PR to suggest that the public has no right to question how a govt spends public money.
Certain aspects of public spending is indeed questionable and wasteful. One needs only to read the Auditor-General's reports to know some of the more notable instances of waste and irregularities.
My point is that it is perfectly legitimate for a citizen to raise questions about the government's expenditures.
It is not the point that we should not complain just because the roads are working and the streets are clean. These things could perhaps be done at a disproportionate financial cost that may reflect poor tender practices, poor choice of service providers, misdirected resources, etc etc etc.
What's wrong with being more accountable to the public and whats wrong with the public wanting to know more?
Besides, public money is, well, PUBLIC. Its OUR MONEY, so what's wrong with questioning how they use it? I would like to ensure that they don't channel discreetly loads of our cash to pay for their ridiculous pensions (60% of their pay every month if he is a minister and is > 55 years old).
Since we run Singapore like an incorporation, then the shareholders (which is US) have every right to ensure the management (CEO (3 CEOs) and other higher management) do not siphon large amounts of money to reward themselves for mediocre performance.
One of the things I look at when investing in a IPO firm is whether the directors are paying ridiculous amts to themselves. -
wrong wrong wrong. Singaporeans are not shareholders of the government. If you cannot get around that idea, you're going to have very warped views of what the government should be doing.Originally posted by soul_rage:I agree with what you said. It's a little unreasonable to say "We know better, you don't question", when the Govt wants us to be less dependent on them.
Besides, public money is, well, PUBLIC. Its OUR MONEY, so what's wrong with questioning how they use it? I would like to ensure that they don't channel discreetly loads of our cash to pay for their ridiculous pensions (60% of their pay every month if he is a minister and is > 55 years old).
Since we run Singapore like an incorporation, then the shareholders (which is US) have every right to ensure the management (CEO (3 CEOs) and other higher management) do not siphon large amounts of money to reward themselves for mediocre performance.
One of the things I look at when investing in a IPO firm is whether the directors are paying ridiculous amts to themselves.
The public money is not yours. It is the public's. You have no say over it, because it is handled by a trust fund, the government. You get to elect WHO runs the fund, but you don't get to critisise HOW they do it.
As for minister pay, please look at the big picture. In what way is the singapore government similar to any of the governments compared to it? Japan? America? Those are very different forms of governments. Each one is unique, and should be treated as such. It's like comparing apples and oranges.
Like I said. The government has thus far kept to it's end of the bargain. You cannot complain about the way it spends it's money, unless it differs from the platform it promised when you elected them in. Your only right here is to vote for another party if you're so disagreeable. But you cannot complain about how this one is doing because, end of the day, your fellow singaporeans have spoken. -
while we're at "don't look at short term charts", how about some "don't make one day predictions"?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:see this? at half time the Dow is up....
The point is, don't look at short term charts, definitely not 5 days charts, to get clues about the direction of the economy. Day to day, is very volatile and misleading.... -
EVERYONE PLEASE STOP FEEDING TROLLS....
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
especially when the "trolls" continue to ask Andrew hard questions he can't answer!
[b]EVERYONE PLEASE STOP FEEDING TROLLS.... [/b] -
I like the way you argue, because we are all civilized people and have the right of opinionOriginally posted by deathbait:wrong wrong wrong. Singaporeans are not shareholders of the government. If you cannot get around that idea, you're going to have very warped views of what the government should be doing.
The public money is not yours. It is the public's. You have no say over it, because it is handled by a trust fund, the government. You get to elect WHO runs the fund, but you don't get to critisise HOW they do it.
As for minister pay, please look at the big picture. In what way is the singapore government similar to any of the governments compared to it? Japan? America? Those are very different forms of governments. Each one is unique, and should be treated as such. It's like comparing apples and oranges.
Like I said. The government has thus far kept to it's end of the bargain. You cannot complain about the way it spends it's money, unless it differs from the platform it promised when you elected them in. Your only right here is to vote for another party if you're so disagreeable. But you cannot complain about how this one is doing because, end of the day, your fellow singaporeans have spoken.
Well, I do not agree. Basically, the Govt used the private sector as a form of comparison to say they are worth that pay. If we use your above reason to say different form of governments should not be compared, then even more so, they cannot use the private sector, since its totally different (and far more different than comparing with actual governance in other countries)
And your point on voting is moot, because of the unfair practices used in this country during elections, that the MINORITY (NOT the majority) voted. So in THEORY, yes, I CAN vote in the management of the trust fund, but in REALITY, the current managers of the trust fund has made it next to impossible to vote them out.
Anyway, if you are comparing them to trust funds, then fund managers are also accountable to the people who gave him the funds to manage.
In the book "One Up on Wall Street" by Peter Lynch, Fund managers are particularly stressed people. They are reviewed quarterly for their performance, and will be axed if they fail to meet expectations. -
I am still laughing at your 16th Nov 12.20pm post which prediction that mother of all black mondays will strike on 19th Nov 2007. (see below for original version)Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:... yesterday you had a big laugh telling everyone that I was wrong... meaning? You are laughing at my analytical skills... meaning? ... when I am right, it is due to my superior analytical skills... PWNED!
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=290788&page=4
And your attempt to edit the same post on 17th Nov 2007 10am morning after reading DowJones recovered some of the loses on Friday 16th Nov (17th Nov Singapore time)
Orginal post was dated 16 Nov 2007.
I am not sure what anal skill you are talking about.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:WATCH OUT PEOPLE!
This coming Monday might the mother of Black Mondays - hope it doesn't happen! -
...back to name calling after you were pwned so badly? smart coolie... but remember to look up the dictionary for the meaning of the word "might" so that you do not continue to make a fool of yourself hor...
-
please look up the dictionary for the meaning of a wanker.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:...back to name calling after you were pwned so badly? smart coolie... but remember to look up the dictionary for the meaning of the word "might" so that you do not continue to make a fool of yourself hor... -
... good coolie, yes that is more like it... stop making a fool of yourself and write more than one line and just bumpz up my threads with an idiotic remark... thanks...
-
9)
Andrew there is no point telling us you are smart by reporting DowJones and yesterday news because my notebook and internet connection is already capable for feeding me more accurate and timely information.
If you want to show us how smart an investor you are, let me ask you.
a) Suppose if your running a investment company that manage $100m worth of fund. Am I right to say that since July 2007 (as you claim is the time have predicted the market will crash)you would have already exit the stock market?
b) Suppose if Yes. What will you be doing with the $100m worth of funds?
c) Suppose your answer is NO, will you be able to tell us which are the stock which you will continue to hold starting from today (reason I asking starting from today is because I know you will dig out the best performing stocks from the last 3 months and say thats your prediction)
Over to you Andrew!! -
... good coolie, but don't have to do it so often... you can rest a bit after you bumpz up my threads... I know being a coolie is hard work...
-
i never said they weren't accountable.Originally posted by soul_rage:I like the way you argue, because we are all civilized people and have the right of opinion
Well, I do not agree. Basically, the Govt used the private sector as a form of comparison to say they are worth that pay. If we use your above reason to say different form of governments should not be compared, then even more so, they cannot use the private sector, since its totally different (and far more different than comparing with actual governance in other countries)
And your point on voting is moot, because of the unfair practices used in this country during elections, that the MINORITY (NOT the majority) voted. So in THEORY, yes, I CAN vote in the management of the trust fund, but in REALITY, the current managers of the trust fund has made it next to impossible to vote them out.
Anyway, if you are comparing them to trust funds, then fund managers are also accountable to the people who gave him the funds to manage.
In the book "One Up on Wall Street" by Peter Lynch, Fund managers are particularly stressed people. They are reviewed quarterly for their performance, and will be axed if they fail to meet expectations.
There's a perfect check and balance system in place. You elect alternatives if you're dissapointed in the current one.
But you should not question, if they are currently fulfilling their end of the bargain. It's the core basic of agreements. You want something, they provided. Deal done.
Don't like how it's done? Perhaps next time you'll vote better. Or better yet, go around educating your neighbours. But we DID elect them. So suck it up. I don't like it either, but I don't whine when I lost. Especially when it isn't even THAT bad. -
EVERYONE PLEASE STOP FEEDING TROLLS....