Fairer Way To Bid For COEs

[Terry]

Re: Fairer Way To Bid For COEs

This morning's forum letter.....

Sounds good, especially when OMVs are squeezed by the agents.....
____________________________________________________________________________

IN MOST egalitarian societies, retrogressive policies like the imposition of regressive taxes are considered anathema.

The certificate of entitlement (COE) is just such a levy ('Fewer COEs for next 6 months'; last Friday).

Whereas income taxes are greater for high-income earners, who will also pay more goods and services tax through conspicuous consumption, the COE is a flat levy that disproportionately burdens the less well-off Singaporeans.

These Singaporeans need vehicles, but can only marginally afford them, unlike their more prosperous counterparts, for whom the COE constitutes only a tiny fraction of the cost of their supercars.

COEs should still operate on a bidding system, but bids should be based on a percentage of the vehicle's open market value (OMV).

Take, for example, the following:

- A 1.6-litre Hyundai Elantra with an OMV of $14,000;
- A 2.0-litre Kia Optima with an OMV of $20,000;
- A 1.6-litre Mercedes C Kompressor with an OMV of $30,000;
- A 2.0-litre BMW 5-series with an OMV of $40,000;
- A 3.5-litre Mercedes S Class with an OMV of $100,000; and
- A 4.5-litre Ferrari Spider with an OMV of $360,000.

A minimum winning bid of, say, 150 per cent OMV for these cars' COEs will cost $21,000, $30,000, $45,000, $60,000, $150,000 and $540,000, respectively.

This progressive scaling of the COE levy is better than the present system, which is far more punitive to the less well-off.

Dr Yik Keng Yeong

Fairer way to bid for COEs

Dont ah keng knows that we are already being taxed approximately 150% of the OMV ? which means we are going to be charged an extra 150% of OMV for COE ?


moreover one Chery QQ will take one ONE parking space and ONE car space on the road , same as a ferrari and lambo no ?

the reason the govt is not listening to all the proposed solution is because most of them are being said and brought up by people for the sake or bringing it up and finding fault in the govt. While most said the govt is elitist , have they ever looked back at their proposal who put the govt's cash cow at a disadvantage ? which means discouraging the economy drivers to proceed ? while some are just plain stupid coming out with ridiculous numbers to tax people wanting to buy more expensive cars.

Let people bid freely by their perceived value , it will end somewhere.

im not saying the current system is perfect , just that some of the proposed solutions are absurd . People like to compare Singapore's system with other countries , but dont they remember that Singapore only has 710 km2 of land area ?

 

[wt_know]

Re: Fairer Way To Bid For COEs

i believe the suggestion of tiering is to make rich must pay more for whatever is perceived luxury items ie: qq take 1 space ... ferrari take 1 space (even 1/2 space) also must pay more (a lot more) because ferrari is super luxury (in spore) and only 1% of people can afford it

although i somewhat welcome the idea but i know richies will have countermeasure

1. bosses will find way to earn more money - ie: improve their profit margin by up the price (commoner suffer)

2. the c-group ie: ceo, cfo, coo all would want their pay package to increase by 50% from 1million to 1.5 million

3. sucker will suck suckee more dry ie: property agent, car dealer, job on commission basis, etc

if $$ is the yardstick, the top 20% will hit the 80% even harder because top 20% lifestyle will not change but 80% especially middle class have to eat sandwich without ham liao

Dont ah keng knows that we are already being taxed approximately 150% of the OMV ? which means we are going to be charged an extra 150% of OMV for COE ?

moreover one Chery QQ will take one ONE parking space and ONE car space on the road , same as a ferrari and lambo no ?

 

[DriveAllDay]

Re: Fairer Way To Bid For COEs

You can't compare it that way. Taxes are inevitable if they don't get it through cars - they will get it through your income. If you look at the tax regime in Europe, US and Oz - SG is considered relatively low.

Singapore on the other is land scarced. So the tax regime for cars is designed with that in mind.

The right way to look at Taxation is not income tax but total tax. Ie. Government tax revenue / GDP of country.

You can look up World Bank statistics. While Singapore has low income tax, it ranks above average in tax per GDP. For this, Singapore has higher total tax rate than US, HK and even Switzerland, Germany, India and China. So the perception of Singapore as a low tax country is an illusion.

Given Singapore's high GDP / capita, the taxation per capita is actually astoundingly high. We have just been brainwashed all this while that we pay little tax.

All the discussion about fine tuning allocation is based on each population segment's self interest, and there will never be a right answer
- Low and middle income want a price-control quota, high income wants free market
- Citizens want a privileged quota, FT want equality
- Small families want taxation by car size, large families want taxation by number of cars
- High usage users want taxation shifted to ownership, low usage users want it shifted to usage
- Non-car owners want discounted COEs for first time car ownership, and premiums on next cars; enthusiasts don't

See how the Dr's argument leads to endless fruitless debate? What IS fair, from whose point of view?

Better fix the overall fundamental issues, then the allocation problem doesn't become such a big issue

 

[iScoupe]

Re: Fairer Way To Bid For COEs

Dont ah keng knows that we are already being taxed approximately 150% of the OMV ? which means we are going to be charged an extra 150% of OMV for COE ?


moreover one Chery QQ will take one ONE parking space and ONE car space on the road , same as a ferrari and lambo no ?

the reason the govt is not listening to all the proposed solution is because most of them are being said and brought up by people for the sake or bringing it up and finding fault in the govt. While most said the govt is elitist , have they ever looked back at their proposal who put the govt's cash cow at a disadvantage ? which means discouraging the economy drivers to proceed ? while some are just plain stupid coming out with ridiculous numbers to tax people wanting to buy more expensive cars.

Let people bid freely by their perceived value , it will end somewhere.

im not saying the current system is perfect , just that some of the proposed solutions are absurd . People like to compare Singapore's system with other countries , but dont they remember that Singapore only has 710 km2 of land area ?

Depends how u look at it, Sherman & Bobby on same seafood dinner, I eat less crab as they are fast & eat more. Unless the dishes are divided before it landed on the table. Wait till the ERP "use and pay" system out, they will say u drive u pay, very fair, no need COE.

 

[iScoupe]

Re: Fairer Way To Bid For COEs

i believe the suggestion of tiering is to make rich must pay more for whatever is perceived luxury items ie: qq take 1 space ... ferrari take 1 space (even 1/2 space) also must pay more (a lot more) because ferrari is super luxury (in spore) and only 1% of people can afford it

although i somewhat welcome the idea but i know richies will have countermeasure

1. bosses will find way to earn more money - ie: improve their profit margin by up the price (commoner suffer)

2. the c-group ie: ceo, cfo, coo all would want their pay package to increase by 50% from 1million to 1.5 million

3. sucker will suck suckee more dry ie: property agent, car dealer, job on commission basis, etc

if $$ is the yardstick, the top 20% will hit the 80% even harder because top 20% lifestyle will not change but 80% especially middle class have to eat sandwich without ham liao

+1 that why Singapore Rich & Poor gap world class number one.

The rich know how to escape tax, the poor no need pay tax, knn people like robot pay so much till need sell rims, golf bag, tyres & even wheel cleaner.

 

[davidtch]

Re: Fairer Way To Bid For COEs

Scrap COE.

Every single road install ERP. As long as rolling 3 mths average speed is more than slower than legal speed by 10km/h, $10 ERP will kick in.

50km/h: $50

Bus no need to pay. Heavy vehicles pays 1/4 of car ERP. Light truck pays the same price as car.

Parking? Solve yourself. If can't, don't buy.

 

[04M3]

Re: Fairer Way To Bid For COEs

The right way to look at Taxation is not income tax but total tax. Ie. Government tax revenue / GDP of country.

You can look up World Bank statistics. While Singapore has low income tax, it ranks above average in tax per GDP. For this, Singapore has higher total tax rate than US, HK and even Switzerland, Germany, India and China. So the perception of Singapore as a low tax country is an illusion.

Given Singapore's high GDP / capita, the taxation per capita is actually astoundingly high. We have just been brainwashed all this while that we pay little tax.

All the discussion about fine tuning allocation is based on each population segment's self interest, and there will never be a right answer
- Low and middle income want a price-control quota, high income wants free market
- Citizens want a privileged quota, FT want equality
- Small families want taxation by car size, large families want taxation by number of cars
- High usage users want taxation shifted to ownership, low usage users want it shifted to usage
- Non-car owners want discounted COEs for first time car ownership, and premiums on next cars; enthusiasts don't

See how the Dr's argument leads to endless fruitless debate? What IS fair, from whose point of view?

Better fix the overall fundamental issues, then the allocation problem doesn't become such a big issue

is it possible to see the audited data showing the actual high taxation per capita? I have lived in many countries for extended period of time, and do not consider Singapore overall tax rate (particularly base corporate, personal and GST/VAT) to be higher than these countries. some will even bring in the social security and welfare system into the argument.

i agree with the differing point in view. any changes without a fundamental paradigm shift will only serve as a stop-gap populist move.

 

[DriveAllDay]

Re: Fairer Way To Bid For COEs

is it possible to see the audited data showing the actual high taxation per capita? I have lived in many countries for extended period of time, and do not consider Singapore overall tax rate (particularly base corporate, personal and GST/VAT) to be higher than these countries. some will even bring in the social security and welfare system into the argument.

i agree with the differing point in view. any changes without a fundamental paradigm shift will only serve as a stop-gap populist move.

You can get world bank data on raw Tax receipts per country. Just divide it by population and you can get it.

The other way is to use World Bank stats on Tax/GDP. Since you know GDP/Capita too, you can also calculate from there.

 

[wt_know]

Re: Fairer Way To Bid For COEs

after coe, next is to bid parking lot ... akan datang
***run away from wobbles

 

[04M3]

Re: Fairer Way To Bid For COEs

You can get world bank data on raw Tax receipts per country. Just divide it by population and you can get it.

The other way is to use World Bank stats on Tax/GDP. Since you know GDP/Capita too, you can also calculate from there.

According to the Heritage Foundation, Singapore tax revenue as percentage of GDP is at 14.2%, which puts it slightly behind Hong Kong, Taiwan and Indonesia, but ahead of countries like Malaysia, India, US and South Korea.

According to the World Bank, Singapore tax revenue per capita is lower than Denmark, New Zealand, Switzerland and higher than Greece, Australia, Vietnam and Malaysia.

This is before the consideration of the ultra low tax band for annual income below SG$50k, and basically no income tax for annual income below SG$25k.

This is also before the consideration of the lack of proper infrastructural spending by a lot of other countries, whether or not their tax revenue or GDP is high. Also, in Singapore, we pay 7% GST. The general band for VAT in Europe ranges from 19% (France) to 27% (Hungary).

I don't see the validity of the premise of your argument in stating that given Singapore high GDP/capita, taxation per capita is astoundingly high. Perhaps it is you who have been brainwashed into thinking that you pay a lot of taxes.

Having a car is not a God-given right, particularly in Singapore. You don't have to pay COE, import duties, ERP, petrol duties, alcohol duties or tobacco duties. No one is forcing you to. Stay in a HDB, eat at hawker centres and take public transport, and you will pay much lower taxes than most other places on Earth.

I realise that a lot of people, like the Workers Party, find it incredibly easy to make populist statements with no clear understanding of the matter at hand, the root cause of the issue and struggle to offer viable and realistic solutions. The bullish*t has to be called out for what it is, at some point in time.

 

[MapleLeaf]

Re: Fairer Way To Bid For COEs

There is nothing wrong with the COE system. It has achieved its purpose - limiting car population. It has achieved its purpose well. Whatever caused the last few years of traffic jams was due to interference in the quota quantum - increasing the car population increase percent for political reasons.

Just because some people now cannot afford to buy cars does not mean the COE scheme is obsolete. It simply means you are not the segment of the population who should be owning cars. There is still the bus and MRT.

I want to live in a water-front penthouse in Sentosa Cove. Why didn't HDB build houses in Sentose Cove? And those who owns conti cars gets priority bcos it supplements the image of the location!!!

The world's not fair; It was never meant to be fair; and it will never be fair.

Learn to Live with it.

 

[iScoupe]

Re: Fairer Way To Bid For COEs

i think the system is like stock exchange buy low sell high. Buy high prepare to hold.

Picanto use to be $26,000 not $96,000 ... even the best stock don't grow so fast...

is never fair, last year VW sales person laugh to bank, few years back any Picanto sales person also laugh to bank.

 

[MapleLeaf]

Re: Fairer Way To Bid For COEs

... even the best stock don't grow so fast...

.

got.... City Harvest. Your contribution will increase by 50 to 100 TIMES.

Man can never beat God. So don't play God.


But I worship Citi. Free breakfast at Mcdonald House.

 

[DriveAllDay]

Re: Fairer Way To Bid For COEs

According to the Heritage Foundation, Singapore tax revenue as percentage of GDP is at 14.2%, which puts it slightly behind Hong Kong, Taiwan and Indonesia, but ahead of countries like Malaysia, India, US and South Korea.

According to the World Bank, Singapore tax revenue per capita is lower than Denmark, New Zealand, Switzerland and higher than Greece, Australia, Vietnam and Malaysia.

This is before the consideration of the ultra low tax band for annual income below SG$50k, and basically no income tax for annual income below SG$25k.

This is also before the consideration of the lack of proper infrastructural spending by a lot of other countries, whether or not their tax revenue or GDP is high. Also, in Singapore, we pay 7% GST. The general band for VAT in Europe ranges from 19% (France) to 27% (Hungary).

I don't see the validity of the premise of your argument in stating that given Singapore high GDP/capita, taxation per capita is astoundingly high. Perhaps it is you who have been brainwashed into thinking that you pay a lot of taxes.

Having a car is not a God-given right, particularly in Singapore. You don't have to pay COE, import duties, ERP, petrol duties, alcohol duties or tobacco duties. No one is forcing you to. Stay in a HDB, eat at hawker centres and take public transport, and you will pay much lower taxes than most other places on Earth.

I realise that a lot of people, like the Workers Party, find it incredibly easy to make populist statements with no clear understanding of the matter at hand, the root cause of the issue and struggle to offer viable and realistic solutions. The bullish*t has to be called out for what it is, at some point in time.

Your argument of GST/VAT is invalid, since the government tax receipt has already included the consumption tax.

The world bank figures do point to Singapore tax % as higher than United States, Switzerland and Hong Kong. Please do check your numbers - I did mine. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GC.TAX.TOTL.GD.ZS

Also Heritage Foundation's treats social security as a tax. To make like-for-like comparison, you have to include Singapore's >30% CPF income contribution into the picture.

Your point on lack of investment in infrastructure -- are we talking about the same HK, Switzerland and United States?

Again, your argument on low income tax band actually contradicts yourself. My argument is Singapore has low income taxes, but has other taxes that make total tax burden per capita high. What's yours? I too have lived in 6-7 countries, some OECD, some developing. Yes my income tax rate is by far the lowest in Singapore, but when I calculate all the total direct and indirect taxes I pay, SIngapore is no longer the low tax country.

My argument of high total tax per capita is mathematical. If Singapore's total tax/gdp is higher than peers, and Singapore's gdp/capita is higher then peers, then it stands to reason that its total tax/capita is higher than peers.

Citing argument of you don't have to drive, don't have to own private property, don't have do this and that is not helpful. It's saying "know your lot in life, live as you are told, don't have luxuries, and the government will tax you less." Is that the aspiration you want for the country?

I don't presume you were brainwashed, so please don't presume I am. Just because you don't agree with someone's argument doesn't give you the right to call it bullshit, nor call others answering to populist sentiment and having no clear understanding.

 

[Red_Bean_Bun]

Re: Fairer Way To Bid For COEs

Your argument of GST/VAT is invalid, since the government tax receipt has already included the consumption tax.

The world bank figures do point to Singapore tax % as higher than United States, Switzerland and Hong Kong. Please do check your numbers - I did mine. Tax revenue (% of GDP) | Data | Table

Also Heritage Foundation's treats social security as a tax. To make like-for-like comparison, you have to include Singapore's >30% CPF income contribution into the picture.

Your point on lack of investment in infrastructure -- are we talking about the same HK, Switzerland and United States?

Again, your argument on low income tax band actually contradicts yourself. My argument is Singapore has low income taxes, but has other taxes that make total tax burden per capita high. What's yours? I too have lived in 6-7 countries, some OECD, some developing. Yes my income tax rate is by far the lowest in Singapore, but when I calculate all the total direct and indirect taxes I pay, SIngapore is no longer the low tax country.

My argument of high total tax per capita is mathematical. If Singapore's total tax/gdp is higher than peers, and Singapore's gdp/capita is higher then peers, then it stands to reason that its total tax/capita is higher than peers.

Citing argument of you don't have to drive, don't have to own private property, don't have do this and that is not helpful. It's saying "know your lot in life, live as you are told, don't have luxuries, and the government will tax you less." Is that the aspiration you want for the country?

I don't presume you were brainwashed, so please don't presume I am. Just because you don't agree with someone's argument doesn't give you the right to call it bullshit, nor call others answering to populist sentiment and having no clear understanding.

Brainwashing was brought up by you. 04M3 is correct in saying that you should consume only what you can afford. In NY and London - Take the train. In HK - you buy your own parking lot. In Oz - you have the gov as your silent partner. Are you sure y are making an apple to apple comparison in each country you have lived in or are you cherry picking ? The WB's stats are based on assumptions - some historical, if not general.

Singapore is land scared. And this is an assumption that one would have to take into account. And this is an assumption that would not be valid in any of your countries you have lived in. Basically, we do not have an option of commuting to work by living in the suburbs because we are so small as a country.

No one forced anyone to buy a car or participate in a COE bid. And your argument one should aspire for luxury as a national agenda is a sign of desperation.......

 

[04M3]

Re: Fairer Way To Bid For COEs

Your argument of GST/VAT is invalid, since the government tax receipt has already included the consumption tax.

The world bank figures do point to Singapore tax % as higher than United States, Switzerland and Hong Kong. Please do check your numbers - I did mine. Tax revenue (% of GDP) | Data | Table

Also Heritage Foundation's treats social security as a tax. To make like-for-like comparison, you have to include Singapore's >30% CPF income contribution into the picture.

Your point on lack of investment in infrastructure -- are we talking about the same HK, Switzerland and United States?

Again, your argument on low income tax band actually contradicts yourself. My argument is Singapore has low income taxes, but has other taxes that make total tax burden per capita high. What's yours? I too have lived in 6-7 countries, some OECD, some developing. Yes my income tax rate is by far the lowest in Singapore, but when I calculate all the total direct and indirect taxes I pay, SIngapore is no longer the low tax country.

My argument of high total tax per capita is mathematical. If Singapore's total tax/gdp is higher than peers, and Singapore's gdp/capita is higher then peers, then it stands to reason that its total tax/capita is higher than peers.

Citing argument of you don't have to drive, don't have to own private property, don't have do this and that is not helpful. It's saying "know your lot in life, live as you are told, don't have luxuries, and the government will tax you less." Is that the aspiration you want for the country?

I don't presume you were brainwashed, so please don't presume I am. Just because you don't agree with someone's argument doesn't give you the right to call it bullshit, nor call others answering to populist sentiment and having no clear understanding.

My point is actually that the base tax rate in Singapore is low. Much lower than most other developed countries. Citizens in most of these countries do not have a choice with regards to the high income tax and value added tax that they pay, through the necessities that they have to buy, not the luxuries that they choose to buy.

The quantum sum that Singapore collects in indirect taxes is high, but looking at it without considering the source of those taxes revenue will lead to a biased view. The rich pay more taxes, indirect or otherwise, as a result of higher base income tax, higher property taxes, stamp duties, import duties and COEs. This is, very often, by choice.

Generally in Singapore, you pay a lot more indirect taxes when you choose to. Not when you are forced to. It is proportionally linked to your personal consumer choices.

Car ownership or luxury property ownership is not an appropriate aspiration for the masses. The proper value to be inculcated is the aspiration to be the best at what you choose to be. To work towards a wholesome life. This, to me, is the failure of the Singaporean education system. And this has led to the widespread unhappiness of the masses in Singapore. The conditions in Singapore meant it was never feasible to have at least one car per family.

If Wall Street bankers who make millions a year don't think it's necessary to own a car or beneath them to take the subway, I honestly don't see how some Singaporeans can see car ownership as a right.

Let's agree to disagree. My stand is very simple, I don't think our government is perfect, and much of its recent policies are fallacies to begin with. But to indulge in populist bashing of the government is something that should be relegated to the uneducated and the unthinking.

 

[DriveAllDay]

Re: Fairer Way To Bid For COEs

Brainwashing was brought up by you. 04M3 is correct in saying that you should consume only what you can afford. In NY and London - Take the train. In HK - you buy your own parking lot. In Oz - you have the gov as your silent partner. Are you sure y are making an apple to apple comparison in each country you have lived in or are you cherry picking ? The WB's stats are based on assumptions - some historical, if not general.

Singapore is land scared. And this is an assumption that one would have to take into account. And this is an assumption that would not be valid in any of your countries you have lived in. Basically, we do not have an option of commuting to work by living in the suburbs because we are so small as a country.

No one forced anyone to buy a car or participate in a COE bid. And your argument one should aspire for luxury as a national agenda is a sign of desperation.......

I have always subscribed to living within means, so have no problem with your point. For me, I am living comfortably following these simple rules
- Use cash only for car purchases
- Buy property that's worth less then 5 yrs' family income
- Using public transport if viable

Incidentally I lived in HK & Manhattan - two cities you cited. They are equally land scarced. They are both metropolitan cities. My direct and indirect tax bills in HK were significantly lower than Singapore, and NYC marginally so. So there's no cherry picking.

On aspiration, I think we are looking at it at different angles. I don't think life's aspiration should be to gain luxuries. There are more important things in life. On the other hand, I don't think the argument "don't like the tax, then don't do this and that" is helpful - that's take it or leave it attitude rather than trying to genuinely solve problems. And twisting my points into pursuing luxury as desperate national agenda is certainly unfair.

 

[DriveAllDay]

Re: Fairer Way To Bid For COEs

My point is actually that the base tax rate in Singapore is low. Much lower than most other developed countries. Citizens in most of these countries do not have a choice with regards to the high income tax and value added tax that they pay, through the necessities that they have to buy, not the luxuries that they choose to buy.

The quantum sum that Singapore collects in indirect taxes is high, but looking at it without considering the source of those taxes revenue will lead to a biased view. The rich pay more taxes, indirect or otherwise, as a result of higher base income tax, higher property taxes, stamp duties, import duties and COEs. This is, very often, by choice.

Generally in Singapore, you pay a lot more indirect taxes when you choose to. Not when you are forced to. It is proportionally linked to your personal consumer choices.

Car ownership or luxury property ownership is not an appropriate aspiration for the masses. The proper value to be inculcated is the aspiration to be the best at what you choose to be. To work towards a wholesome life. This, to me, is the failure of the Singaporean education system. And this has led to the widespread unhappiness of the masses in Singapore. The conditions in Singapore meant it was never feasible to have at least one car per family.

If Wall Street bankers who make millions a year don't think it's necessary to own a car or beneath them to take the subway, I honestly don't see how some Singaporeans can see car ownership as a right.

Let's agree to disagree. My stand is very simple, I don't think our government is perfect, and much of its recent policies are fallacies to begin with. But to indulge in populist bashing of the government is something that should be relegated to the uneducated and the unthinking.

In a progressive tax society, income tax makes the high income earner shoulder a larger proportion of tax burden. Consumption and indirect taxes affect everyone equally. By keeping the income tax low, the high income earner's burden is capped/reduced. The larger remainder of the tax burden is then spread across the population. Singapore introduced luxury taxes to shape demand - some view it is as consumer choice, others see it as limiting choice.

One this, I view it as a double edged sword:
- If you are "ahead of the curve", this system is empowering, liberating
- If you are "behind the curve", this system can seriously trap you

"Ahead of the curve" means your income is rising faster than prices, policies, and your aspiration. I think many of us in this forum are blessed to be "ahead of the curve". The reason why many Singaporeans are unhappy is that more and more of them find themselves lagging behind prices and policies.

My original intent of the post was not to highlight issues with Singapore's tax code, but the inefficiencies of our road pricing -- which led to this thread. You brought up the tax code. On this, my only point is: if you take in indirect taxes, Singapore is not a low tax country as it advertised itself to be.

I am happy to agree to disagree, but again I have to point out your name-calling on people who disagree with you as "populist, uneducated, unthinking, the masses". That's not a starting point to genuine dialogue.

 

[iScoupe]

Re: Fairer Way To Bid For COEs

got.... City Harvest. Your contribution will increase by 50 to 100 TIMES.

Man can never beat God. So don't play God.


But I worship Citi. Free breakfast at Mcdonald House.

i only have a few ex-gf at city harvest, think they grow in age & size. :smack:

 

[04M3]

Re: Fairer Way To Bid For COEs

In a progressive tax society, income tax makes the high income earner shoulder a larger proportion of tax burden. Consumption and indirect taxes affect everyone equally. By keeping the income tax low, the high income earner's burden is capped/reduced. The larger remainder of the tax burden is then spread across the population. Singapore introduced luxury taxes to shape demand - some view it is as consumer choice, others see it as limiting choice.

One this, I view it as a double edged sword:
- If you are "ahead of the curve", this system is empowering, liberating
- If you are "behind the curve", this system can seriously trap you

"Ahead of the curve" means your income is rising faster than prices, policies, and your aspiration. I think many of us in this forum are blessed to be "ahead of the curve". The reason why many Singaporeans are unhappy is that more and more of them find themselves lagging behind prices and policies.

My original intent of the post was not to highlight issues with Singapore's tax code, but the inefficiencies of our road pricing -- which led to this thread. You brought up the tax code. On this, my only point is: if you take in indirect taxes, Singapore is not a low tax country as it advertised itself to be.

I am happy to agree to disagree, but again I have to point out your name-calling on people who disagree with you as "populist, uneducated, unthinking, the masses". That's not a starting point to genuine dialogue.

Why should the system aboard be the system that we aspire towards? Are they genuinely happier than us in Singapore, all other things being equal? Our general population unhappiness stems from a certain mindset, not the economical and governmental policies.

Your point on the inefficiencies of our road pricing is unsubstantiated by any real examples of a better working system, in an environment that is comparable to ours. Singapore is a high tax country, if you CHOOSE to live as such. Such choices can also be put towards improving one's lot in life, rather than going directly for material benefits when it cannot be afforded comfortably.

Income tax in Singapore is also staggered into bands. How is the 'high income earner's burden' capped and reduced when a person making more than a SG$150k a year pays nearly 20% in income taxes, and another person making SG$30k a year pays about 1% in income taxes?

If you listen to most of the arguments that are made these days on governmental policies (road pricing or otherwise), and the premise on which these arguments are based on, do you still feel that they are not pushing for negative changes with a populist, unthinking and uneducated approach? Tax the fellow who buys a Ferrari half a million just because he can afford it. That's real rational and good for the nation.

May i also boldly point out that your point that we, who genuinely feel comfortable paying our direct and indirect taxes through circumstances and choices, are brainwashed. You don't like me calling you a populist and i don't like you saying i'm brainwashed.