ShareJunction - Member Posts

x 0

I think there is some funny

business going on, says Mr Chiam

Ng Jing Yng

jingyng@mediacorp.com.sg

x 0

KAMPONG & its CHIEF ? ? ? ?

Reform Party chief will

still move to West Coast

We intend to move the party office to West Coast as soon as practicable and to start implementing as much of our five-year plan as is practicable.

Reform Party chief Kenneth Jeyaretnam

NEXT ELECTION STRATEGY ? ? ? ?

EVERY CHIEF must live with one's villagers in the SAME KAMPONG ?

x 0

EUGENE K B TAN
The writer is assistant professor of law at the Singapore Management University’s School of Law.
Emotions have run high in the last three weeks.
We now need to close ranks and respect the collective decisions of Singaporeans. Some of the online debates have been ugly and demeaning.
We need to recognise and accept differences of views.

WHAT ABOUT ? ? ? ?
dIfferences Of wellbeing ? ? ? ?
dIfferences Of wealth ? ? ? ?
dIfferences Of IncOme ? ? ? ?
dIfferences Of statUs ? ? ? ?

dIfferences Of . . . . ? ? ? ?

x 0

Why they made

a difficult choice

Aljunied voters cite need to be heard and MM’s

‘repent’ remark as reasons they voted for WP

Lin Yanqin and Christopher Toh

yanqinl@mediacorp.com.sg

The fear-mongering tactics, the need to have more alternative representation in Parliament, these were all things WP spoke about that are personally important to me ... The estate issues are not such a big deal.

Aljunied resident Koh Sock Ling

x 0

What George Yeo’s loss

means for Singapore

COMMENTA RY

Simon tay

Simon Tay is chairman of the Singapore Institute of International Affairs.

Mr Yeo has emerged in the international community as among the best recognised and respected of this generation of Singaporean leaders. The next Cabinet has no ready replacement for him.

lead·er/ˈ lē də r/Noun

1. The person who leads or commands a group, organization, or country.

2. A person followed by others.

More »

Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster - The Free Dictionary

hOw is a LEADER recognised

If not by one's fOllOwers ? ? ? ?

tOday many SPEAKERS

are mIstaken as LEADERS ? ? ? ?

A LEADER

mUst fIrst Of ALL

lead one's own followers

who pay one's salary ? ? ? ?

x 0

ASEAN leaders saddened by George Yeo’s defeat at election

Sujadi Siswo

Indonesia Bureau Chief, Channel NewsAsia

sujadi@mediacorp.com.sg

Had all the leaders been just SPEAKING or LEADING ? ? ? ?

Could all the leaders just SPEAK or LEAD ? ? ? ?

x 0

G R C

dOUble-edged swOrd

cUts bOth ways

AVERAGES the substance of all members

lIfts STRENGTH of weak-substance memebers

trims STRENGTH of strong-substance members

AVERAGES are MUDDLED STATISTICS

smOOthes the EXTREMEMES

dOes nOt reveal the FACT and its TRUTH

hIdes the gOOd and the bAd

best representation of MEDIOCRITY

x 0

G R C

dOUble-edged swOrd

cUts bOth ways

AVERAGES the substance of all members

lIfts STRENGTH of weak-substance memebers

trims STRENGTH of strong-substance members

AVERAGES are MUDDLED STATISTICS

smOOthes the EXTREMEMES

dOes nOt reveal the FACT and its TRUTH

hIdes the gOOd and the bAd

best representation of MEDIOCRITY

x 0

G R C

dOUble-edged swOrd

cUts bOth ways

Averages of substance of all members

lifts STRENGTH of weak-substance members

trim STRENGTH of strong-substance members

AVERAGES are MUDDLED STATISTICS

dO nOt reflect the FACT and its TRUTH

smOOthes OUt the extremes

hIdes the gOOd and bAd thIngs

x 0

ADAM SMITH'S FOUR MAXIMS

Adam Smith is generally considered (certainly in the English speaking world) to be the father of modern political economy. In " The Wealth of Nations" (1776)[1] he set forth four maxims, or canons, of taxation, saying that " the evident justice and utility of (these) maxims have recommended them more or less to the attention of all nations.[2] The maxims were as follows:-

I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.

II. The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain, and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment, the quantity to be paid, ought all to be clear and plain to the contributor, and to every other person.

III. Every tax ought to be levied at the time, or in the manner, in which it is most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay it.

IV. Every tax ought to be contrived as both to take out and to keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible over and above what it brings into the public treasury of the state.

These four maxims have been summarised in four words: Equity, Certainty, Convenience and Efficiency. If we measure our existing tax systems against these four maxims arid according to these criteria, we can see just how far they fall short of the ideal.

Maxim IV provides grounds alone for condemning our tax systems on the grounds of efficiency. Not only does the government have to employ armies of inspectors and assessors, investigators, prosecutors and other officials (including judges), the poor taxpayer is forced by economic circumstances -- to stay competitive he must take full advantage of the tax system -- to engage teams of tax managers, advisors, accountants and lawyers at his own expense. The costs of all these people mean that there is a large difference between the revenue to the government (net of administration expenses) and the total outlay by the taxpayer.

Maxim III is self-explanatory, but universally ignored. It is somehow presumed that inconvenience in payment is legitimised by the fact that the government is democratically accountable - as if this gives the government carte blanche to do what it likes.

Maxim II makes it clear that the requirement of certainty means certain to the man in the street -- to all of us, not just to the " tax profession" . If any society is to cohere, its members must know and be capable of understanding their basic rights under the society's constitution. Likewise, a society's tax system must be known and understood by all its adult members otherwise, they cannot play their part to the full, and we are all the worse for it.

Maxim I, I have deliberately left to the last. It is the most controversial. It appears to be justifying the " ability to pay" principle but whoever heard of taxing people according to inability to pay?

In fact the ability to pay principle gets us no further forward. Does it, for example, require a proportional income tax or a progressive income tax?

Levying a tax on existing riches according to their amount is not taxing someone according to his ability it is merely expropriating existing wealth.

To look at tax in these terms is, as Henry George pointed out, to fail to see that production and distribution are inseparable they are two sides of the same coin. Taxation falls on and necessarily affects, future production and distribution, and distorts it.

Taxing someone truly according to their " ability" requires taxing them according not to the income or wealth which they do in fact enjoy but according to the income or wealth which they have the capability of enjoying.

There is a danger in interpreting Smith outside the context of the society in which he lived and about which he wrote. Upon a more detailed consideration of Smith's maxims, in the context of their time, it is clear that he considered that under Maxim I taxation should be levied mainly on economic rent (the rental value of land in its unimproved state -- ground rent).

In Smith's day, " Rent" and " Revenue" were virtually synonymous. Certainly, the term " Revenue" only covered income from an investment and did not include wages and salaries and in eighteenth century Britain most investment was in landed property. So when Smith proposed in Maxim I a tax on the subjects of a state " in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the stale" , he was not advocating the modern proportional or progressive income tax, but really a tax on economic rent. This would be tax on private property in land according to its annual value, being the creation of and protected by the state. Most state expenditure at that time was on civil and national defence, which largely meant securing landowners in their privileged position. (A tax on economic rent is something to which I shall return later.)

It is time to revisit Smith's Maxims, for they were relevant to a simpler life, but their simplicity should be applied to the depressing complexities of modern taxation. Lambert's Modern Principles of Taxation serve as a foundation for a tax system which is simple, just and lasting.

x 0

this is the EVIDENCE ? ? ? ?

In PRACTICE ? ? ? ?

GST is an INeffective and INefficient Tax

which is AT ALL TIMES

S H I F T E D

by the RICH & POWERFUL

tO

the pOOr & pOwerless

GST defeats

the TAXATION JUSTICE

and DESTROYS the TAXATION BASIS in PRACTICE

Luostock ( Date: 09-May-2011 12:06) Posted:

GST is bad for commission-based personnels. Many a time, the client refuses to pay GST ended up the commission being reduced as the agent has to pay the GST on behalf of the client.

Laulan ( Date: 09-May-2011 10:45) Posted:

The only snag in the GST system is the refunding of the taxes to both companies and social visitors who come to shop in Singapore.

For those in business, you will understand what I mean. If you are a GST registered company, what you paid as GST can be claimed back against what you charged for GST. (Cancelling of input and output taxes as IRAS will explain if you wish to learn more.) Thus businesses are not much affected. Your firm pays 7% GST (output)for the goods you procure, and you charge your customers 7% GST (input) for the goods you sell. If output GST is $1000 and input GST is $1200, you pay effectively $200. On the other hand, if output is $1000 and the input GST is $800, you could claim back $200 in cash. So you see, businesses are not affected.

For the consumers, it is 100 per cent out from their pockets, unless you are the social visitors or foreigners coming in for short stay, you could claim back everything you paid as GST if the GST add up to $50 and above. So this is the discontent Singaporeans are feeling. The bulk of GST paid to the treasury actually comes from Singaporeans.

This is the hard truth, check it out for yourself and work out the mathematics to see for yourselves. Cheers.

x 0

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/lambert-ian_on-adam-smith.html

Some Modern Principles of Taxation -- Adam Smith Revisited

Ian T.G. Lambert, M.A.

[A paper delivered at the Third Annual Convention of the Congress of Political Economists in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in January 1992. Ian Lambert is a graduate in Mathematics and Law from Trinity College, Cambridge. At the time of this paper, he practised law in the Cayman Islands.]

INTRODUCTION

Is taxation just democratic theft?

There is a modern tendency to think that it is and that any tax is just, provided it is levied by a democratically elected government and is impartially enforced. However, the mere fact that the rules are the same for everyone is no guarantee that they are just. We do not make murder and theft just, merely by allowing everyone to commit such acts on the same terms.

The search for justice in taxation has been virtually abandoned, except by those who seek to use the tax system as a means of redistributing wealth and promoting what they call " social justice" , i.e., as an attack on property rights. It seems to be readily conceded by everyone that all taxation must be an attack on property, in the sense that the government (if democratic) is entitled to take without giving anything in return. We need a tax system that embodies the ideas of economic justice and genuinely respects property rights.

At the outset, I should emphasise that by " taxation" I mean the funding of government expenditure where that expenditure cannot properly be funded through any market mechanism, because it is for an essentially intangible service. There are many tangible services which the government provides and which can be put on a proper contractual basis. Typical examples include nationalised or state-owned industries, from telecommunications to coal and steel. These are tangible services and products, which the consumer directly receives and uses.

Why, therefore, do governments make it hard for themselves?

Surely it is easier to provide the consumer with a service or product for which he is charged a price, and is happy to pay it, than to take a tax begrudgingly handed over to pay for the same service, which is consequently not properly understood or valued by either the producer or the consumer. Throughout the world, such services and products are (rightly) the subject of privatisation programmes, where the consumer is once again made sovereign and dictates the product and its quality, through the market.

However, there are other services which government provides that are essentially intangible and from which the citizen indirectly benefits, such as defence, police, embassies in foreign countries, parliament etc. The provision of these cannot be put on the same market basis as for tangible services and products directly consumed. They must therefore be funded by a levy on the citizen which is necessarily compulsory, and is therefore properly termed " taxation" .

This paper considers the principles according to which such taxation should be levied.

It uses Adam Smith's four maxims of taxation (put forward over two hundred years ago) as a starting point for sixteen modern principles of taxation which will form the basis of a tax system which is simple, just and lasting.

These principles are founded on a philosophy which does not accept the theory of the " social contract" as the basis for society. Under that theory, every citizen is deemed to have contracted with the state to become a member of society and assume the benefits and burdens of such membership. Under that theory, the taxpayer is already deemed to have agreed to pay the taxes levied on him and there are consequently no natural limits on the power of the state to tax him.

By contrast, Lambert's Modern Principles of Taxation are founded on the long hallowed principle of restitution -- the moral obligation to restore to another -- in the case of taxation it is the community -- the property or value conferred on him by that other (otherwise than by way of gift or contract). He who takes the benefit must take the burden, but only to the extent and measure of the bent it conferred. On this theory, taxation is not theft (democratic or otherwise) it is a means of restoring to the community, the value bestowed upon the taxpayer by the community.

x 0

http://numberonestars.com/life/principles_of_taxation.htm

Principles of Taxation

Under any tax system the actual provision of the taxes, the expenditure of the proceeds being left out of account, involves a certain burden of sacrifice upon each taxpayer, and the burdens upon different taxpayers bear certain relations to one another.

For a comparison between different tax systems yielding equal revenues from a given community there are thus suggested prima facie two criteria of merit: first, the size of the aggregate sacrifice imposed: secondly, the nature of the relations between the several items that make up this aggregate. It must, indeed, be admitted that no test which is centred in sacrifice, in the sense of loss of satisfaction, goes quite to the root of things.

For, of equal satisfactions, one may embody more good than another: as between a greater and a less sacrifice of satisfaction, the greater may carry the smaller amount of evil. When this happens, it is, of course, the aggregate of good and evil, not the aggregate of satisfaction and dissatisfaction, to which a wise government will look.

On this ground defence is sometimes made of special taxation upon the consumption of alcoholic drink. This consideration has not, however, a wide range of importance. In seeking to construct a standard for comparing the merits of different tax systems I shall ignore it, shall assume that the standard must be built somehow upon sacrifice, and shall canvass only the part to be played in this standard by the amount of aggregate sacrifice and the manner in which this aggregate is distributed among the taxpayers.

Some authorities hold that to make the aggregate sacrifice associated with the raising of revenue as small as possible is an ultimate principle: others that to make the sacrifice borne by all the several members of the community equal is an ultimate principle: others that both these principles are ultimate, so that, when they conflict, we are faced with a dilemma irreducible in theory, and in practice to be met only by rough compromise. The business of the present chapter is to investigate these views.

x 0

http://www.ird.gov.hk/eng/paf/bus_pft_tsp.htm

Print Friendly

Public Forms and Pamphlets : A Simple Guide on The Territorial Source Principle of Taxation

Foreword

Hong Kong adopts a territorial source principle of taxation. Only profits which have a source in Hong Kong are taxable here. Profits sourced elsewhere are not subject to Hong Kong Profits Tax. The principle itself is very clear but its application in particular cases can be, at times, contentious. To clarify the operation of the principle, we have prepared this simple guide on the territorial source principle of taxation. It gives a brief explanation of how the principle operates and provides simple examples for illustrative purposes of the tests applied to different types of businesses. If you wish to explore the subject in greater depth, we recommend that you consult your professional advisers.

Inland Revenue Department
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government
March 2011

Contents

	Hong Kong's basis of taxation on profits from businesses
	Pre-conditions for liability to Profits Tax
	Basic principles for determining the source of profits
	Profits of trading firms

	Profits of manufacturing businesses
	Sale or purchase commissions
	Treatment of other profits
	Apportionment of profits and expenses
	Advance rulings

Hong Kong's basis of taxation on profits from businesses

Hong Kong adopts a territorial basis for taxing profits derived from a trade, profession, or business carried on in Hong Kong. Profits Tax is only charged on profits which arise in or are derived from Hong Kong. In simple terms this means that a person who carries on a business in Hong Kong but derives profits from another place is not required to pay tax in Hong Kong on those profits.

Many places levy tax on a different basis. Unlike Hong Kong, they tax the world-wide profits of a business, including profits derived from an offshore source.

Pre-conditions for liability to Profits Tax

Under the Inland Revenue Ordinance, a person is chargeable to Profits Tax under the following conditions -

he carries on a trade, profession or business in Hong Kong

the trade, profession or business derives profits and

the profits arise in or are derived from Hong Kong.

The first two conditions are straightforward. Some elaboration is necessary for the third. Let us have a brief look at the basic principles for determining the source of profits.

Hong Kong is able to generate enough tax revenue from the corporate's profits effectively and efficiently.

x 0

GST tax burden is HEAVIEST in terms of Absolute Dollar Value on the pOOrest cOnsumers.

Famaly Monthly Income Monthly Expenditure 7% GST S$ %GST Tax on Monthly Income

S$1,000 S$1,000 S$70 7.0%

S$5,000 S$3,000 S$210 4.2%

S$10,000 S$5,000 S$350 3.5%

S$15,000 S$7,000 S$490 3.3%

S$20,000 S$8,000 S$560 2.8%

S$100,000 S$10,000 S$700 0.7%

S$250,000 S$20,000 S$1,400 0.56%

The higher the monthly income the lower the incidence of GST% on monthly income.

REMEMBER:

The rIch always get the VIP DISCOUNTS & REBATES up to 50% or more.

On tOp Of that, the rIch always InsIsts that the GST to be absOrbed by the vendOr ? ? ? ?

In practIce, the rIch dOn't pay GST at ALL ? ? ? ?

ALL these practIces are extremely famIlIar and everybOdy knOws abOUt it ? ? ? ?

fOr the abOve reasOns

Hong Kong peOple dO nOt accept the GST EVIL TAX ? ? ? ?

which is the mOst IneqUitIble Tax On the pOOrest cItIzens ? ? ? ?

Laulan ( Date: 09-May-2011 10:45) Posted:

The only snag in the GST system is the refunding of the taxes to both companies and social visitors who come to shop in Singapore.

For those in business, you will understand what I mean. If you are a GST registered company, what you paid as GST can be claimed back against what you charged for GST. (Cancelling of input and output taxes as IRAS will explain if you wish to learn more.) Thus businesses are not much affected. Your firm pays 7% GST (output)for the goods you procure, and you charge your customers 7% GST (input) for the goods you sell. If output GST is $1000 and input GST is $1200, you pay effectively $200. On the other hand, if output is $1000 and the input GST is $800, you could claim back $200 in cash. So you see, businesses are not affected.

For the consumers, it is 100 per cent out from their pockets, unless you are the social visitors or foreigners coming in for short stay, you could claim back everything you paid as GST if the GST add up to $50 and above. So this is the discontent Singaporeans are feeling. The bulk of GST paid to the treasury actually comes from Singaporeans.

This is the hard truth, check it out for yourself and work out the mathematics to see for yourselves. Cheers.

simplesimon ( Date: 08-May-2011 22:03) Posted:

I was against GST like most citizens although I do not simply spend on wants. Recently one young economics graduate (who wants more opposition MPs in the Parliament) explain to me that GST is a fairer tax as it is difficult for the unscrupulous to escape taxation, unlike income tax. I think most of us is afraid that GST increases to those in the western countries which has high VAT.

x 0

http://homepages.uel.ac.uk/K.Bain/tax1.pdf
The Principles of Taxation
2. Tax classifications and tax vocabulary
Such a wide variety of taxes exist that it is useful to attempt to classify them.
A standard, but not very useful classification of taxes is into direct and indirect taxation.
Before we say much about this, we need to look at the notion of tax incidence.
The simplest notion of tax incidence (formal incidence) concerns the question of
Thus, the formal incidence of an income tax falls on the income earner the formal incidence of a petrol tax falls on the petrol company. This is not at all informative from an economic point of view. Obviously, in the latter case, the petrol company may pass on an increase in tax in the form of higher prices. expenditure).
By so doing the company shifts the burden of the tax on to the consumer (this is known as forward shifting of the tax burden).
We might then say that the effective incidence or economic incidence of the tax falls on motor vehicle owners. However, if we look more deeply we may be able to distinguish a number of other effects. Some vehicle owners (taxidrivers, bus companies, carrying firms) may be able to pass the increased cost of petrol on to others. Thus, part of the effective incidence of an increase in petrol tax may be on bus passengers or on consumers of food transported by lorries
. Yet again, suppose the consequent increase in bus fares causes a reduction in bus travel. Bus companies may respond by reducing the number of buses they run on some routes and may reduce the working hours of some bus drivers who then bear part of the burden of the increased petrol tax. Again, bus company profits may be reduced leading to lower dividends being paid to shareholders.
It is possible to come to some theoretical conclusions about the possibility of shifting the tax burden.
For instance, it can be shown that if a tax were applied to a good that was perfectly inelastic in demand, producers would be able to shift the full burden of the tax on to consumers. On the other hand, with perfectly elastic demand, it would be impossible for producers to increase the price of the product to take account of the tax - the tax burden would be borne fully by the producer. Of course, in the usual cases where demand is somewhere between perfectly elastic and perfectly inelastic, the burden would be divided amongst consumer and producer but the more price-inelastic was demand, the more of the burden would be shifted on to the consumer.
But theoretical propositions such as these are not a great deal of help in sorting out what the actual incidence of a particular tax is since the effects of a tax may be very widespread, reaching to all parts of the economy. It is certainly clear that the effective incidence of a tax may have very little to do with who actually hands the money over to government in the first instance.
The usual distinction between direct and indirect taxes, then, is that a direct tax is one for which the formal and economic incidence are essentially the same - that is, the taxpayer is not able to pass the burden on to someone else.
Thus income tax counts as a direct tax but VAT counts as an indirect tax because the tax burden may easily be passed on. This is not satisfactory in economic terms because whether or not an increase in VAT can actually be passed on in the form of higher prices will depend on market conditions. VAT may, in principle, be passed on but there may be many occasions in which this is not done.
Again, during periods of very tight labour markets, some workers may well be able to demand higher wages to make up for increased income tax, in effect passing the tax on to employers and hence, through higher prices, on to consumers.
[# Extremely high ministerial salaries is the ROOT of hIgh prIces and dOmestIc InflatIOn #]
Hence, it is usual to acknowledge the direct/indirect distinction but to go on to use some other classification. One possibility is to follow Sandford and classify taxes as taxes on (a) income (b) capital (wealth) or outlay (expenditure).
Musgrave and Musgrave distinguish between taxes on people and taxes on things.
Another distinction sometimes made is between taxes on stocks (wealth) and taxes on flows (income,
Both Brown and Jackson (1990, pp. 306-7) and James and Nobes (1998, pp. 12-13) reproduce the much more complex OECD classification which includes seven principal headings with a number of sub-headings under each one.
The sevenprincipal headings are:
1000 Taxes on goods and services
2000 Taxes on incomes, profits and capital gains
3000 Social security contributions
4000 Taxes on employers based on payroll or manpower
5000 Taxes on net wealth and immovable property
6000 Taxes and stamp duties on gifts, inheritances and on capital and financial transactions
7000 Other taxes
Taxes involve two elements: the tax base and the tax rate.
The tax base describes what the tax is levied on.
Thus, the tax base of VAT is the value added at each stage of production to all goods and services minus those goods which are exempt and those that are taxed at a zero rate. Tax rates are then applied to the tax base to determine the amount of tax payments to be made.
The majority of taxes are ad valorem taxes - that is, taxes are based on values.
Excise duties are specific taxes - that is, the base is not the value of a product but a physical quantity (so much tax per pint of beer or per packet of twenty cigarettes).
There is one type of tax, a poll tax, where the tax payable is not related at all to the tax base.

A poll tax or head tax is a tax in which all taxpayers pay the same amount irrespective of their income or wealth.who is assessed to pay a tax.

x 0

O V E R H E A R D :

The lady TALKED bIg ? ? ? ?

She SAID:

" I am Lina LOH nOt Lina CHIAM" ? ? ? ?

" So I am dIfferent frOm CHIAM See Thong and I will dO thIngs dIfferently" ? ? ? ?

" ... I will " knock his HEAD" if I dOn't agree wIth hIm" ? ? ? ?

fOr beIng dIfferent, she caUsed the 243 SPOILT QUOTES ? ? ? ?

The Lady fOrgOt that she is standIng In for The Gentleman ? ? ? ?

She is taking on a Brand NEW cOnstituency on her own merit ? ? ? ?

she must be been " ARROGANT" on some occasions ? ? ? ?

she tOOk things for granted like the PAP GRC Team at Aljunied ? ? ? ?

the votes trend was falling and she did not do anything to REVERSE the established Falling Vote Trend ? ? ? ?

If this is nOt addressed Immediately, POTONG PASIR will become PAP's permanent turf from now on ? ? ? ?

niuyear ( Date: 09-May-2011 10:53) Posted:

The " Auntie image" has ruined the opposition's votes in potong pasir

pharoah88 ( Date: 08-May-2011 13:52) Posted:

And as the night closed, it came to a nail—biting finish at Potong Pasir SMC.

Veteran Opposition leader Chiam See Tong had left his stronghold of nearly 30 years to contest in Bishan—Toa Payoh GRC.

Mr Chiam’s Singapore People’s Party team lost, and was clearly disappointed.

" Thank you residents of Bishan," he addressed his supporters.

Mr Chiam’s wife Lina, who stood in his place in Potong Pasir SMC, lost by a margin of just 0.72 percent. She received 49.64% of valid votes.

Mrs Chiam said: " I feel like a winner because all my supporters came here and they really supported me and they thought I had done a good job. There’s only a narrow margin of 112 or 114 votes."

She is the best performing loser among the Opposition, and qualifies for an NCMP seat.

With six seats going to the Opposition, that leaves three Non—Constituency MP seats available. These will be offered to losing candidates who garnered the most number of votes.

— CNA/de

x 0

http://homepages.uel.ac.uk/K.Bain/tax1.pdf
The Principles of Taxation
1. Introduction
Taxation is a payment levied by government for which no good or service is received directly in return - that is, the amount of tax people pay is not related directly to the benefit people obtain from the provision of a particular good or service.
Up until the early 1930s, it was universally accepted in principle that governments should balance their budgets. Thus, the principle reason for taxation was to pay for government expenditure. Of course, governments had, from time to time, resorted to borrowing in order to pay for their expenditure and government borrowing was relatively quite large during some war periods. Government borrowing may be from the private sector of the economy or from abroad. Alternatively, governments may borrow from the central bank of the country. This is equivalent to financing government expenditure by printing money. Both forms of borrowing occurred but this did not destroy the balanced budget principle. Under Keynesian theory and practice budget deficits became respectable and for many years from 1945 on budget deficits were the norm in the UK, rather than the outcome of special events.
Governments have also financed expenditure in recent years through the sale of publicly owned assets (the privatization of nationalized industries, the sale of council houses). Although asset sales were an important source of funds to the UK government in the 1980s, they are necessarily limited since assets can only be sold once.
Thus, governments still had to raise most of the revenue needed to finance their expenditure through taxation or by charging directly for government services (user charges). User charges exist in a number of areas of government activity although it may be difficult to distinguish between a user charge and a tax (consider the case of NHS prescription charges).
However, in many areas of government expenditure, it would be extremely difficult to levy user charges.
Thus, there is no doubt that most government expenditure must be paid for through the taxation system and it is reasonable to see this as the principle function of taxation.
Yet there have always been a variety of subsidiary objectives of taxation. These have included:
(a) as a means of altering the distribution of income and/or wealth
(b) as a means of discouraging the consumption of goods and services with high social costs or demerit goods (e.g. taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, higher taxes on leaded than on unleaded petrol, taxes on imported goods)
(c) to influence the level of aggregate demand in the economy.

Not only do taxes as a whole have significant impacts on the allocation of resources, the distribution of income and aggregate demand in an economy but also each type of taxation has a different impact. Thus, the issue of taxation involves a number of economic principles.

x 0

The TAXATION PRINCIPLE has been TWISTED by EVIL MINDS.

Tax was imposed on the Basis of INCOME.

The more one earns the more one is taxed.

GST does not tax on basis of INCOME at ALL.

GST is a DUPLICATED AND MULTIPLED TAX for those who already paid income tax and excise tax and all other taxes.

GST is the mOst inequitible tax because it taxes citizens who have ZERO income.

GST taxes retrospectively on ancestors' legacies.

GST plays FOUL by taxing the wealth bequeathed by the DEAD.

In this sense, GST is a HELL TAX on ANCESTORS' WEALTH.

GST is a NO END TAX.

GST is an UNproductive TAX which is AGAINST the FUNDAMENTAL PREMIS OF ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY.

The Economics Graduate Learnt withOUT Thinking ? ? ? ?

http://www.successconsciousness.com/confucius_quotes.htm

CONFUCIUS QUOTE

" LEARN & THINK"

If one learns from others, but does not think, one will be bewildered.

If, on the other hand, one thinks but does not learn from others, one will be in peril.

http://baike.baidu.com/view/285620.htm

学而不思则罔，思而不学则殆。

学习而不思考，人会被知识的表象所蒙蔽；思考而不学习，则会因为疑惑而更加危险。

学而不思则罔，思而不学则殆

　　学而不思则罔，思而不学则殆。
　　【翻译】
　　只学习却不思考，就会迷茫；只思考却不学习，就会精神疲倦而无所得。
　　【注】
　　出处：《论语 ·孔子》 ——子曰： “学而不思则罔，思而不学则殆 ”。
　　罔：迷惑 ,意思是感到迷茫而无所适从 (迷惑而无所得 )；
　　殆：有害 (精神疲倦而无所得 )。
　　而：却（但是）。
　　朱子云：不求诸心，故缗而无得。不习其事，故危而不安。
　　程子云：博学、审问、慎思、明辨、笃行五者，废其一，非学也。
　　学而不思则罔，思而不学则殆。
　　【译】学习而不思考，人会被知识的表象所蒙蔽；思考而不学习，则会因为疑惑而更加危险。【注】语出《论语 ·为政》 ——子曰： “学而不思则罔，思而不学则殆 ”。罔，作蒙蔽，欺骗解；殆，书指危险。朱子云：不求诸心，故缗而无得。不习其事，故危而不安。程子云：博学、审问、慎思、明辨、笃行五者，废其一，非学也。【解】这句话，我们可以看做是孔子所提倡的学习方法。一味的读书，而不思考，只能被书本牵着鼻子走，就会被书本所累，从而受到书本表象的迷惑而不得其解。所谓尽信书则不如无书。而只是一味的埋头苦思而不进行一定的书本知识的积累，进而对知识进行研究推敲，也只能是流于空想，问题仍然不会得到解决，也就会产生更多的疑惑而更加危险。只有把学习和思考结合起来，才能学到有用的真知。孔子说： “吾尝终日不食，终夜不寝，以思，无益，不如学也。 ” 子夏说： “博学而笃志，切问而近思，仁在其中矣。 ” 这些都是强调学习与思考相结合的重要性。西方的哲人康德说过 “感性无知性则盲，知性无感性则空。与孔子的这句 “学而不思则罔，思而不学则殆 ”可以说是惊人的一致。可见人类在知识的认知和获取上，不论地域、种族如何差异，其根本性的原则往往是一致的。　
　　学与思想结合
　　只重于学习而不注重思考，就有可能遭到蒙蔽，陷于迷惑；只重思考而不注重学习，就有可能因误入歧途而导致疲乏及危险。专靠学习、取法前人，而不加上自己的分辨、判断就容易遭到前人的思想蒙蔽及限制。前人的思想固然有很多是珍贵正确的，但也可能有一些不正确的，另外还有一些问题可能是前人尚未有解答的，因此如果受到前人的思想的蒙蔽及限制，就难免陷入迷惑之中了。相反地，有许多问题前人已有解答，然而他们在解答的过程中，曾误入歧途，历经千辛万苦才得到正确的解答。如果专靠自行思索而不知取法前人，则有可能像前人一样误入歧途，导致虚掷精力的危险。说明学习与思考结合的重要性。

simplesimon ( Date: 08-May-2011 22:03) Posted:

I was against GST like most citizens although I do not simply spend on wants. Recently one young economics graduate (who wants more opposition MPs in the Parliament) explain to me that GST is a fairer tax as it is difficult for the unscrupulous to escape taxation, unlike income tax. I think most of us is afraid that GST increases to those in the western countries which has high VAT.

x 0

Singapore: Ruling party PAP retains its power, gaining 60.1% of the popular vote, and secured 81 of the total 87 parliamentary seats. Current Foreign Minister George Yeo has lost his parliamentary seat in the election.

ADAM SMITH'S FOUR MAXIMS

Some Modern Principles of Taxation -- Adam Smith Revisited

Ian T.G. Lambert, M.A.

INTRODUCTION

学 而 不 思 则 罔 ， 思 而 不 学 则 殆

学而不思则罔，思而不学则殆