Lui Tuck Yew: HDB property tax raised next year to “avoid bi
-
Originally posted by martial:
Vote for opposition party next election!
well that is at least something you can do in reality.
-
Originally posted by gasband:
If you want a discussion, it has to be stated as "Lets discuss whether our political system is screwed up" not to "discuss ABOUT our screwed up political system." You have stated the discussion is ABOUT our screwed up political system. That is already asking people to discuss about a conclusion that you have reached and not asking them to reach their own conclusions through a discussion. Maybe you are really actively doing something about these agendas in reality but I am always interested in a discussion on neutral grounds but doesnt care about entering into a discussion with parties who have already determined the conclusions they are seeking. Hope you have a fulfilling life fighting battles online. Cheers!
Since when did I put up a topic for discussion "discuss ABOUT our screwed up political system", you have to understand the difference between a statement and a topic of discussion.
I said PAP's political system is screwed up, it's a statement not a topic, if you have a valid point to debunk my statement then go ahead. But you seem to think that my statement is correct because the discussion is a forgone conclusion.
Neutral grounds? Whatever you are smoking must be very good. There are always 2 sides to a discussion, that's where you see whether your points are really valid. You are asking for a neutral party to speak with you a bias party?
No conclusion has been reached unless you yourself has reached the conclusion on your own from the start.
So......You think that raising the HDB property tax is also a move by the government to help the poor to own property?
-
Oh another thing about discussion. We do not say things like "what are you smoking" or things that focuses on the person rather than the topic being discussed. Doesnt add value and doesnt reflect a discussion. But of cos of cos, maybe here in a forum, rules for a discussion is different from what is in reality.
"Don't Singaporeans have a right to discuss openly about our screwed up political system."
that was what you said. That you want to have a right to DISCUSS ABOUT our screwed up political system. Unless now you want to tell me that you are just saying other Singaporeans and you are not referring to yourself when you use SINGAPOREAN in this case.
As for raising the property tax, if you really want my opinions, the move to raise the property tax and then give us a rebate does not make a lot of sense. Although people will appreciate the rebate, we do note that the rebate is one off, it is not gonna be every year, and no doubt after next year, that increase will be an additional burden to people especially those in the middle class. the argument that people are gaining more through sales of HDB thats why they should pay more tax only reflects one side of the story. Unfortunately, unless you do not buy another apartment, the gains in selling will be lost to the higher costs in buying another apartment.
-
Originally posted by gasband:
Oh another thing about discussion. We do not say things like "what are you smoking" or things that focuses on the person rather than the topic being discussed. Doesnt add value and doesnt reflect a discussion. But of cos of cos, maybe here in a forum, rules for a discussion is different from what is in reality.
"Don't Singaporeans have a right to discuss openly about our screwed up political system."
that was what you said. That you want to have a right to DISCUSS ABOUT our screwed up political system. Unless now you want to tell me that you are just saying other Singaporeans and you are not referring to yourself when you use SINGAPOREAN in this case.
As for raising the property tax, if you really want my opinions, the move to raise the property tax and then give us a rebate does not make a lot of sense. Although people will appreciate the rebate, we do note that the rebate is one off, it is not gonna be every year, and no doubt after next year, that increase will be an additional burden to people especially those in the middle class. the argument that people are gaining more through sales of HDB thats why they should pay more tax only reflects one side of the story. Unfortunately, unless you do not buy another apartment, the gains in selling will be lost to the higher costs in buying another apartment.
I thought that your sentences were the result of hallucinations caused by substance abuse. Your statements certainly didn't look like it's logical to me.So is "Don't Singaporeans have a right to discuss openly about our screwed up political system.", the topic here or a statement?
So I guess those ST forums where folks post, "Singapore has the best government in the world" is not subject to debates by the other parties? It's also like what you claim, a forgone conclusion.
A conclusion is forgone if at the onset of the argument you anticipate an inevitable end.
The effects of the substances must be wearing off, I see you agreeing with me that it's a scewed up political system.
-
A topic doesn't form the basis of the conclusion to a discussion.
-
-
When somebody asserts in a topic 10 + 10 = 100.
You mean to tell me it's a "forgone conclusion" and nobody can challenge him?
-
Originally posted by gasband:
As for raising the property tax, if you really want my opinions, the move to raise the property tax and then give us a rebate does not make a lot of sense. Although people will appreciate the rebate, we do note that the rebate is one off, it is not gonna be every year, and no doubt after next year, that increase will be an additional burden to people especially those in the middle class. the argument that people are gaining more through sales of HDB thats why they should pay more tax only reflects one side of the story. Unfortunately, unless you do not buy another apartment, the gains in selling will be lost to the higher costs in buying another apartment.
They had done that so many times, rebate when there is an increase as shock absorber. It like giving sweet before a painful extraction. No surprises.
-
Originally posted by ☃®:
more problems created by problems
Problem A - Lead to Problem B - Solution - ends up MAgnifying Problem B and back to Problem A = WHOLE NEW PROBLEM ALTOGETHER>
Leaders increase their own pay -> Rich and poor income gap widens -> Leaders implement taxes on middle class to help poor -> Rich and poor income gap narrows -> Leaders claim credit and increase their own pay -> [PUT Repeat Loop here] -
I think someone here mentioned it, but its seems like maybe they might be loosening up on PRs or foreigners buying HDB.
Have to admit, thanks to this, I'm wondering if the elections is gonna be in early 2010 or late 2010 or even 2011.
-
anyway, apart from "raise now better than raise later" logic, what was this increase in tax for?
to help the poor again?
-
Originally posted by the Bear:
anyway, apart from "raise now better than raise later" logic, what was this increase in tax for?
to help the poor again?
-
Originally posted by the Bear:
yup.. in all seriousness we do have to blame the opposition as they can't seem to get their acts together...they were a credible force until that one dramatic day when everything went to shit...
oh well..
sometimes, casting a blank vote as a show of no-confidence for either the incumbent or the challenger is as much as we can do.. and as much as i can do...
'sides... hey.. the MIW are somehow the lesser of two evils at the moment.. but they're trying to be the no.1 evil.. trying really hard.. and they're also bloody trying
If your grandfather had not given his vote to LKY, would that young and inexperienced lawyer get a chance to even be in Parliament as an Opposition in 1954, let alone to be a PM in 1959 ?It is pathetic to blame the opposition when self-indulgent Singaporeans like you think too highly of yourself - to even bother to allow yourself to be represented by anyone - and will prefer to cast a blank vote - and then blame the opposition for not being a credible force.
To top the cake, you will blame everyone for kpkb about everything, when in essence are you any better than everyone with your blaming the evil opposition as you will blame the evil MIW.
In the SAF parlance - "stop talking cock and sing song" at the same time.
-
It is not a surprise for Rear Admiral (NS) Lui Tuck Yew to "talk cock and sing song" - to claim that it is better to "increase tax now then increase in the future when HDB prices gets higher, and need a higher property tax".
If current property tax is 5% on a unit that is valued at $100,000 - the government will be collecting $5,000 in Property Tax today.
If the property tax remains at 5% on a unit that increases in value to $160,000 in the future, the Government will collect a HIGHER tax of $8,000 in Property Tax - without increasing the tax rate.
With the present property valued at $100,000 and the Government increasing the tax rate from 5% to 7% now, it will be effectively collecting $7000 in Property Tax - which is $2000 more.
When the property price increase to $160,000 in the future, the Government will be collecting $11,200 - which is $3,200 more.
In the typically PAP talk about the obvious, it will simply push the talk to its most basic and simplistic idiocy that takes the sting out of their scheme.
By increasing the tax rate today, the government need not make a big jump and will effectively split the tax increase into two instalments at 2% now, and another 2% in the future - which means the Government is determined to increase the same total amount anyway by making it more easily acceptable.
Can it be acceptable at a time when jobs are few, unemployed still looking for an employer that will employ him over a foreigner, and at a time when the economy is said to be turning upwards with so much uncertainty still hovering over the horizon ?
Note: the 2% is only a number used for purpose of discussion - and the Government may use a bigger or smaller number.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
If your grandfather had not given his vote to LKY, would that young and inexperienced lawyer get a chance to even be in Parliament as an Opposition in 1954, let alone to be a PM in 1959 ?It is pathetic to blame the opposition when self-indulgent Singaporeans like you think too highly of yourself - to even bother to allow yourself to be represented by anyone - and will prefer to cast a blank vote - and then blame the opposition for not being a credible force.
To top the cake, you will blame everyone for kpkb about everything, when in essence are you any better than everyone with your blaming the evil opposition as you will blame the evil MIW.
In the SAF parlance - "stop talking cock and sing song" at the same time.
You trying to say your grandfather didn't vote for LKY, then ?
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
You trying to say your grandfather didn't vote for LKY, then ?
My grandfather and those in his generation - like so many in the business community - did not trust LKY then.
They were proven right when LKY "nationalised" so many businesses under the pretext of scarce resources and had the various private enterprises killed, only to be replaced by nearly the same number of businesses set up with public money.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
My grandfather and those in his generation - like so many in the business community - did not trust LKY then.
They were proven right when LKY "nationalised" so many businesses under the pretext of scarce resources and had the various private enterprises killed, only to be replaced by nearly the same number of businesses set up with public money.
Winners are always the king where else are the bandits.To achieve "my' goals, all despicable tactics are an act of intelligent move - no mercy.
-
Originally posted by deepak.c:
I thought that your sentences were the result of hallucinations caused by substance abuse. Your statements certainly didn't look like it's logical to me.Well you thought wrongly then.
So is "Don't Singaporeans have a right to discuss openly about our screwed up political system.", the topic here or a statement?
You are asking me whether Singaporeans have a right to discuss about the screwed up political system so it can only mean that there is a discussion abt the screwed up political system right? If not, why the need to ask me that question?
So I guess those ST forums where folks post, "Singapore has the best government in the world" is not subject to debates by the other parties? It's also like what you claim, a forgone conclusion.
If they put down a discussion and the topic is "SINGAPORE has the best government in the world." Then that is not a discussion. That is also looking for agreement with a preconceived conclusion. I would prefer that it is stated that the topic would be "Do Singapore has the best government in the world."
A conclusion is forgone if at the onset of the argument you anticipate an inevitable end.
Its either that or in a discussion, the parties involved insist that their conclusion is right. And that is what I am seeing here. Everyone comes in and says "the government sucks" and insist he or she is right and that everyone must see the same way as them or else risks being branded "lackeys", "dogs" etc. Vice versa for people who insists PAP are the best government in the world. I did not insist on either conclusion. I am only insisting on a discussion that highlights the bads and goods of the government fairly. A good discussion involves the agreement to disagree and if everyone agrees to disagrees, there would be name calling which unfortunately I see alot in this forum. Not necessarily you, but there are many.
The effects of the substances must be wearing off, I see you agreeing with me that it's a scewed up political system.
Me agreeing that the tax rebates doesnt make sense doesnt constitute me agreeing that the political system is screwed. Again that is a conclusion you choose to see. I am perfectly fine with that. Because I am not in the business to make people agree with me. I just love a discussion. If I am right, fine. If I am wrong, fine also. And again as said, resorting to implying people using and abusing substances just because their views do not tally with yours is what you will do in a discussion? And if you are going to say, you thought that I am using substances, then as i said earlier, you thought wrongly.
-
Originally posted by gasband:
I thought that your sentences were the result of hallucinations caused by substance abuse. Your statements certainly didn't look like it's logical to me.
Well you thought wrongly then.
The alternative is much worse than substance abuse, I leave that to your imagination.
You must be an idiot!!! LOL
So is "Don't Singaporeans have a right to discuss openly about our screwed up political system.", the topic here or a statement?
You are asking me whether Singaporeans have a right to discuss about the screwed up political system so it can only mean that there is a discussion abt the screwed up political system right? If not, why the need to ask me that question?
You still have problems distinguishing a statement from a topic.
Also if you look at my original statement enclosed below, it wasn't even a question, it was a rhetorical question, one that does not require an answer. I didn't even put a question mark to it.
One also has to question why you are asking folks to stop discussions about anything negative about PAP. Don't Singaporeans have a right to discuss openly about our screwed up political system.
So I guess those ST forums where folks post, "Singapore has the best government in the world" is not subject to debates by the other parties? It's also like what you claim, a forgone conclusion.
If they put down a discussion and the topic is "SINGAPORE has the best government in the world." Then that is not a discussion. That is also looking for agreement with a preconceived conclusion. I would prefer that it is stated that the topic would be "Do Singapore has the best government in the world."
A statement if it's not substantiated by facts can always be refuted, like the example I cited about 10 + 10 = 100. So if I make that statement does it mean that it's a conclusion that cannot be challenged? If you don't have the facts to deny my statement, then obviously you chose the easy way out and said that it's a foregone conclusion and you are still clueless what is a foregone conclusion.
A conclusion is forgone if at the onset of the argument you anticipate an inevitable end.
Its either that or in a discussion, the parties involved insist that their conclusion is right. And that is what I am seeing here. Everyone comes in and says "the government sucks" and insist he or she is right and that everyone must see the same way as them or else risks being branded "lackeys", "dogs" etc. Vice versa for people who insists PAP are the best government in the world. I did not insist on either conclusion. I am only insisting on a discussion that highlights the bads and goods of the government fairly. A good discussion involves the agreement to disagree and if everyone agrees to disagrees, there would be name calling which unfortunately I see alot in this forum. Not necessarily you, but there are many.
I said the government sucks and substantiated it with proof of their doings. They are always squeezing out more tax dollars from the poor and middle class. You agree that their policy sucks too.
Apart from that, they also deprive Singaporeans of their rightful wages by importing cheap foreign talents, so that they could compete with China and India for cost.
How can this even happen as Singapore's cost structure is much higher than those countries?
The effects of the substances must be wearing off, I see you agreeing with me that it's a scewed up political system.
Me agreeing that the tax rebates doesnt make sense doesnt constitute me agreeing that the political system is screwed. Again that is a conclusion you choose to see. I am perfectly fine with that. Because I am not in the business to make people agree with me. I just love a discussion. If I am right, fine. If I am wrong, fine also. And again as said, resorting to implying people using and abusing substances just because their views do not tally with yours is what you will do in a discussion? And if you are going to say, you thought that I am using substances, then as i said earlier, you thought wrongly.
Then the political system must be superb. One that has no accountability, one that is based on nepotism (appointing friend and family members to GICs and GLCs), one that deprives citizens from their fundamental rights, one that over taxes her citizens so that they can show a good reserve. Can you refute all these points I made?
-
Originally posted by the Bear:
anyway, apart from "raise now better than raise later" logic, what was this increase in tax for?
to help the poor again?
More like to help themselves from being "poor".
-
Originally posted by Chew Bakar:
More like to help themselves from being "poor".
PM did mention before about how poor the Ministers were.
-
Originally posted by deepak.c:
PM did mention before about how poor the Ministers were.
how poor?their defination of poor is with a few millions in bank?
-
Originally posted by noahnoah:
how poor?their defination of poor is with a few millions in bank?
Definition of their "poor":
not able to live in comfortable means eg 18 degrees C 24/7 and heated swimming pool, etc.
Hahaha...
-
Originally posted by noahnoah:
how poor?their defination of poor is with a few millions in bank?
I think maybe it has alternative meaning, maybe he meant to say they have poor moral values.
-
Originally posted by deepak.c:
I think maybe it has alternative meaning, maybe he meant to say they have poor moral values.
I don't deny that.